HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda UDCAC 04.14.2021Notice of Meeting for the
Unified Dev elopment Code Adv isory Committee
of the City of Georgetown
April 14, 2021 at 3:30 P M
at Virtual
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 April 14, 2021 via
te le confe re nc e. To participate , please c opy and paste the following we blink
into your browse r:
Weblink: http://bit.ly/3b I D P ui
Webinar I D: 949-7681-8404
P assword: 523157
To participate by phone:
Call in numbe r: (346)248-7799 or Toll-F re e: 833-548-0282
P assword: 523157
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 70
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 --
Andreina D ávila-Quintero, AI C P, C urrent P lanning Manager
B Nomination and selec tion of Vic e-chair and S ec retary for the 2020/21 UDC Advis ory C ommittee --
Andreina Dávila-Q uintero, AI C P, C urrent P lanning Manager
C C ons ideration and possible action to confirm the bylaws for the Unified Development C ode (UDC )
Advis ory C ommittee relating to membership eligibility requirements -- Andreina Dávila-Q uintero, AI C P,
C urrent P lanning Manager
P ublic Wishing to Address the B oard
O n a s ubjec t that is posted on this agenda: P lease fill out a speaker regis tration form whic h can be found at the
Board meeting. C learly print your name, the letter of the item on which you wish to speak, and pres ent it to the
S taff Liais on, preferably prior to the start of the meeting. You will be c alled forward to speak when the Board
cons iders that item.
O n a s ubjec t not posted on the agenda: P ersons may add an item to a future Board agenda by filing a written
request with the S taff Liais on no later than one week prior to the Board meeting. T he reques t must include the
s peaker's name and the spec ific topic to be addres s ed with sufficient information to inform the board and the
public . F or Board Liaison c ontact information, pleas e logon to
http://government.georgetown.org/c ategory/boards -commissions /.
D 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
E Disc ussion and possible action es tablishing the regular meeting date, time and place of the Unified
Development C ode (UDC ) Advisory C ommittee for 2021/22 -- Andreina Dávila-Q uintero, AI C P, C urrent
P lanning Manager.
F Disc ussion and possible direction on a proposed Text Amendment to the Unified Development C ode
(UDC ) relating to the Tree P res ervation and Landsc aping standards s pecific ally as it pertains to tree
mitigation requirements (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.
G 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
Page 2 of 70
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 _________________, 2021, 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 3 of 70
City of Georgetown, Texas
Unified Development Code Advisory Committee
April 14, 2021
S UB J E C T:
C onsideration and pos s ible ac tion to c onfirm the bylaws for the Unified Development C ode (UDC )
Advisory C ommittee relating to members hip eligibility requirements -- Andreina Dávila-Q uintero, AI C P,
C urrent P lanning Manager
IT E M S UMMARY:
F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
N/A
S UB MIT T E D B Y:
Mirna G arcia, Management Analys t
AT TAC H ME N T S:
Description Type
UDCAC Bylaws Exhibit
Page 4 of 70
Page 5 of 70
Page 6 of 70
Page 7 of 70
Page 8 of 70
Page 9 of 70
Page 10 of 70
Page 11 of 70
City of Georgetown, Texas
Unified Development Code Advisory Committee
April 14, 2021
S UB J E C T:
Dis cus s ion and pos s ible direc tion on a propos ed Text Amendment to the Unified Development C ode
(UDC ) relating to the Tree P reservation and Lands caping s tandards spec ifically as it pertains to tree
mitigation requirements (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.
To facilitate the review process for this amendment, issues that have been identified by the public, the U D C
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.
T he specific list of issues reviewed and proposed to be 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 proposed
terms recommended to address each issue were discussed and finalized at the U D C Advisory Committee
meetings on October 14, November 11 and D ecember 9, 2020 (Attachment I I). Attachment I I I includes a list
of each issue identified, along with the current and proposed terms, and applicable sections that will be
revised.
Between January 19 and F ebruary 5, 2021, the City accepted feedback from developers, property owners and
other stakeholders on the proposed amendments. Comments were provided via email, a quick survey, and in
meetings with city staff. T he comments received have been included as Attachment V.
At their February 9 and March 23, 2021 workshops, the C ity C ouncil reviewed the specific issues, current
and proposed terms, and recommended amendments for tree preservation, removal and mitigation, and street
yard, gateway, landscape, parking, screening and water conservation landscape standards. N o changes to the
proposed terms and recommendation were made; however, the C ity C ouncil asked for the review and
consideration of two (2) additional tree mitigation issues as part of this amendment review process:
1. Consider allowing smaller trees (smaller than 6 inches) to be counted as credit trees; and
2. E xplore the option of allowing trees planted on residential lots as on-site replacement trees.
T he purpose of this item to review current state law and city requirements, other nearby cities requirements,
other requirements and processes that may be impacted, and options and alternative standards to address these
two (2) issues.
F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
Page 12 of 70
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
Attachment II - Summary of Discus s ions (Sep to Dec 2020)Backup Material
Attachment III - Summary of Proposed Terms Backup Material
Attachment IV - Es s ential Terms Backup Material
Attachment V - Public Comments Backup Material
Pres entation Pres entation
Page 13 of 70
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 14 of 70
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 15 of 70
Tree Preservation, Removal and Mitigation
TP.01 Discussion
Discussion:
• UDC requires all species to identify and measure all trees 12” and greater (UDC 8.05).
• It takes time to identify and locate every single tree – should not include excluded trees.
• All trees are typically required to be identified on the survey to not overlook any trees that may be protected
• Another benefit is to know where the “trash” trees
are located to know where improvements may
better be located as opposed to areas where the
protected trees are located.
Follow Up Needed:
• None
Direction on Draft Solution:
• Specify that the “excluded trees” do not need to be measured or identified.
• Or, add the word “protected” prior to “trees” in the UDC standard.
• Include in the survey if it may be used as some type of credit
Direction on Final Terms:
• Specify/clarify that the excluded trees include all cedar trees (Ashe juniper, Mountain Cedar, Blueberry
Juniper, or Post Cedar)
• Codify the method of measurement to determine the multi-trunk trees to be measured
• Proceed as proposed (with Option B for TP.05)
TP.02 Discussion
Discussion:
• Stem appears to have 3 different meanings
• Hard to distinguish for multi-trunk trees
• Height off the ground to consider a trunk v branch
Follow Up Needed:
• Revised definition of trunk and branch (does not
use word “stem”)
Direction on Draft Solution:
• Add definition of “trunk”
Direction on Final Terms:
• Simple is good
• How will this affect multi-trunk definition?
• Include definition for branches and roots as these terms are included in the trunk definition
TP.03 Discussion
Discussion:
• Using terms “hardwood” and “softwood” may be more vague – do not recommend using these terms
Follow Up Needed:
• None
Page 16 of 70
Direction on Draft Solution:
• Do not include these terms in the UDC – maintain current definitions
• Using specific species in defining protected and heritage trees is recommended
Direction on Final Terms:
• Proceed as proposed.
TP.04 Discussion
Discussion:
• There are a lot of varieties of cedar
• Better to define the types of trees that we want to keep
Follow Up Needed:
• None
Direction on Draft Solution:
• Maintain current UDC list of excluded trees, which includes cedar trees
Direction on Final Terms:
• Proceed as proposed
TP.05 Discussion
Discussion:
• Need to be included so they may be counted towards mitigation and credit trees
• Identify a way to measure for certain multi-trunk trees (I.e. crepe myrtle)
Follow Up Needed:
• Bring back two options for consideration
Direction on Draft Solution:
• One way to measure ornamental trees may be by looking at the 5 largest trunks
• EXAMPLE (Option B)
CP with 4 trunks, largest trunk = 6 in
X = largest trunk, n = no. of smaller trunks
X + 0.5*n
6+(0.5*3) = 7.5”
Direction on Final Terms:
• Proceed with Option B
TP.06 Discussion
Discussion:
• Look into creating a new tree removal permit so
that a SDP would not be required.
• Consider using a minimum size to determine when
approval is required.
Follow Up Needed:
• Language that mimics heritage trees in the ROW
and easements
Page 17 of 70
Direction on Draft Solution:
• Create a new removal permit for protected trees
Direction on Final Terms:
• Proceed as proposed
TP.07 Discussion
Discussion:
• Include it as an option for new development and at the 5/10 year mark to better plan the site
• Inventory also includes location of the tree on the site
• Inventory are completed by arborist
Follow Up Needed:
• Identify if and when it will be required
•
Direction on Draft Solution:
• Good to encourage the inventory and where it is beneficial
Direction on Final Terms:
• There are different stages of oak wilt – it may be difficult for surveyors to identify oak wilt if they do not have that expertise
• Staff’s response: Trees identified as “dead” or “deceased” - identify if oak wilt is the reason for the tree
health status
• Add “if dead” at the end of bullet point no. 5; or additional language to specify when applicable
• Consider inventory option for extraordinary conditions
• Trees on a survey identified as “dead” or “deceased” need to be further evaluated to determine if it is
oak wilt
• Need clear definition of “Tree Inventory” and what the requirements are for the inventory
• Combine bullet points 1 and 5
• Define/specify how you can reduce mitigation
TP.08 Discussion
Discussion:
• Heading in the right direction
• Address what happens if the tree dies (replenish
requirement)
Follow Up Needed:
• None
Direction on Draft Solution:
• More detail
Direction on Final Terms:
• Definition for “stands”
Page 18 of 70
TP.09 Discussion
Discussion:
• Floodplain – if not using for credit, do not need to include in survey
• Floodplain – cannot be developed in, thus should not be included for mitigation
• Floodplain – alternatively, developers may want to include these trees as credits if it allows other portions of the property to be developed
Follow Up Needed:
• Bring back examples for each possible solution to discuss at next meeting.
• Alta
• South Fork Apt site
Direction on Draft Solution:
• Need more info.
Direction on Final Terms:
• Developer – advantage that there are portions of property that can be counted/credited to allow more development in another portion
• Look at option to give developers a choice to do either Option A or B
• Another option may be to not count trees in the floodplain, but count double/higher credit within the
developable area --> look for ways that incentivizes preservation within the developable area
• Bring back Option C for consideration (provide choice it makes sense)
• Consider effect it has on cost of housing (for all proposed amendments)
Direction on Final Terms:
• Clarify that the trees in the floodplain can be counted in your total number of trees, but that they cannot
be used as credit trees for mitigation
• What might happen if a development had an area of dense trees outside of the floodplain?
TP.10 Discussion
Discussion:
• Requiring vs encouraging – every time something
is required it increases price
• Specify the value for encouraging tree inventory
requirement
Follow Up Needed:
• Incentive options to discuss at next meeting
Direction on Draft Solution:
• Bag of options – create incentives
Direction on Final Terms:
• Look at TP.07
TP.11 Discussion
Discussion:
• Verify/work with Finance on details for
reimbursement process
• Off-site planting on common areas for residential
subdivisions an appropriate option
Follow Up Needed:
• Work with Legal team to determine what City can
require through deed restrictions
• Options for tier process through an administrative
process
Page 19 of 70
• Other jurisdictions that allow credit for trees planted on street yards of SFR lots o Options from other cities
o Examples of projects to evaluate
• Options on different fees for mitigation depending on size
Direction on Draft Solution:
• Need more info.
Direction on Final Terms:
• Clarify that developer pays up front and can get credit later
• Clarify greater than 12 but less than 18
• Georgetown should have a minimum of 3 classes
TP.12 Discussion
Discussion:
• Street trees should not be allowed to be planted in front of the sign
• Fee-in-lieu of as an option in the event a tree may not be planted elsewhere on site
Follow Up Needed:
• None
Direction on Draft Solution:
•
Direction on Final Terms (Nov 11, 2020):
• Clarify that it must be planted within the same landscape area (i.e. if in the street yard, it needs to be
placed in the street yard)
Streetyards, Gateways, and Parking
SY.01 Discussion
Discussion:
• Artificial turf heats up quicker
• No objection to allowance in the rear yard
• Major concerns allowing it in the front yard
• Should not be visible from the street.
• Will not be maintained by property owners.
Follow Up Needed:
•
Direction on Draft Solution:
• Not recommended.
• If allowed, should be limited to the rear yard only.
Direction on Final Terms:
• Include a standard that restricts artificial turfs within an easement
• If limiting it to the rear, may not have any value to add maintenance requirements. Keep preferred turf
standards.
• Potential loophole – no permit required. Possible solution - include scope of work in the flat work permit
currently issued by the City
Page 20 of 70
• Address how impervious cover may be impacted (what is considered impervious cover)
SY.02 Discussion
Discussion:
• Concern that requiring higher level at the street may create conflicts as other phases develop
• Look at limits of construction as an option
• 1 and 2 okay
• 3 and 4 not sure
Follow Up Needed (October 14 Discussion):
• Example of thresholds and possible solutions
Direction on Draft Solution (November 11 Discussion):
• Option 2 – results in additional trees for smaller lots. Readjust numbers so that the smaller lots do not result in more trees. Run scenarios to compare requirements.
Direction on Proposed Terms (December 9 Discussion):
• Comparison were helpful – good with revised option 2.
• Okay with implementation of option 3
SY.03 Discussion
Discussion:
• Goal is to make sure gateway area is heavily landscaped
Follow Up Needed:
•
Direction on Draft Solution:
• Proceed as proposed
Direction on Final Terms:
• Proceed with Option 2 for defining the boundary
SY.04 Discussion
Discussion:
• Does exempting inventory lots meet the goal of the City?
• Require shade structures?
Follow Up Needed:
•
Direction on Draft Solution:
• Recommend reconsidering exemption in a future UDC amendment
• Look at definition of “inventory lot”
Direction on Final Terms:
• Proceed as proposed
Page 21 of 70
SY.05 Discussion
Discussion:
• It may take away more developable land
• May be 75% or may be 10 feet – look at percentage vs feet option (bullet point no. 2)
Follow Up Needed:
•
Direction on Draft Solution:
• Recommend having all possible solutions as “or” options
Direction on Final Terms:
• Proceed as proposed
Screening, Buffering, & Water Conservation
SBW.01 Discussion
Discussion:
• Concern with adding a company name.
Follow Up Needed:
•
Direction on Draft Solution (November 11 Discussion):
• Proceed as proposed
• Do not use specific business when referring to locational standards for enclosures
Direction on Proposed Terms (December 9 Discussion):
• All good!
SBW.02 Discussion
Discussion:
• Follow Up Needed:
•
Direction on Draft Solution (November 11 Discussion):
• Clarify that “turf” means natural turf or turf grass
• Do not add any provision that requires it, but that incentivizes it
• No. 4 – look at it functionally
Direction on Proposed Terms (December 9 Discussion):
• Good with Term #2 – IC credit
• Good with Term 3#, but clarify that sod = turf
• Term #4 is good.
Page 22 of 70
Proposed Terms - Validate direction on draft ordinance
Proposed Terms
Discussion:
• Follow Up Needed:
•
Direction:
• Terms are good, reflect work done.
Public Outreach
Public Outreach
Discussion:
• Follow Up Needed:
•
Direction:
• Groups to Include in Survey:
o Chamber of Commerce
o Development Alliance
o Think of new groups? Please let staff know before beginning of January.
o Send reminder in “homework” email.
Page 23 of 70
2020 UDC General Amendments - Tree Preservation and Landscape Regulations UDC Amendment No. 20-03
Page 1 of 8
Tree Preservation, Removal and Mitigation
Issue No. Issues Current Terms Proposed Terms Relevant UDC
Section(s)
TP.01 Consider establishing a threshold for identifying which
multi-trunk trees must be included on a survey based on the DBH of the largest trunk.
On non-residential projects, a tree survey is required to
include any tree 12 inches + in diameter.
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) – includes Mountain Cedar
• Chinese Tallow
• Mesquite
Include educational material in the Development Manual on how to measure trees. Codify terms for calculating the multi-trunk diameter of a
tree (refer to TP.05).
8.05.010.A.1
and 8.05.020.A.1
TP.02 Consider adding a definition for tree branch and tree
trunk.
No definition of the word trunk. Define Trunk as in Random House Webster’s Unabridged
Dictionary, 2nd Addition as adopted by UDC 1.06 & 16.01: Trunk – the main stem of a tree, as distinct from
the branches and roots. Include definitions for branches and roots Branch – a shoot or stem arising from the trunk.
Root – The usually underground portion of a plant that lacks buds, leaves, or nodes and serves as
support, draws minerals and water from the surrounding soil, and sometimes stores food.
16.02
TP.03 Consider adding a definition for “hardwood” and “softwood” trees as some might have different interpretations.
The UDC makes no reference to “hardwoods” or “softwood”. Heritage Trees may only be trees of the following species. Protected Trees are any species of tree 12” or greater in
diameter, save for the excluded species.
Continue to not use terms “hardwood” or “softwood” Do not add or subtract to current list of Heritage Tree Species.
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.
N/A
Page 24 of 70
2020 UDC General Amendments - Tree Preservation and Landscape Regulations UDC Amendment No. 20-03
Page 2 of 8
Issue No. Issues Current Terms Proposed Terms Relevant UDC
Section(s)
TP.04 Exclude all cedar (ash-juniper and mountain cedar)
trees from the protected trees definition.
Cedar is among the UDC list of excluded trees. These include:
- Hackberry - Chinaberry - Ashe Juniper (cedar)
- Chinese Tallow - Mesquite
Maintain current UDC list of excluded trees. 8.02.020.A and
16.02
TP.05 Consider excluding ornamental trees from the definition of protected trees. Ornamental trees are allowed to count as credit trees for mitigation and as existing trees for landscaping requirements. 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.
8.02.040.C.2.a.i
TP.06 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.
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. Heritage Trees may be removed with approval of the Urban
Forester. Protected Trees are not included under this exemption. Mitigation is required for any tree removed.
Continue current practices for Heritage Trees. Allow Protected Trees to be removed at the discretion of
the Urban Forester. Make provisions to include it under the current Heritage
Tree Removal Permit. Rename “Heritage Tree Removal Permit” to “Tree Removal Permit”. The trimming of any Protected or Heritage Tree within a public right-of-way or public utility easement within the
municipal limits of the City per Sec 12.08 of the City Code (adopted Oct 27, 2020).
3.23, 8.02.030.B.3
Page 25 of 70
2020 UDC General Amendments - Tree Preservation and Landscape Regulations UDC Amendment No. 20-03
Page 3 of 8
Issue No. Issues Current Terms Proposed Terms Relevant UDC
Section(s)
TP.07 Consider requiring a Tree Inventory for new projects
and phased projects whose surveys need to be update after 5 and 10 years.
Tree Inventory is only encouraged, not required. Require the Tree Inventory when existing trees are to be
credited toward tree mitigation requirements Require the Tree Inventory when a residential project is proposed to be planned and constructed in three or more
phases. Require the Tree Inventory when a master planned
development is to be established under a Planned Unit Development or Development Agreement.
Require the tree inventory when alternative tree standards are being requested through a Planned Unit Development, Development Agreement, or Subdivision Variance.
Require tree surveys to identify if a tree is infected with oak wilt if deceased.
Tree Inventory = species, size, disease and type of disease, health of tree, % of canopy cover
8.05.010.A.1
and 8.05.020.A.1
TP.08 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.
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.
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.
3.16.020.C and 8.02.050.B.
Page 26 of 70
2020 UDC General Amendments - Tree Preservation and Landscape Regulations UDC Amendment No. 20-03
Page 4 of 8
Issue No. Issues Current Terms Proposed Terms Relevant UDC
Section(s)
TP.09 Consider establishing boundaries for calculating
protected and heritage trees on projects (i.e. floodplain, ROW, Limit of Construction, Phase or Section specific)
Existing trees within the entire project boundary (including
floodplain or ROW dedication) can be credited toward the existing trees remaining.
All trees within a property that has a floodplain may be
considered for tree preservation and mitigation credit.
• Trees within the floodplain may 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 2:1
No trees shall be considered existing trees if located in an area proposed for right-of-way dedication/reservation
where no public improvements are required to be constructed as a part of the scope of work.
8.02.030.F and
8.02.040.C.2.a.ii
TP.10 Consider requiring additional information on the
health of a protected and heritage tree to address disease control issues as it relates to tree preservation.
Health information is only encouraged, not required. Require Tree Inventory to learn the health of a tree.
Tree Inventory = species, size, disease and type of disease, health of tree, % of canopy cover
8.05.010.A.1
and 8.05.020.A.1
TP.11 Consider additional options for tree mitigation. Divide Protected Trees into two classes:
Tree Size Mitigation Fee
Protected (12” +) $150
Heritage (26” +) $200
Divide Protected Trees into three classes:
Tree Size Mitigation Fee
Protected (12” – 18”) $125
Protected (18” +) $175
Heritage $225 Removals in excess of the number of trees allowed to be
removed = standard mitigation plus 50% Clarify that mitigation by “On-Site Replacement Trees” shall
first be considered foremost, within site feasibility limitations, before other mitigation options. Developer shall provide a letter of intent which identifies
the project trigger for when mitigation plantings are to be installed.
• City will draft standard language to be included with letter of intent to address review of plantings
and refund of mitigation fees paid, in whole or in part, following verification of on-site mitigation plantings.
8.02.030.E.2.b,
8.02.040.C , 8.02.040.C.4.b
and c, 8.05.010.A.3, and
8.05.020.A.4
Page 27 of 70
2020 UDC General Amendments - Tree Preservation and Landscape Regulations UDC Amendment No. 20-03
Page 5 of 8
Issue No. Issues Current Terms Proposed Terms Relevant UDC
Section(s)
TP.12 Consider altering the situations in which required
landscaping trees can be removed – specifically related to signage.
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.
Remove and replace with a tree or trees that will reach a
similar size as the removed tree.
• Grouping replacement tree(s) within the same required planting area where feasible (street yard,
parking lot, gateway buffer, etc.)
• Trees must be planted so that they will not impede
signage visibility in the future
8.06.060
Street yards, Gateways and Parking
Issue No. Issues Current Terms Proposed Terms Relevant UDC Section(s)
SY.01 Consider allowing the use of artificial turf for single-family residential Artificial turf is not permitted in a single or two-family residential property. 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. Artificial turf shall be prohibited within an easement.
Include standards that define preferred artificial turf. Artificial turf must comply with impervious cover limitations.
8.03.030; 8.06.020.C.3 and 8.06.040.F
Page 28 of 70
2020 UDC General Amendments - Tree Preservation and Landscape Regulations UDC Amendment No. 20-03
Page 6 of 8
Issue No. Issues Current Terms Proposed Terms Relevant UDC
Section(s)
SY.02 Consider establishing different or alternative street
yard requirements, particularly for projects with buildings at great distance from the road and/or phased projects.
Street yard requirements are determined by 3 different street
yard areas:
Street yard Size (sq.ft) Landscape Area # Trees # Shrubs
<50,000 20% 1 / 5,000 sq.ft. 3 / 5,000 sq.ft.
50,000 –
500,000
20% 10 for 1st 50,000
sq.ft. 1 / additional 10,000 sq.ft.
30 for 1st 50,000
sq.ft. 3 / additional 10,000 sq.ft.
>500,000 20% 55 for 1st 500,000 1 / additional 25,000 sq.ft.
175 for 1st 500,000 sq.ft. 3 / additional
25,000 sq.ft.
Revise Street yard size thresholds to reflect sizes more
commonly seen and updated planting requirements for each threshold
Street yard Size (sq.ft) Landscape Area # Trees # Shrubs
<10,000 20% 1 / 2,500 sq.ft. 3 / 2,500 sq.ft.
10,000 – 100,000 20% 4 for 1st 10,000 sq.ft. 1.5 / additional
10,000 sq.ft.
12 for 1st 10,000 sq.ft. 4 / additional
10,000 sq.ft.
>100,000 20% 18 for 1st 100,000 2 / additional
20,000 sq.ft.
48 for 1st 100,000 sq.ft.
5 / additional 20,000 sq.ft.
Create a street yard 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.
10% (Low-level) of street yard plantings located within 28 feet of building façade
30% (Mid-level) of street yard plantings located between Low-level and High-level planting zone
60% (High-level) of street yard plantings located between ROW & Mid-level planting zone
8.04.030
Page 29 of 70
2020 UDC General Amendments - Tree Preservation and Landscape Regulations UDC Amendment No. 20-03
Page 7 of 8
Issue No. Issues Current Terms Proposed Terms Relevant UDC
Section(s)
SY.03 Clarify the applicability of Gateway landscape
requirements (and how these relate to other landscape requirements)
Gateway standards do not apply when another zoning overlay
district exists. Gateway overlay districts boundary are determined by: - Right-of-way line of each applicable roadway
- Centerline of the roadway when conflicting gateway overlay districts occur
Gateway standards shall apply when more stringent than
the standard of any other overlay district Clean-up referenced code sections Gateway overlay boundaries extend up to a maximum
depth of 100 feet from the edge on the right-of-way line on either side.
4.11, 8.04.050
SY.04 Clarify the applicability of landscape requirements for inventory lots related to an auto sales use “Vehicle display and sales areas” are exempt from the parking lot landscape requirements. Define “vehicle display and sales areas” as the area specifically reserved for the display and storage of vehicles
actively for sale. 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.
8.04.040.C
SY.05 Consider measures or alternatives to address conflicts between signage, utilities and easements, and
landscape requirements
An Administrative Exception may be requested for an alternative Landscape design. When required shade trees conflict with signage or utility easement, one or more of the following options may be
proposed to meet the requirement:
• 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:
2 ornamental trees = 1 shade tree, or
1 ornamental tree and 20 small to medium
shrubs = 1 shade tree, or
• No more than 25% of the mature canopy size may encroach onto an easement, sign, or any other
conflict point; or
• Gateway landscape buffer shall extend a minimum
of 10 feet beyond any conflicting easement.
8.06.030.D.6
Screening and Water Conservation
Page 30 of 70
2020 UDC General Amendments - Tree Preservation and Landscape Regulations UDC Amendment No. 20-03
Page 8 of 8
Issue No. Issues Current Terms Proposed Terms Relevant UDC
Section(s)
SBW.01 Clarify screening requirements for alternative waste
containers
Dumpsters are subject to locational and design standards
including distance from property line, placement on reinforced concrete pads, screening materials, gate materials, and features to protect enclosures from truck operations.
Other waste and recycling container enclosures shall also
be subject to the dumpster locational and design standards. Location of waste and recycling container enclosures shall
also comply with the standards of the waste collection service provider.
8.04.070.D
SBW.02 Review current nonresidential landscaping requirements regarding the city’s water conservation
efforts
Grassed areas are encouraged to be planted with drought resistant species such as (but not limited to) Bermuda, Zoysia,
or Buffalo. 50% of plant materials must be low water users. Solid sod shall be used in swales or on 3:1 or greater slopes
or other areas subject to erosion. Synthetic or artificial lawns or plants are not allowed.
Continue to encourage grassed areas to be planted with drought resistant species such as (but not limited to)
Bermuda, Zoysia, or Buffalo, when grassed areas are provided. Continue to require a minimum of 50% of the total number
of plant materials to be low water user plants.
• For every additional 10% of plants classified as low
water users, an additional 1% of impervious cover, up to a maximum of 3%, may be granted. Continue to require solid sod in swales, and on 3:1 or greater slopes or other areas subject to erosion. For all other areas, sod shall be limited to the remaining
percentage of plant material that are not low water user plants.
• Exemptions: dog parks; open recreational/common amenity areas; parkland Allow artificial turfs in areas screened from streets and
adjacent properties, and in accordance with the impervious cover requirements of the project. Artificial turf shall be prohibited within required bufferyards and gateway landscape buffers.
• Include standards that define preferred artificial turf and maintenance requirements.
8.06.020.C.3, 8.06.040.F,
11.02.020.A.7
Page 31 of 70
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
Essential Terms – Part 1
Page 32 of 70
Essential Terms – Part 2
Street yard: 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.
Page 33 of 70
Tree Preservation and Landscape Standards UDC Amendments
General Amendment No. 20-03
Public Comments received
* Office Hours discussion
* Survey response
* Comment Letters
Page 34 of 70
Tree Preservation and Landscape Standards
General Amendment No. 20-03
Page 1 of 2
Office Hours Public Comments/Feedback (January 19 – February 5)
Friday February 5, 9:30am
• Mitigation fees do not incentivize protection of trees or on-site replacement. Depending
on tree species, it is more cost effective to pay the mitigation fee than to replace it with
new trees when considering the cost of the tree plus labor.
o Staff Response: A study of current mitigation fees may be warranted in the future.
• Consider counting new shrub plantings, in addition to new trees, as credit for
mitigation.
o Staff Response: For Tree Mitigation requirements, shrubs do not meet the intent of
replacing lost tree canopy or caliper inches.
• Provide list of recommended tree species for areas along sidewalks/trails, tight spaces,
parking lots, in front of buildings, etc. Certain tree species, as they grow, will cause
damage to the sidewalk or other public/private improvements, or cover buildings that
may want to showcase. Having a list of recommended tree species for these situations
may facilitate design of site.
o Staff Response: This is something that can be incorporated in the updating of the
Preferred Plant list.
Friday February 5, 10:30am
• Landscape Architect (LA) agreed that Tree Amendments are good for Tree Preservation
but can be frustrating when looking at large industrial site.
o Staff Response: In agreeance
• If existing trees in the ROW are not counted as existing, then do I still have to mitigate
them? What about new Overall Transportation Plan (OTP) roads? Might this also extend
to utility work?
o Staff Response: Mitigation is required for removed trees within the R.O.W., Mitigation is
required on OTP roads as well as utility work projects. This is a current requirement; no
changes are proposed.
• Third tree class is great for developers! Helps with costs on sites that may be former
farmland and have been let turn fallow. These sites tend to have trees that land in the
lower protected tree class.
o Staff Response: In agreeance
• Can the Preferred Plant List be updated to include more low water users? TAMU has a
great low water user list.
• Limits on turf in SBW.02 do not make developers happy, but would make LAs and
designers happy. Can temporary irrigation be used to establish native turf species?
o Staff Response: In agreeance on turf limitations; Current UDC irrigation requirements
allow for 3 options; no changes are proposed to the requirements.
Page 35 of 70
Tree Preservation and Landscape Standards
General Amendment No. 20-03
Page 2 of 2
• Synthetic turf would be great to not have to be screened. Especially true on
playgrounds, sports fields, K-12 facilities, daycares, etc. – this creates safety issues. Some
new glass and buildings materials can create heat that can melt artificial turf.
o Staff Response: Screening requirements for playscapes, sports fields, and other similar
recreational fields have been adjusted to not hinder safety issues.
• In street yards, could we use more 3 gallon or 1-gallon shrubs to meet planting
requirements? It can be difficult to find 5 gallons plants with heavy demand on
suppliers.
o Staff Response: Current UDC minimum planting requirements for shrubs are 1 gallon,
no changes are proposed to the requirements.
• Ornamental trees can still block signage. Can more shrubs be used instead of ornamenta l
trees?
o Staff Response: UDC would just provide flexibility on location on ornamental trees that
should address this concern.
Page 36 of 70
Amendments to City of Georgetown Unified Development Code Survey
1 / 2
Q1
Do the proposed UDC amendm ents addres s the identified
is s ues ?
Yes
Q2
Are the proposed changes easy to unders tand?
Yes
Q3
Do you need more information?
No
Q4
If y es, pleas e prov ide y our c ontac t information below:
no
Q5
Please prov ide any additional comments below.
Inc reas e how often pruning permits are rev iewed
#1#1
COMPLETECOMPLETE
Col lector:Col lector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link )(Web Link )
Started:Started: Tues day, J anuary 26, 2021 10:32:22 AMTuesday, J anuary 26, 2021 10:32:22 AM
Last Modified:Last Modified: Tues day, J anuary 26, 2021 10:33:48 AMTuesday, J anuary 26, 2021 10:33:48 AM
Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:01:2500:01:25
IP Address:IP Address: 69.7.160.14669.7.160.146
Page 1
Page 37 of 70
Amendments to City of Georgetown Unified Development Code Survey
2 / 2
Q1
Do the proposed UDC amendm ents addres s the identified
is s ues ?
No
Q2
Are the proposed changes easy to unders tand?
Yes
Q3
Do you need more information?
No
Q4
If y es, pleas e prov ide y our c ontac t information below:
Respondent skipped this question
Q5
Please prov ide any additional comments below.
Tree mitigation requirements s hould be allowed in lots . Protected trees are 12" and abov e, however mitigation c redits are only giv en for
trees 18" and abov e. This inconsistency s hould be fix ed.
#2#2
COMPLETECOMPLETE
Col lector:Col lector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link )(Web Link )
Started:Started: Wednesday, February 03, 2021 4:05:05 PMWednesday, February 03, 2021 4:05:05 PM
Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, February 03, 2021 4:11:41 PMWednesday, February 03, 2021 4:11:41 PM
Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:06:3500:06:35
IP Address:IP Address: 70.112.239.20870.112.239.208
Page 1
Page 38 of 70
Amendments to City of Georgetown Unified Development Code Survey
1 / 5
50.00%1
50.00%1
0.00%0
Q1 Do the proposed UDC amendments address the identified issues?
Answered: 2 Sk ipped: 0
TOTAL 2
Yes
No
If no, pl ease
expl ain.
0%10%20%30%40%5 0%60%70%80%90%100%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Yes
No
If no, please explain.
Page 39 of 70
Amendments to City of Georgetown Unified Development Code Survey
2 / 5
100.00%2
0.00%0
0.00%0
Q2 Are the proposed changes easy to understand?
Answered: 2 Sk ipped: 0
TOTAL 2
Yes
No
If no, pl ease
expl ain.
0%10%20%30%40%5 0%60%70%80%90%100%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Yes
No
If no, please explain.
Page 40 of 70
Amendments to City of Georgetown Unified Development Code Survey
3 / 5
0.00%0
100.00%2
Q3 Do you need more information?
Answered: 2 Sk ipped: 0
TOTAL 2
Yes
No
0%10%20%30%40%5 0%60%70%80%90%100%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Yes
No
Page 41 of 70
Amendments to City of Georgetown Unified Development Code Survey
4 / 5
Q4 If yes, please provide your contact information below:
Answered: 1 Sk ipped: 1
Page 42 of 70
Amendments to City of Georgetown Unified Development Code Survey
5 / 5
Q5 Please provide any additional comments below.
Answered: 2 Sk ipped: 0
Page 43 of 70
Page 44 of 70
Page 45 of 70
Page 46 of 70
Page 47 of 70
Page 48 of 70
Page 49 of 70
1
Tree Preservation and
Landscape Standards
Adjustments and Clean-up
UDC Advisory Committee
April 14, 2021
Page 50 of 70
2
Purpose
•Discussion on possible amendments to the Unified Development Code (UDC) related to tree mitigation options.
Page 51 of 70
4
City Council Workshops
•Feb 9 -Tree Preservation, Removal and Mitigation
•No changes to proposed terms and recommended amendments
•Two (2) new items for consideration
1)Consider allowing smaller trees (smaller than 6 inches) to be counted as credit trees
2)Explore the option of allowing trees planted on residential lots as on-site replacement trees
•Mar 23 -Street yards, gateway and parking, and screening and water conservation to be discussed at the next meeting
•No changes to proposed terms and recommended amendments
Page 52 of 70
5
Amendment Process
CC update and discussion
CC update and
discussion
UDCAC intro to new issues
UDCAC vetting of new issues
Public review of new issuesDraft Ord.
UDCAC and P&Z rec. to City Council
City Council Approval
UDCAC and City Staff begin to prepare draft amendments.
JulMayMarFeb Apr Jun
Page 53 of 70
11
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:8.02.030.E.2.b, 8.02.040.C , 8.02.040.C.4.b and c, 8.05.010.A.3, and 8.05.020.A.4
Current Tree Classifications Proposed Classifications*
Protected 12”+$150 Protected 12”-18”$125
Protected 18”+$175
Heritage 26”+$200 Heritage 26”+$225
Page 54 of 70
12
TP.11.1 –Tree Mitigation Options
Issue:Consider allowing existing trees with a DBH smaller than 6 inches as credit trees for mitigation purposes.
Georgetown Requirements:
•Existing trees that are at least 6 inches and no more than 11 inches at 4.5 feet above ground that remain are considered credit trees and may be credited toward the required mitigation trees.
•Credit trees may apply towards a maximum of 75% of the required mitigation inches for protected trees (all trees 12 inches in diameter at 4.5 feet above the ground).
•Excludes Hackberry, Chinaberry, Ashe Juniper (cedar), Chinese Tallow, and Mesquite.
•Will also exclude Mountain Cedar, Blueberry Juniper, Post Cedar, Chinese Tallow.
•Credit trees may not be used towards mitigation for heritage trees(certain trees 26 inches or more in diameter at 4.5 feet above the ground).
Background:
•Existing trees with a DBH of a minimum of 6-in and no more than 11-in that remain on site are considered credit trees and may be credited toward the required mitigation trees.
•Minimum size for new trees is 3-in DBH
UDC Sections Affected:8.02.040
Page 55 of 70
13
TP.11.1 –Tree Mitigation Options
Other Cities requirements:
•Cedar Park –Between 6 and 8 inches
•Round Rock –Between 3 and 8 inches; Max allowed credit tree inches appliable to Mitigation is 50%
City 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40+
Georgetown
Austin
Cedar Park
Leander
Round Rock
San Marcos
Pflugerville
Credit Tree Classification Lower than GT Protected Tree Equivalent Heritage Tree Equivalent Classification Higher than GT
$ Mitigation Fee per Inch
$300
Diameter at Breast Height (inches)
$300 $450
$323$163
$150 $450 $300
$150 $300
$225$175$125
$150
$600
$450$300$150
$100 $200
Page 56 of 70
14
TP.11.1 –Tree Mitigation Options
Issue:Consider allowing existing trees with a DBH smaller than 6 inches as credit trees for mitigation purposes.
Other Requirements and Processes Impacted:
•Subdivision Plat, Site Development Plan, Stormwater Permit
•Tree Survey typically only includes trees required to be protected, and any that may be used for credit (6 to 11 inches).
•Issues:
•Smaller trees are not surveyed due to time and cost.
•Tree Care
•Issues:
•Existing smaller trees are less likely to survive due to lack of water resource, unestablished root system, and impacts of construction process.
Background:
•Existing trees with a DBH of a minimum of 6-in and no more than 11-in that remain on site are considered credit trees and may be credited toward the required mitigation trees.
•Minimum size for new trees is 3-in DBH
UDC Sections Affected:8.02.040
Page 57 of 70
16
TP.11.1 –Tree Mitigation Options
Issue:Consider allowing existing trees with a DBH smaller than 6 inches as credit trees for mitigation purposes.
Possible Solutions:1.Smaller trees to be used as credit trees will need to be surveyed and included in the Tree Preservation Plan.
2.Smaller trees may be counted based on location (i.e. undisturbed areas), health, survival rate, and potential impact from construction. In no case shall the tree be smaller than 3 inches at 4.5 feet above ground.
3.Provide alternative option-when smaller trees are counted, all on-site credit trees may be counted at a reduced mitigation ratio (i.e. 0.5:1 inch ratio); or at an increased basis for percentage of total diameter inches removed (i.e. 60% of protected trees).
Background:
•Existing trees with a DBH of a minimum of 6-in and no more than 11-in that remain on site are considered credit trees and may be credited toward the required mitigation trees.
•Minimum size for new trees is 3-in DBH
UDC Sections Affected:8.02.040
Page 58 of 70
17
TP.11.2 –Tree Mitigation Options
Issue:Explore the option of allowing trees planted on residential lots as on-site replacement trees.
State Law Requirements (LGC Sec 212.095):
•Restricts municipalities from requiring payment of a tree mitigation fee for the removal of a tree:
•on a property that is an existing one-family or two-family dwelling that is the person's residence; and
•is less than 10 inches in diameter at the point on the trunk 4.5 feet above the ground.
•Where tree mitigation fee is imposed, municipalities must provide the option to allow for a credit of tree planting to offset the tree. To qualify, the tree must be:
•planted on property for which the tree mitigation fee was assessed; or
•on property mutually agreed upon by the municipality and the person; and
•at least 2 inches in diameter at the point on the trunk 4.5 feet above ground.
•Municipalities may not prohibit the removal of a tree that “…poses an imminent or immediate threat to persons or property”
Background:
•On-site replacement trees have been accepted on sites that are common areas or subject to non-residential review standards and enforcement.
UDC Sections Affected:8.02.040
Page 59 of 70
18
TP.11.2 –Tree Mitigation Options
Issue:Explore the option of allowing trees planted on residential lots as on-site replacement trees.
Georgetown Requirements (UDC Sec 8.02):
•Requires approval for the removal of a heritage (certain trees 26 inches or more in diameter at 4.5 feet above the ground) tree on residential property platted after 2007.
•Requires approval for the removal of a heritage or protected (all trees 12 inches in diameter at 4.5 feet above the ground) tree on non-residential property.
•When on-site replacement option is selected:
•New trees may only be counted to meet non-residential landscape requirements.
•Trees to be planted are required to be identified on the plans in accordance with the UDC’s plant selection, installation and maintenance requirements.
•This is typically done at time of Site Development Plan or Stormwater Permit when site design is finalized and it is known where new trees may be planted.
•These permits are not required for single-family or two-family residential lots.
Background:
•On-site replacement trees have been accepted on sites that are common areas or subject to non-residential review standards and enforcement.
UDC Sections Affected:8.02.040
Page 60 of 70
19
TP.11.2 –Tree Mitigation Options
Issue:Explore the option of allowing trees planted on residential lots as on-site replacement trees.
Residential Landscape Required
•One shade tree is required for every 50' of lot frontage
•Frontage does not include driveway
•Existing trees saved count toward the requirement
•Must be at least a 3-inch caliper tree
•Trees shall have at least one bubbler installed per newly installed tree.
Background:
•On-site replacement trees have been accepted on sites that are common areas or subject to non-residential review standards and enforcement.
UDC Sections Affected:8.02.040
Page 61 of 70
20
TP.11.2 –Tree Mitigation Options
Other Cities requirements:
•All cities require that tree mitigation be completed by replacement trees to be planted on-site.
City 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40+
Georgetown
Austin
Cedar Park
Leander
Round Rock
San Marcos
Pflugerville
Credit Tree Classification Lower than GT Protected Tree Equivalent Heritage Tree Equivalent Classification Higher than GT
$ Mitigation Fee per Inch
$300
Diameter at Breast Height (inches)
$300 $450
$323$163
$150 $450 $300
$150 $300
$225$175$125
$150
$600
$450$300$150
$100 $200
Page 62 of 70
22
TP.11.2 –Tree Mitigation Options
Issue:Explore the option of allowing trees planted on residential lots as on-site replacement trees.
Other Requirements and Processes Impacted:
•Subdivision Construction Plans
•Tree Preservation Plan must include a tree mitigation plan, which identifies location of on-site replacement trees.
•Issues:
•Exact location of building, driveways and other improvements are not known as this is to be determined by the builder.
•Tree Preservation Plan would need to include where all new trees will be planted in accordance with UDC’s plant selection, installation and maintenance requirements.
Background:
•On-site replacement trees have been accepted on sites that are common areas or subject to non-residential review standards and enforcement.
UDC Sections Affected:8.02.040
Page 63 of 70
23
TP.11.2 –Tree Mitigation Options
Issue:Explore the option of allowing trees planted on residential lots as on-site replacement trees.
Other Requirements and Processes Impacted:
•Building Permit
•Residential building permits require a general landscape plan
•Issues:
•Building permits only required in the city limits.
•Builders are unaware of approved Tree Preservation Plan.
•Builders occasionally allow future homeowners to do own landscaping.
•On-site replacement tree would be in addition to the minimum landscape standards under current standards.
•Landscaping is not included in final inspection of home.
•New review (tracking) and inspection would need to be added to building permit process.
Background:
•On-site replacement trees have been accepted on sites that are common areas or subject to non-residential review standards and enforcement.
UDC Sections Affected:8.02.040
Page 64 of 70
24
TP.11.2 –Tree Mitigation Options
Issue:Explore the option of allowing trees planted on residential lots as on-site replacement trees.
Other Requirements and Processes Impacted:
•Tree Removal Permit
•Only required for removal of heritage trees.
•Issues:
•No review/approval process for the removal of other trees.
•Removal review process would be needed to ensure mitigation measures are still being met on residential lots.
•Minimum size tree to be planted must be at least 3-in in diameter at 6-inches above the ground; however, municipalities cannot impose a mitigation fee to a homeowner who removes a tree that is less than 10 inches in diameter at 4.5 feet above the ground.
•Trees planted for mitigation may be removed at any time thus nullifying this mitigation.
•No measures exist to monitor trees on residential lots for compliance with city code requirements
Background:
•On-site replacement trees have been accepted on sites that are common areas or subject to non-residential review standards and enforcement.
UDC Sections Affected:8.02.040
Page 65 of 70
25
TP.11.2 –Tree Mitigation Options
Issue:Explore the option of allowing trees planted on residential lots as on-site replacement trees.
Other Requirements and Processes Impacted:
•Tree Care
•Maintaining life and health of tree.
•Issues:
•Homeowners will not properly maintain tree.
•Watering issues.
•Homeowner opts to change landscape on property (i.e.xeriscape).
•Tree may be removed, which would not be reviewed by the municipality as no process exists for non-heritage trees.
•Utility and other improvement conflicts (i.e.widening of driveway)
•Tree placement issues (i.e.tree was planted too close to the house).
Background:
•On-site replacement trees have been accepted on sites that are common areas or subject to non-residential review standards and enforcement.
UDC Sections Affected:8.02.040
Page 66 of 70
26
TP.11.2 –Tree Mitigation Options
Issue:Explore the option of allowing trees planted on residential lots as on-site replacement trees.
Possible Solutions:1.Continue to limit on-site replacement trees to public areas (i.e.ROW, amenity lots, stormwater facility lots, and open space lots)
2.New residential trees in excess of existing requirements as defined in sec. 8.03.020, may only receive partial credit for tree mitigation (city limits only).
3.Limit maximum credit per lot based on 30-foot on-center plantings.
4.New trees must be planted in the street yard within a private landscape easement to be dedicated to the POA/HOA for maintenance. Landscape easement must be depicted on the Plat.
5.Only permitted for subdivisions in the city limits.
•Property in the ETJ would be limited to amenity lots, stormwater facility lots, and open space lots.
Alternative Options:1.Allow trees to be planted within the right-of-way in a landscape median or between the curb and sidewalk with an approved maintenance agreement between the governmental agency and property owners and successors.
Background:
•On-site replacement trees have been accepted on sites that are common areas or subject to non-residential review standards and enforcement.
UDC Sections Affected:8.02.040
Page 67 of 70
27
Next Steps
CC update and discussion
CC update and
discussion
UDCAC intro to new issues
UDCAC vetting of new issues
Public review of new issuesDraft Ord.
UDCAC and P&Z rec. to City Council
City Council Approval
UDCAC and City Staff begin to prepare draft amendments.
JulMayMarFeb Apr Jun
Page 68 of 70
28
Requested Feedback
•What additional information/resources do you need for the next meeting?
Page 69 of 70
City of Georgetown, Texas
Unified Development Code Advisory Committee
April 14, 2021
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 tudied at this time.
S UB MIT T E D B Y:
Andreina Dávila-Q uintero, AI C P, C urrent P lanning Manager
Page 70 of 70