HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda UDCAC 05.12.2021Notice of Meeting for the
Unified Dev elopment Code Adv isory Committee
of the City of Georgetown
May 12, 2021 at 3:30 P M
at Virtual
T he C ity o f G eorgetown is c o mmitted to c ompliance with the Americans with Dis ab ilities Ac t (ADA). If yo u
req uire as s is tanc e in participating at a p ublic meeting d ue to a disability, as d efined und er the ADA, reasonable
as s is tance, ad ap tatio ns , or acc o mmo d ations will b e provid ed up o n req uest. P leas e contac t the C ity S ecretary's
O ffic e, at leas t three (3) d ays p rio r to the s cheduled meeting date, at (512) 930-3652 or C ity Hall at 808 Martin
Luther King Jr. S treet, G eo rgeto wn, T X 78626 for ad d itional info rmation; T T Y us ers route thro ugh R elay
Texas at 711.
The r egul ar mee ting will conve ne at 3:30 p.m. on M ay 12, 2021 via
te le confe r e nce . To par tic ipate , pl e ase c opy and paste the foll owi ng weblink
into your br owser :
Weblink: https://bi t.ly/3sdnqmE
Webinar I D : 932-3037-2518
P asswor d: 329214
To partic ipate by phone :
C all in number : (346)248-7799 or Toll -F re e: 833-548-0282
P asswor d: 329214
C itizen c omments ar e ac ce pte d in thr ee di ffer ent for mats:
1. Submi t wr itte n c omments to pl anning@geor getown.org by 2:30p.m. on
the date of the mee ting and the R e cor ding Se cr e tar y wil l r ead your
c omme nts into the re cor ding duri ng the item that is be ing di sc usse d.
2. L og onto the me eting at the li nk above and "raise your hand" dur ing the
ite m
3. Use your home/mobile phone to cal l the toll-fre e number
To join a Zoom mee ting, clic k on the l ink provided and joi n as an atte ndee .
You will be asked to enter your name and email addr e ss (this is so we c an
ide ntify you whe n you are call e d upon). To spe ak on an ite m, c li ck on the
"R aise your H and" option at the bottom of the Zoom me eti ng webpage onc e
that ite m has ope ne d. When you ar e cal le d upon by the R ec ording S ec re tar y,
your de vi c e wi ll be re mote ly un-muted by the A dmini str ator and you may
spe ak for thr ee mi nutes. P le ase state your name clear l y, and whe n your time
is over, your devic e will be mute d again.
U se of pr ofani ty, thre atening l anguage, slande rous r e mar ks or thre ats of
harm ar e not all owe d and will r e sult i n you be ing imme diate ly r emove d from
the mee ti ng.
Page 1 of 78
Regular Session
(T his R egular S es s ion may, at any time, be rec es s ed to c o nvene an Exec utive S es s ion for any purp o s e
authorized b y the O pen Meetings Ac t, Texas G o vernment C ode 551.)
A D iscussion on how the U nified D evelopment C ode Advisory C ommittee virtual conference will be
conducted, to include options for public comments and how the public may address the C ommission --
Andreina D ávila-Q uintero, AI C P, Current P lanning M anager
P ublic Wishing to Address the Board
O n a s ubjec t that is p o s ted o n this agenda: P leas e fill out a speaker regis tration form which c an b e found at the
Board meeting. C learly p rint yo ur name, the letter o f the item o n which you wis h to s p eak, and present it to the
S taff Liais o n, p referab ly p rio r to the s tart of the meeting. Yo u will b e c alled fo rward to s p eak when the Board
cons id ers that item.
O n a s ubjec t no t p o s ted o n the agenda: P ers ons may add an item to a future Board agend a by filing a written
req uest with the S taff Liaison no later than o ne week prior to the Bo ard meeting. T he req uest mus t inc lude the
s p eaker's name and the s p ecific to p ic to b e ad d res s ed with sufficient information to info rm the b o ard and the
p ublic . F o r Board Liais o n contac t information, p leas e logo n to
http://go vernment.georgetown.o rg/category/b o ard s -commissions /.
B O n a subject not p osted on the a g en d a: P erson s ma y add a n item to a fu ture B oa rd agenda b y filin g a
written req u est w ith th e S taff L iaison no later than one week p rior to th e B oard meetin g . T h e request
must include the speaker's n a me and the sp ecific top ic to be a d d ressed with sufficient in formation to
in form the boa rd and the p u b lic. F or B oard L iaison con tact in formation, plea se log on to
http://govern men t.g eorgetown .org /category/b oards-commission s/.
A t 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 id eratio n and p o s s ib le ac tion to app ro ve the minutes of the March 10 and Ap ril 14, 2021 regular
meetings o f the Unified Development C ode Advis o ry C o mmittee -- Mirna G arc ia, Management Analys t
D Disc ussio n and p o s s ib le direc tion on a propos ed Text Amend ment to the Unified Develo p ment C ode
(UDC ) relating to the Tree P reservation and Lands c ap ing standards s pec ific ally as it p ertains to tree
mitigatio n requirements (UDC G eneral Amend ment No. 20-03) -- S teve Mc Keown, Land s cape P lanner,
Ethan Harwell, S enio r P lanner, and Andreina Dávila-Q uintero, AI C P, C urrent P lanning Manager.
E Update on the Unified Develo p ment C od e (UDC ) amendment p ro cess , and the 2020 UDC Annual
R eview P lan, S ched ule and Next S tep s -- Andreina Dávila-Q uintero , AI C P, C urrent P lanning Manager
Adjournment
Ce rtificate of Posting
I, R obyn Dens mo re, C ity S ec retary for the C ity of G eorgetown, Texas, do hereb y certify that this Notice of
Meeting was p o s ted at C ity Hall, 808 Martin Luther King Jr. S treet, G eorgeto wn, T X 78626, a p lace readily
Page 2 of 78
acc es s ib le to the general p ublic as req uired by law, on the _____ day of _________________, 2021, at
__________, and remained so p o s ted fo r at leas t 72 c o ntinuo us hours prec eding the sc heduled time of s aid
meeting.
__________________________________
R o b yn Dens more, C ity S ecretary
Page 3 of 78
City of Georgetown, Texas
Unified Development Code Advisory Committee
May 12, 2021
S UB J E C T:
C o nsideration and pos s ible actio n to ap p rove the minutes o f the Marc h 10 and April 14, 2021 regular
meetings o f the Unified Develo p ment C ode Ad vis ory C ommittee -- Mirna G arc ia, Management Analys t
IT E M S UMMARY:
F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
.
S UB MIT T E D B Y:
Mirna G arcia, Management Analyst
AT TAC H ME N T S:
D escription Type
3.10.21 minutes Backup Material
4.14.21 minutes Backup Material
Page 4 of 78
UDC Advisory Committee 1
March 10, 2021
City of Georgetown, Texas
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the
Unified Development Code Advisory Committee Meeting
Wednesday, March 10, 2021 at 3:30 P.M.
Teleconference meeting: http://bit.ly/2N9RVed
The regular meeting convened at 3:30PM on March 10, 2021 via teleconference at
http://bit.ly/2N9RVed . Webinar ID: 913 5575 4466. To participate by phone: call in number 346.248.7799
or Toll Free: 888-475-4499. Password: 043219. 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: P.J. Stevens; Phillip Wanke; Jordan Maddox; Brian Robinson and
Tracy Dubcak; Jen Henderson
Committee Member(s) Absent: Brian Ortego
Staff Present: Andreina Dávila-Quintero, Current Planning Manager; Mirna Garcia, Management
Analyst; Steve McKeown, Landscape Planner and Ethan Harwell, Senior Planner.
Meeting called to order at 3:55 P.M.
Regular Session
(This Regular Session may, at any time, be recessed to convene an Executive Session for any purpose
authorized by the Open Meetings Act, Texas Government Code 551.)
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
Staff and the Committee welcomed Jordan Maddox as the newest member appointed to the
Unified Development Advisory Committee.
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 logon to
http://government.georgetown.org/category/boards-commissions/.
At the time of posting, no persons had signed up to speak on items not on the agenda.
Legislative Regular Agenda
C. Consideration and possible action to approve the minutes of the February 10, 2021 regular
meeting of the Unified Development Code Advisory Committee -- Mirna Garcia, Management
Analyst
Motion by Robinson to approve the February 10, 2021 meeting minutes. Second by Dubcak.
Approved. (5-0)
Page 5 of 78
UDC Advisory Committee 2
March 10, 2021
D. Continued from the February 10, 2021 meeting:
Public Hearing and possible action on a proposed Text Amendment to the Unified
Development Code (UDC) relating to the Tree Preservation and Landscaping standards
specifically as it pertains to tree preservation, removal and mitigation, streetyard, gateway and
parking landscape standards, and screening and water conservation requirements (UDC
General Amendment No. 20-03) -- Andreina Dávila-Quintero,
AICP, Current Planning Manager, Steve McKeown, Landscape Planner, and Ethan Harwell,
Senior Planner
Staff stated the purpose is to provide a recommendation to City Council on proposed
amendments to the Unified development Code (UDC) related to tree preservation and
landscape standards.
Staff reviewed over synthetic or artificial lawns and areas that it may be used in along with the
tree removal permit language.
Staff reviewed over the amendment review process along with what was presented to the City
Council during their February 9th workshop and their recommendations. Staff stated street
yards, gateway and parking, and screening and water conservation will be discussed during
the next City Council workshop scheduled for March 23rd.
Staff explained the two new items City Council is recommending is to:
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.
Brief discussion on the items City Council is recommending.
Motion to recommend to City Council to approve the redline for the Tree Preservation,
Removal and Mitigation and the redlines for the Street yards, gateway and parking, and
screening and water conservation. Second by Robinson. Approved. (5-0)
E. Update on the Unified Development Code (UDC) amendment process, and the 2020 UDC
Annual Review Plan, Schedule and Next Steps -- Andreina Dávila-Quintero, AICP, Current
Planning Manager
Staff gave a brief update on upcoming amendments which are general signage, definition of
group homes, and making sure the street cross sections are in line with fire code requirements.
Motion to adjourn at 4:37 p.m.
_____________________________________ __________________________________
PJ Stevens, Attest Attest, Brian Ortego, Secretary
Page 6 of 78
UDC Advisory Committee 3
March 10, 2021
Page 7 of 78
UDC Advisory Committee 1
April 14, 2021
City of Georgetown, Texas
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the
Unified Development Code Advisory Committee Meeting
Wednesday, April 14, 2021 at 3:30 P.M.
Teleconference meeting: http://bit.ly/3bIDPui
The regular meeting convened at 3:30PM on April 14, 2021 via teleconference at http://bit.ly/3bIDPui.
Webinar ID: 949 7681 8404. To participate by phone: call in number 346.248.7799 or Toll Free:
833.548.0282. Password: 523157. 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: P.J. Stevens; Brian Robinson; Jen Henderson; Phillip Wanke;
Brian Ortego and Jordan Maddox.
Committee Member(s) Absent: Tracy Dubcak
Staff Present: Andreina Dávila-Quintero, Current Planning Manager; Steve McKeown, Landscape
Planner; Ethan Harwell, Senior Planner and Stephanie McNickle, Planning Specialist.
Meeting called to order at 3:30 P.M.
Regular Session
(This Regular Session may, at any time, be recessed to convene an Executive Session for any purpose
authorized by the Open Meetings Act, Texas Government Code 551
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 -- Andreina Dávila-Quintero, AICP, Current Planning Manager
Staff reviewed how the UDCAC meeting will be conducted.
B. Nomination and selection of Vice-chair and Secretary for the 2021/22 UDC Advisory Committee --
Andreina Dávila-Quintero, AICP, Current Planning Manager
Motion by Wanke to nominate Henderson to serve as Vice-chair for the 2021/22 UDC Advisory
Committee. Second by Chair Stevens. Approved. (6-0)
Motion by Henderson to nominate Wanke to serve as Secretary for the 2021/22 UDC Advisory
Committee. Second by Robinson. Approved. (6-0)
C. Consideration and possible action to confirm the bylaws for the Unified Development Code (UDC)
Advisory Committee relating to membership eligibility requirements -- Andreina Dávila-Quintero,
AICP, Current Planning Manager
Staff reviewed the current bylaws.
Page 8 of 78
UDC Advisory Committee 2
April 14, 2021
Motion by Henderson to accept and abided by the bylaws. Second by Ortego. Approved. (6-0)
Public Wishing to Address the Board
On a subject that is posted on this agenda: Please fill out a speaker registration form which can be
found at the Board meeting. Clearly print your name, the letter of the item on which you wish to speak,
and present it to the Staff Liaison, preferably prior to the start of the meeting. You will be called
forward to speak when the Board considers that item.
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 logon to
http://government.georgetown.org/category/boards -commissions/.
D. 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 logon to
http://government.georgetown.org/category/boards-commissions/.
At the time of posting, no persons had signed up to speak on items not on the agenda.
Legislative Regular Agenda
E. Discussion and possible action establishing the regular meeting date, time and place of the Unified
Development Code (UDC) Advisory Committee for 2021/22 -- Andreina Dávila-Quintero, AICP,
Current Planning Manager.
Motion by Ortego to meet the 2nd Wednesday of every month at 3:30p.m and the location as stated
in the bylaws with the exception to continue virtual meetings. Second by Henderson. Approved.
(6-0)
F. Discussion and possible direction on a proposed Text Amendment to the Unified Development
Code (UDC) relating to the Tree Preservation and Landscaping standards specifically as it pertains
to tree mitigation requirements (UDC General Amendment No. 20-03) -- Steve McKeown,
Landscape Planner, Ethan Harwell, Senior Planner, and Andreina Dávila-Quintero, AICP, Current
Planning Manager.
Staff reviewed the March 23 City Council workshop items which included street yards, gateway
and parking, and screening and water conservation. Staff stated no changes to the proposed terms
and recommended amendment.
However, City Council did recommend two items for consideration to the Tree Preservation,
Removal and Mitigation amendments which includes:
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.
Staff reviewed the option of allowing smaller trees (smaller than 6 inches) to be counted as credit
Page 9 of 78
UDC Advisory Committee 3
April 14, 2021
trees.
Committee stated Georgetown typically has a lot of trees compared to other cities also allowing to
go smaller provides additional options and ability to save more natural trees. Committee
recommended not to go any smaller than 3 inch trees. However, we need to make sure it does not
add a lot of extra work to staff. It was also stated the cost to survey additional tress would increase.
Committee stated a 6 inch tree is a good size and does not feel it needs to go smaller. Possible
alternative process to allow smaller than 6 inches and not be permitted outright.
Chair Stevens opened the Public Hearing.
Nick McIntyre stated the developer would use option to survey smaller trees to provide more
natural environment.
Amy Lynn Payne stated additional options to allow existing remaining trees to be counted as credit
is supported.
Staff reviewed the option of allowing trees planted on residential lots as on-site replacement trees.
Staff reviewed requirements and processes impacted, possible solutions and alternative options.
Committee stated most lots are designed knowing where the footprint on the building will be
located to ensure lot is buildable. It was also stated that generally it appears it would require
additional review and tracking by staff, and lack of control. Tree planted in the ROW could be
allowed to be used to meet the landscape requirements of the residential lot.
Amy Lynn Payne stated Builder standards is to plant 2, 3+ in trees on every lot, 4 on corner lots
which is required in building contracts, deed restrictions.
Chair Stevens closed the Public Hearing.
Committee stated planting strip between curb and sidewalk needs to b e wide enough to avoid
conflicts with public improvements (sidewalks, curbs, utilities) It was also stated the City of
Leander takes on additional burden to include in inspection of house.
Staff asked the Committee for further direction for staff and what additional information is needed
to bring back to the next meeting. The Committee directed staff to explore partial credit, case
studies and review payments into the tree fund. Also, Committee directed staff to investigate
spacing requirements and varieties of trees to prevent colliding canopies and ensure long lasting
trees.
G. Update on the Unified Development Code (UDC) amendment process, and the 202 1 UDC Annual
Review Plan, Schedule and Next Steps -- Andreina Dávila-Quintero, AICP, Current Planning
Manager
Staff stated they will continue to finalize the tree preservation and landscaping standards to bring
forward to the City Council. Staff is also working internally with group homes, street cross section
Page 10 of 78
UDC Advisory Committee 4
April 14, 2021
requirements and will bring those items back to the UDC. Staff will also be working with Building
Permits on sign ordinance specifically as it relates to digital signage.
Adjournment Motion to adjourn at 5:32 p.m.
_____________________________________ __________________________________
PJ Stevens, Attest Attest, Phillip Wanke, Secretary
Page 11 of 78
City of Georgetown, Texas
Unified Development Code Advisory Committee
May 12, 2021
S UB J E C T:
Dis cus s io n and pos s ible d irectio n o n a prop o s ed Text Amendment to the Unified Development C o d e
(UDC ) relating to the Tree P res ervatio n and Land s caping s tand ard s spec ific ally as it pertains to tree
mitigation req uirements (U DC G eneral Amendment No . 20-03) -- S teve Mc Keo wn, Landsc ap e P lanner,
Ethan Harwell, S enior P lanner, and And reina 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 ounc il direc ted s taff to review the C ity’s tree pres ervation and land s caping
s tand ard s as a p art o f the 2020 UDC Annual R eview C ycle. T he p urpose of thes e revis io ns is to address
amb iguity, c onflic ts with other code s ectio ns , and challenges found in its implementatio n o n s everal
d evelopment projec ts . Tree P res ervatio n s tandards are part of the C ity’s develo p ment standards fo r
s ubdivis io ns and develo p ment of p ro p erty. Lands c ap ing standards as part o f the C ity’s zoning standards
fo r develo p ment o f 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 res ervatio n, R emoval and Mitigatio n;
2. S treetyard s , G ateways and P arking lands c ap e s tandards; and
3. S creening and Water C ons ervatio n.
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 C ommittee
meetings on O ctober 14, N ovember 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.
B etween January 19 and F ebruary 5, 2021, the C ity accepted feedback from developers, property owners
and other stakeholders on the proposed amendments. C omments 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 M arch 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.
F ollowing the review of current state law and city requirements, other nearby cities requirements, and
impacted processes with the U D C AC, city staff has identified possible terms that may be incorporated into
the U D C to address the two (2) additional issues identified by the C ity Council. T he possible terms include:
Allow existing trees smaller than 6 inches, but no smaller than 3 inches, to be counted as credit trees
when the following conditions are met:
T rees must meet the locational requirements (i.e. undisturbed areas);
Page 12 of 78
Trees mus t be in good health and within o r near a group of trees ;
Trees ' full C ritic al R oot Zone s hall not be imp acted from cons truc tion; and
Trees may b e c o unted at a reduc ed mitigatio n ratio o f 0.5:1 inc h ratio .
Allo w new trees p lanted on residential lots to be used fo r mitigatio n when the fo llo wing cond itions
are met:
New tree mus t b e a minimum 3-inc h c alip er
Maximum 3 inches of credit per lot
No mo re than 30% o f to tal mitigatio n may b e met through on-s ite replac ement trees on
res idential lo ts
May not c o unt toward s meeting lands c ap e requirements
May o nly be used o n p ro p erty s ubjec t to a R esidential Build ing P ermit
T he purp o s e o f this item is to valid ate the pro p o s ed terms and disc uss additio nal o p tions that may be
cons id ered prio r to drafting c o d e language.
F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
No ne s tud ied 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:
D escription Type
Attachment I - Specific lis t of Is s ues to be addres s ed Backup Material
Attachment II - Summary of Dis cus s ions (Sep to Dec 2020)Backup Material
Attachment III - Summary of Propos ed Terms Backup Material
Attachment IV - Es s ential Terms Backup Material
Attachment V - Public Comments Backup Material
Attachment VI - Summary of Dis cus s ions (Apr 2021)Backup Material
Pres entation Pres entation
Page 13 of 78
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 78
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 78
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 78
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 78
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 78
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 78
• 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 78
• 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 78
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 78
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 78
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 78
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 78
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 78
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 78
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 78
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 78
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 78
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 78
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 78
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 78
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 78
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 78
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 78
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 78
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 78
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 78
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 78
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 78
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 78
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 78
Page 44 of 78
Page 45 of 78
Page 46 of 78
Page 47 of 78
Page 48 of 78
Page 49 of 78
Page 1 of 2
UDCAC April 14, 2021 Summary Discussion
TP.11.1 Discussion
Discussion:
• Gtown typically has a lot of trees compared to other cities.
• Generally speaking allowing to go smaller provides additional options and ability to save more natural trees.
• Should not go smaller than 3 inches.
• Best to include an either/or option
• Cost is more to survey additional trees.
• How often has the development community
requested trees smaller than 6 inches to be
considered?
• Alternative approval process to allow smaller than
6 inches and not be permitted by right.
• Public comments:
• Developer would use option to survey smaller
trees to provide more natural environment
• Additional options to allow existing remaining
trees to be counted as credit is supported
Follow Up Needed:
•
Direction on Proposed Solutions:
• Provide an alternative approval process to be considered on a case by case basis
• Give as an option, if necessary
• Trees may not be smaller than 3 inches
TP.11.2 Discussion
Discussion:
• Most lots are designed knowing where the footprint of the building will be located to ensure lot is buildable.
• Generally it appears it would require additional review and tracking by staff, and lack of control
• Tree planted in the ROW could be allowed to be used to meet the landscape requirements of the residential lot.
• What option is more commonly used? How often is the planting option used vs payment of fee?
• Most common use payment of fee
Follow Up Needed:
• Explore partial credit
• Case studies – check impact on real world projects
• Review payments into the Tree Fund
• Look at spacing requirements and varieties of trees; prevent colliding canopies; ensure long lasting trees
Page 50 of 78
Page 2 of 2
TP.11.2 Discussion
Planting strip between curb and sidewalk needs to be
wide enough to avoid conflicts with public
improvements (sidewalks, curbs, utilities) - I.e.
Georgetown Village.
City of Leander takes on the additional burden to
include in inspection of house.
Agree with comment that more trees are better.
Consider affordability issue.
Public Comments:
• BM builder standard is to plant 2, 3-in trees on every lot, 4 on corner lots - required in building contracts, deed restrictions
• Option should include property in the ETJ
• Options that encourage more trees and preservation of additional trees should be encouraged.
Direction on Proposed Solutions:
• Partial credit for additional trees
Page 51 of 78
1
Tree Preservation and
Landscape Standards
Adjustments and Clean-up
UDC Advisory Committee
May 12, 2021
Page 52 of 78
2
Purpose
•Discussion on possible amendments to the Unified Development Code (UDC) related to tree mitigation options.
Page 53 of 78
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 54 of 78
11
Single-Family Residential Mitigation Requirements
Issue:Explore the option of allowing trees planted on residential lots as on-site replacement trees.
Mitigation Required:
•Only required to protect and mitigate for Heritage Trees.
•26”+ Varieties of Oak, Bald Cypress, American Elm, Cedar Elm, Pecan, Walnut, Texas Ash, or Southern Magnolia.
•Mitigation Ratio = 3:1
Mitigation Options:
•On-site Plantings
•Allowed in common areas like (open space/landscape lots, HOA amenities, ROW, parkland dedication, etc.)
•Aeration & Fertilization
•Up to 30% of required mitigation can be satisfied.
•Fee-in-lieu
•Recommendation $200 per inch →$225
•Off-site plantings
•Public parks, GISD property, etc.
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 55 of 78
13
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 56 of 78
14
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 57 of 78
18
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 78
19
TP.11.1 –Tree Mitigation Options
Issue:Consider allowing existing trees with a DBH smaller than 6 inches as credit trees for mitigation purposes.
Proposed Terms:1.Trees smaller than 6 inches, but no smaller than 3 inches at 4.5 feet above ground, may be counted as on-site credit provided the following standards are met:a.Trees shall must meet the locational requirements (i.e. undisturbed areas);b.Trees shall be in good health and within or near a group of trees;c.Trees full Critical Root Zone shall not be impacted from construction; andd.Trees may be counted at a reduced mitigation ratio of 0.5:1 inch ratio.
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 59 of 78
20Page 60 of 78
21
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 61 of 78
22
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 62 of 78
23
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 63 of 78
24
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 or fee-in-lieu.
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 64 of 78
25
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 or fee-in-lieu.
City Allow on-site plantings
trees on residential lots
Requirements/policies
for enforcement
Counted towards
landscape requirements
Inspection
requirements/process
Austin Yes Maintenance agreement and
CCRs with approval process
Yes Final Inspection of home
Cedar Park Yes Only plantings above
requirements
No Final Inspection/CO
Leander No n/a n/a n/a
San Marcos No, but do have a Street Tree
requirement
No No Acceptance of Improvements
Pflugerville Yes Beyond min. requirements No CO
Kyle Not addressed by Code Coordinated with amenity
Requirements
Required trees are above and
beyond min requirements
CO
Page 65 of 78
26
Example A –96-lot subdivision, 32 acres, NW quadrant
Inches of
Heritage Trees
Removed
Types of
Mitigation
Ability to plant
on site
On-site replacement
trees provided
Required on-site
inches to satisfy
mitigation
Cost associated with
on-site replacements
(≈$350/inch)
32 Fee-in-lieu ($6,400)No 0 96 $33,600
Page 66 of 78
27
Example B –65-lot subdivision, 15 acres, NW quadrant
Inches of
Heritage Trees
Removed
Types of
Mitigation
Ability to plant
on site
On-site replacement
trees provided
Required on-site
inches to satisfy
mitigation
Cost associated with
on-site replacements
(≈$350/inch)
26 Fee-in-lieu ($1,840)
Aeration/Fertilization
Yes 9 78 $27,300
Page 67 of 78
28
Example C –96-lot subdivision, 20 acres, NW quadrant
Inches of
Heritage Trees
Removed
Types of
Mitigation
Ability to plant
on site
On-site replacement
trees provided
Required on-site
inches to satisfy
mitigation
Cost associated with
on-site replacements
(≈$350/inch)
364.5 Fee-in-lieu ($39,430)
Aeration/Fertilization
Yes 58 1,094 $382,725
Page 68 of 78
29
Example D –254-lot subdivision, 77 acres, SE quadrant
Inches of
Heritage Trees
Removed
Types of
Mitigation
Ability to plant
on site
On-site replacement
trees provided
Required on-site
inches to satisfy
mitigation
Cost associated with
on-site replacements
(≈$350/inch)
0 None Yes 0 0 $0
Page 69 of 78
30
Example E –151-lot subdivision, 59 acres, SW quadrant
Inches of
Heritage Trees
Removed
Types of
Mitigation
Ability to plant
on site
On-site replacement
trees provided
Required on-site
inches to satisfy
mitigation
Cost associated with
on-site replacements
(≈$350/inch)
425 Fee-in-lieu ($85,000)Yes 0 1,275 $446,250
Page 70 of 78
35
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 71 of 78
36
TP.11.2 –Tree Mitigation Options
Issue:Explore the option of allowing trees planted on residential lots as on-site replacement trees.
How should credit be determined?A.By inch.i.Ex. A 1:1 ratio = 3” of credit for a 3” treeii.Ex. A 0.5 ratio = 1.5” of credit for a 3” treeB.A set amount per tree.i.Ex. 3” per tree (a 3”, 4”, 5” tree)
Considerations:
•How can maintenance of the tree be guaranteed?
•What size of planting or level of maintenance is roughly proportional to the impact removing the original Heritage 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 72 of 78
37
TP.11.2 –Tree Mitigation Options
Issue:Explore the option of allowing trees planted on residential lots as on-site replacement trees.
How much credit should be given per lot?A.No limit. Trees should just be spaced appropriately –30' on center.B.Set maximum amount of credit by inch.
Considerations:
•How many trees are appropriate?
•How can this be scaled to fit different sized lots?
•How might this be equitably applied?
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 73 of 78
38
TP.11.2 –Tree Mitigation Options
Issue:Explore the option of allowing trees planted on residential lots as on-site replacement trees.
How much of the mitigation owed should trees on residential lots account for?A.No limit. As much credit as can be earned can be applied.B.A percentage of the total mitigation. i.Ex. 30% of total mitigation
Considerations:
•What size of planting or level of maintenance is roughly proportional to the impact removing the original Heritage Tree?
•Common area plantings are also available.
•Will there be an overall increase in the amount of trees in the final product?
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 74 of 78
39
TP.11.2 –Tree Mitigation Options
Issue:Explore the option of allowing trees planted on residential lots as on-site replacement trees.
Proposed Terms:1.Allow new trees planted on residential lots to be used for mitigation when the following conditions are met:a.New tree must be a minimum 3-inch caliper b.Maximum 3 inches of credit per lotc.No more than 30% of total mitigation may be met through on-site replacement trees on residential lots d.May not count towards meeting landscape requirementse.May only be used on property subject to a Residential Building Permit
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 75 of 78
40
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 76 of 78
41
Requested Feedback
•Do you concur with the proposed terms?
•What additional information/resources do you need for the next meeting?
Page 77 of 78
City of Georgetown, Texas
Unified Development Code Advisory Committee
May 12, 2021
S UB J E C T:
Up d ate o n the Unified Development C o d e (UDC ) amend ment proc es s , and the 2020 UDC Annual
R eview P lan, S c hedule and Next S teps -- And reina Dávila-Q uintero, AI C P, C urrent P lanning Manager
IT E M S UMMARY:
T he purp o s e o f this item is to disc uss the Unified Development C o d e (UDC ) amend ment proc es s ,
and p ro vide an up d ate o n the UDC Annual R eview P lan, tentative s ched ule and next step s . In additio n,
C ity S taff and memb ers of the UDC AC will dis c us s the tas ks id entified at the previo us meeting, as well as
new tas ks to be c ompleted for the next meeting. F eedbac k and information rec eived o n each tas k will b e
inc o rp o rated when related UDC topic s are s c heduled and presented fo r dis c us s io n.
F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
No ne s tud ied at this time.
S UB MIT T E D B Y:
Andreina Dávila-Q uintero, AI C P, C urrent P lanning Manager
Page 78 of 78