HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda UDCAC 09.09.2020Notice of Meeting for the
Unified Dev elopment Code Adv isory Committee
of the City of Georgetown
September 9, 2020 at 3:30 P M
at Teleconference
T he C ity of G eorgetown is committed to compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). If you
require as s is tance in partic ipating at a public meeting due to a disability, as defined under the ADA, reas onable
as s is tance, adaptations , or ac commodations will be provided upon request. P leas e c ontact the C ity S ec retary's
O ffic e, at leas t three (3) days prior to the sc heduled meeting date, at (512) 930-3652 or C ity Hall at 808 Martin
Luther King Jr. S treet, G eorgetown, T X 78626 for additional information; T T Y users route through R elay
Texas at 711.
The r egular me eting will c onvene at 3:30 p.m. on S eptembe r 9, 2020 via
te le confe re nc e. To participate , please c opy and paste the following we blink
into your browse r:
Weblink: https://bit.ly/317l U Y X
Webinar I D: 995 3378 5336
P assword: 675042
To participate by phone:
Call in numbe r: (Toll F r ee ) 833-548-0276
P assword: 675042
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 38
Regular Session
(T his R egular S es s ion may, at any time, be rec es s ed to c onvene an Exec utive S es s ion for any purpose
authorized by the O pen Meetings Act, Texas G overnment C ode 551.)
A Discussion on how the U nified Development C ode Advisory C ommittee virtual conference will be
conducted, to include options for public comments and how the public may address the Commission -- Sofia
Nelson, C N U-A, P lanning D irector
B O n a subject not posted on the agenda: P ersons may add an item to a future B oard agenda by filing a
written request with the S taff L iaison no later than one week prior to the B oard meeting. T he request
must include the speaker's name and the specific topic to be addressed with sufficient information to
inform the board and the public. F or B oard L iaison contact information, please logon to
http://government.georgetown.org/category/boards-commissions/.
At the ti me of posti ng, no persons had si gned up to speak on i tems not on the agenda.
L egislativ e Regular Agenda
C C ons ideration and possible action to approve the minutes of the August 12, 2020 regular meetings of the
Unified Development C ode Advis ory C ommittee. - Mirna G arc ia, Management Analyst
D Disc ussion and possible direction on propos ed amendments to the Tree P reservation and Lands caping
standards of the Unified Development C ode (UDC ) partic ularly as it relates to tree pres ervation, removal
and mitigation (UDC G eneral Amendment No. 20-03) -- S teve Mc Keown, Landsc ape P lanner
E Update on the Unified Development C ode (UDC ) amendment process, and the 2020 UDC Annual
R eview P lan, S c hedule and Next S teps -- Andreina Dávila-Q uintero, AI C P, C urrent P lanning Manager
Adjournment
Ce rtificate of Posting
I, R obyn Densmore, C ity S ecretary for the C ity of G eorgetown, Texas, do hereby c ertify that this Notic e of
Meeting was posted at C ity Hall, 808 Martin Luther King Jr. S treet, G eorgetown, T X 78626, a plac e readily
acc es s ible to the general public as required by law, on the _____ day of _________________, 2020, at
__________, and remained s o posted for at leas t 72 c ontinuous hours prec eding the s cheduled time of said
meeting.
__________________________________
R obyn Dens more, C ity S ec retary
Page 2 of 38
City of Georgetown, Texas
Unified Development Code Advisory Committee
September 9, 2020
S UB J E C T:
C onsideration and pos s ible ac tion to approve the minutes of the Augus t 12, 2020 regular meetings of the
Unified Development C ode Advisory C ommittee. - Mirna G arcia, Management Analys t
IT E M S UMMARY:
F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
.
S UB MIT T E D B Y:
Mirna G arcia, Management Analys t
AT TAC H ME N T S:
Description Type
minutes Backup Material
Page 3 of 38
UDC Advisory Committee 1
August 12, 2020
City of Georgetown, Texas
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the
Unified Development Code Advisory Committee Meeting
Wednesday, August 12, 2020 at 3:30 P.M.
Teleconference meeting: https://bit.ly/3gDRdQ6
The regular meeting convened at 3:30PM on August 12, 2020 via teleconference at
https://bit.ly/3gDRdQ6. Webinar ID: 973-8589-0952. To participate by phone: call in number 833-548-0276.
Password: 408310. Public comment was allowed via the conference call number or the “ask a question”
function on the video conference option; no in-person input was allowed.
Committee Member(s) in Attendance: PJ Stevens, Chair; Brian Robinson; Stuart Garner; Jen Henderson;
Brian Ortego; Tracy Dubcak
Committee Member(s) Absent: Philip Wanke
Staff Present: Andreina Dávila-Quintero, Current Planning Manager; Mirna Garcia, Management
Analyst; Sofia Nelson, Planning Director; Steve McKeown, Landscape Planner; Ethan Harwell, Senior
Planner
Meeting called to order at 3:30 P.M.
Regular Session
A. Discussion on how the Unified Development Code Advisory Committee virtual conference will
be conducted, to include options for public comments and how the public may address the
Commission – Sofia Nelson, CNU-A, Planning Director
B. On a subject not posted on the agenda: Persons may add an item to a future Board agenda by
filing a written request with the Staff Liaison no later than one week prior to the Board meeting.
The request must include the speaker’s name and the specific topic to be addressed with
sufficient information to inform the board and the public. For Board Liaison contact
information, please log on to http://government.georgetown.org/category/boards-
commissions/.
Legislative Regular Agenda
C. Consideration and possible action to approve the minutes of the December 4, 2019 and July 8,
2020 regular meeting of the Unified Development Code Advisory Committee. – Mirna Garcia,
Management Analyst
Motion to approve the minutes of the December 4, 2019 meeting by Henderson. Second by
Dubcak. Motion to approve the minutes of the July 8, 2020 meeting by Henderson. Second
by Robinson. Approved (6-0).
Page 4 of 38
UDC Advisory Committee 2
August 12, 2020
D. Update on the Unified Development Code (UDC) amendment process, and the 2020 UDC
Annual Review Plan, Schedule and Next Steps. – Andreina Davila-Quintero, AICP, Current
Planning Manager
The purpose of this item is to discuss the Unified Development Code (UDC) amendment
process and provide an update on the UDC Annual Review Plan, tentative schedule and next
steps. In addition, City Staff and members of the UDCAC will discuss the tasks identified at the
previous meeting, as well as new tasks to be completed for the next meeting. Feedback and
information received on each task will be incorporated when related UDC topics are scheduled
and presented for discussion.
Staff seek the Committee’s feedback regarding the applicable sections of the UDC. It is helpful if
the Committee members visit sites/areas of the City to see the impact of standards, review old
cases, and bring back ideas and possible solutions to share with the Committee and staff for the
next meeting.
E. Presentation and Discussion on proposed amendments to the Unified Development Code
related to tree preservation and landscaping standards - Andreina Davila-Quintero, AICP,
Current Planning Manager
The purpose of this item is to provide an overview of the current ordinances related to tree
preservation and landscape standards, identify issues and/or opportunities for improvements,
and to overview focus areas for discussion over the review cycle.
Next steps include:
- Review of issues related to:
o tree preservation and mitigation
▪ exclusion of ornamental trees
▪ lack of guidance on DBH measurement
▪ tree mitigation options
▪ boundaries for calculating protected and heritage trees on site
additions, floodplain
▪ priority of tree protection over certain site design elements
▪ address issues with tree preservation/disease control
o Streetyards, gateways and parking
▪ conflicts between signage, utilities and easements, and landscape
requirements
▪ applicability of Gateway landscape requirements (and how these
relate to other landscape requirements)
▪ street yard requirements, particularly for projects with buildings at
great distance from the road and/or phased projects
▪ landscape requirements for inventory lots related to an auto sales use
▪ use of artificial turf for single-family residential
o Screening, buffering and water conservation
▪ Screening requirements for alternative waste containers
Page 5 of 38
UDC Advisory Committee 3
August 12, 2020
▪ Revie of current nonresidential landscaping requirements with regard
to the City’s water conservation efforts
Staff seek the Committee’s feedback on UDC landscape requirements and identify areas of
concern or interest. In addition, staff ask the Committee to observe existing landscapes
throughout the city, especially in gateways and provide comments for the next meeting on
Chapter 8 and potential solutions or discussion points.
Adjournment
Motion to adjourn by Stevens. Second by Garner. Meeting adjourned at 4:39 p.m.
_____________________________________ __________________________________
PJ Stevens, Attest Attest,
Page 6 of 38
City of Georgetown, Texas
Unified Development Code Advisory Committee
September 9, 2020
S UB J E C T:
Dis cus s ion and pos s ible direc tion on proposed amendments to the Tree P res ervation and Landsc aping
s tandards of the Unified Development C ode (UDC ) particularly as it relates to tree preservation, removal
and mitigation (UDC G eneral Amendment No. 20-03) -- S teve Mc Keown, Lands cape P lanner
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.
R elevant s ections of the UDC include, but are not limited to:
S ection 4.11, G ateway O verlay Dis tric ts
S ection 8.02, Tree P reservation & P rotection
S ection 8.03, R es idential Lands caping
S ection 8.04, Non-R esidential Landsc ape R equirements
S ection 8.05, R eview & Approval P rocess
S ection 8.06, P lant S elec tion, Ins tallation, & Maintenance
S ection 11.04, S tormwater Management S ystem R equirements
S ection 16.02, Definitions
T he purpos e of this item is to s pecific ally dis cus s the is s ues identified related to tree preservation, removal
and mitigation including but not limited to:
Tree Preservation, Removal and Mitigation
Issue No.Relevant UD C
S ection(s)
Issues Requestor
T P.01 8.02.020 C onsider es tablishing a thres hold for identifying
which multi-trunk trees must be inc luded on a
s urvey bas ed on the DBH of the largest trunk
UDC AC
T P.02 16.02 Add a definition for tree branch and tree trunk UDC AC
T P.03 16.02 Add a definition for “hardwood” and “s oftwood”
trees as some might have different interpretations
UDC AC
T P.04 8.02.020 Exc lude all c edar (ash-juniper and mountain
cedar) trees from the protec ted trees definition
UDC AC
T P.05 8.02.020 C onsider exc luding ornamental trees from the
definition of protected trees
UDC AC
T P.06 8.02.030,
8.02.040,
8.06.040, 3.23
C larify applicability of C ity approval for the
removal of protected trees within a right-of-way or
public utility eas ement and assessment of
mitigation fees.
S taff
T P.07 8.05 C onsider requiring a Tree Inventory for new
projects and phas ed projec ts whos e surveys need
S taff
Page 7 of 38
to be update after 5 and 10 years
T P.08 8.02.050 C onsider prioritizing the preservation of protec ted
trees to allow flexibility in s ite des ign elements
(I.e. parking layout, monument s ign loc ation)
S taff
T P.09 8.04.040, 8.05 C onsider es tablishing boundaries for c alculating
protec ted and heritage trees on projects (i.e.
floodplain, R O W, Limit of C onstruc tion, O verall
project, P hase or S ec tion spec ific)
S taff, P ublic
T P.10 New, 8.02, 8.05 C onsider requiring additional information on the
health of a protec ted and heritage tree to addres s
dis eas e c ontrol issues as it relates to tree
pres ervation
S taff
T P.11 8.02.040 C onsider additional options for tree mitigation S taff, P ublic
T P.12 8.06.060 C onsider altering the situations in which required
landsc aping trees c an be removed – s pecific ally
related to s ignage
S taff
In addition, we will identify possible s olutions to addres s eac h is s ue, obtain direction on pos s ible c ode
language based on the solutions identified, and what public outreach or additional information is needed to
make a rec ommendation on propos ed amendments . T he remaining items pertaining to S treetyard, G ateway
and P arking, and S c reening, Bufferyard and Water C onservation will be addres s ed at the next two
meetings.
F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
None s tudied at this time.
S UB MIT T E D B Y:
Ethan Harwell, S enior P lanner
AT TAC H ME N T S:
Description Type
Pres entation Pres entation
Page 8 of 38
1
Tree Preservation, Mitigation,
& Removal/Pruning
Adjustments and Clean-up
UDC Advisory Committee
September 9, 2020
Page 9 of 38
2
Purpose
•Review and discuss issues and possible solutions to address conflicts, ambiguity, and alternative standards relating to tree preservation, removal and mitigation.
Page 10 of 38
3
Agenda
•Review list of issues submitted by UDCAC, Public
•Discussion Tree Preservation Issues
•Identify new issues
•Discuss the issues
•What we are trying to resolve
•Background on how we got here
•What we can do to resolve the issue
•Validate solutions and direction to draft Ordinance
•Next Steps
Page 11 of 38
4
UDC Annual Review Process
Topics are introduced by City Staff & Public
City Council discussion, P&Z recommends list of amendments
City Council reviews & approves topics to be amended.
UDCAC and City Staff begin to prepare draft amendments
Public Outreach UDCAC, P&Z Make Recommendation Council Approval
5/26 06/16 07/14 08/2020
Given the COVID-19 pandemic the UDC Advisory Committee has not been meeting and have not been included in the review of the annual list of amendments.
Page 12 of 38
5
Issues Submitted
Tree Preservation, Removal, and Mitigation
Issue No.Relevant UDC Issues Requestor
T P. 0 1 8.02.020 Consider establishing a threshold for identifying which multi-trunk trees must be included on a survey based on the DBH of the largest trunk UDCAC
T P. 0 2 16.02 Add a definition for tree branch and tree trunk UDCAC
T P. 0 3 16.02 Add a definition for “hardwood” and “softwood” trees as some might have different interpretations UDCAC
T P. 0 4 8.02.020 Exclude all cedar (ash-juniper and mountain cedar) trees from the protected trees definition.UDCAC
T P. 0 5 8.02.020 Consider excluding ornamental trees from the definition of protected trees.UDCAC
T P. 0 6 8.02.030, 8.02.040, 8.06.040, 3.23 Clarify applicability of City approval for the removal of protected trees within a right-of -way or public utility easement and assessment of mitigation fees.Staff
T P. 0 7 8.05 Consider requiring a Tree Inventory for new projects and phased projects whose surveys need to be update after 5 and 10 years. Staff
Page 13 of 38
6
Tree Preservation, Removal, and Mitigation, cont’d.
Issue No.Relevant UDC Issues Requestor
T P. 0 8 8.02.050 Consider prioritizing the preservation of protected trees to allow flexibility in site design elements (I.e. parking layout, monument sign location).Staff
T P. 0 9 8.04.040, 8.05 Consider establishing boundaries for calculating protected and heritage trees on projects (i.e. floodplain, ROW, Limit of Construction, Phase or Section specific)Staff, Public
T P. 1 0 New, 8.02, 8.05 Consider requiring additional information on the health of a protected and heritage tree to address disease control issues as it relates to tree preservation.Staff
T P. 1 1 8.02.040 Consider additional options for tree mitigation.Staff, Public
T P. 1 2 8.06.060 Consider altering the situations in which required landscaping trees can be removed –specifically related to signage. Staff
Page 14 of 38
7
Streetyards, Gateways and Parking
Issue No.Relevant UDC Issues Requestor
SY.1 8.03.030 Use of artificial turf for single-family residential Public
SY.2 8.04.030 Street yard requirements, particularly for projects with buildings at great distance from the road and/or phased projects Public
SY.3 4.11, 8.04.030, 8.04.050 Applicability of Gateway landscape requirements (and how these relate to other landscape requirements)Staff
SY.4 8.04.040 Landscape requirements for inventory lots related to an auto sales use Staff, Public
SY.5 8.05, 8.06, 10, 13.03 Conflicts between signage, utilities and easements, and landscape requirements Staff, UDCAC
Screening, Buffering, & Water Conservation
Issue No.Relevant UDC Issues Requestor
SBW.1 8.04.070 Screening requirements for alternative waste containers Staff
SBW.2 New Review current nonresidential landscaping requirements with regard to the city’s water conservation efforts Public, UDCAC, P&Z
Page 15 of 38
8
Tree Preservation, Removal and Mitigation
•New issues that we have not identified?
Page 16 of 38
9
Tree Ordinance Purpose & Essential Terms
•Purpose:
•Adopted February 13th 2007, with the intent to provide environmental protection within the City’s jurisdiction through the protection of natural and ecological resources essential to the City’s health and community character.
Page 17 of 38
10
Tree Ordinance Purpose & Essential Terms
•Chapter 8 Essential Terms:
•Residential:Single-family & Two-family
•Non-residential:All other uses
•Exempt Properties:Single & Two-family lots platted prior to Feb 13, 2007
•Diameter Breast Height (DBH):A tree measurement at four and one-half feet above ground
•Critical Root Zone (CRZ):Circular region measured outward from the tree trunk identifying the essential root area that must
be protected
•Protected Tree:12” ->26”, non-excluded species
•Heritage Tree:26”+, Varieties of Oak, Pecan, Walnut, Bald Cypress, Am. Elm, Cedar Elm, Texas Ashe, Southern Magnolia
•Credit Tree:6” –>12”, non-excluded species
•Excluded Species:Hackberry, Chinaberry, Ashe Juniper (cedar), Chinese Tallow, Mesquite
Page 18 of 38
11
ISA Regulated DBH Measurement Std.
Page 19 of 38
12
TP.01 –Multi-trunk Tree DBH Threshold
Issue:Consider establishing a threshold for identifying which multi-trunk trees must be included on a survey based on the DBH of the largest trunk.
Possible Solutions:1.Continue current practices.2.Establish scale based on number of trunks and the size of the largest trunk that could easily facilitate the process to ID these trees, but require a certified arborist to complete surveys.3.Educational materials to explain and facilitate the tree survey process. Background:
•No minimum DBH threshold established for what must be measured.
•UDC measurement practices are consistent with the industry standard.
UDC Sections Affected: 8.02.020
Page 20 of 38
13
ISA Regulated DBH Measurement Std.
Page 21 of 38
14
TP.02 –Trunks, Branches, & Stems
Issue:Consider adding a definition for tree branch and tree trunk .
Possible Solutions:1.Trunka.The main woody stem of a tree, from which its branches grow.b.The main woody part of a tree beginning at the ground and extending up into the canopy from which primary branches grow.2.Primary Branches -Branches attached directly to the trunk.3.Brancha.A secondary shoot or stem arising from the main stem of a trunk.b.A stem arising from a larger stem; a subdominant or subordinate stem; the pith in true branches has no connection to the parent stem.4.Stem -Slender woody structure bearing foliage and buds that gives rise to other stems.
Background:
•Standard definitions from the International Society of Arboriculture
UDC Sections Affected:16.02
Page 22 of 38
15
TP.03 –Hardwoods vs. Softwoods
Issue:Consider adding a definition for “hardwood” and “softwood” trees as some might have different interpretations.
Possible Solutions:1.Maintain current definition of Heritage Trees which designates by species.
•Varieties of Oak:
•Live, Post, Shumard, Bur, Chinquapin, Monterey
•Bald Cypress
•American Elm
•Cedar Elm
•Pecan
•Walnut
•Texas Ash
•Southern Magnolia.2.Consider expanding Heritage Tree species list
Background:
•“Hardwood” and “softwoods” are not referenced in the UDC.
•Protected Trees are not restricted to certain species, but Heritage Trees are determined by species.
UDC Sections Affected:16.02, 8.02.020, 8.02.030
Page 23 of 38
16
TP.04 –Tree Species Excluded
Issue:Exclude all cedar (ash-juniper and mountain cedar) trees from the protected trees definition.
Possible Solutions:1.Maintain current UDC list of excluded trees. These include:
•Hackberry
•Chinaberry
•Ashe Juniper (cedar)
•Chinese Tallow
•MesquiteBackground:
•Cedar trees are not considered protected trees.
•This is a standard practice in Central Texas.
UDC Sections Affected:8.02.020
Page 24 of 38
17
TP.05 –Ornamental Trees as Protected Trees
Issue:Consider excluding ornamental trees from the definition of protected trees.
Possible Solutions:1.Continue to include ornamental trees in the definition of protected trees to allow them to be credited toward mitigation when site appropriate.2.Exclude only ornamental trees identified under Georgetown’s ‘Preferred Plant List’ as Prohibited species.
Background:
•All trees greater than 12 inches in DBH, including ornamental trees, are considered protected trees.
•In review of other cities it is not standard to consider the classification of a tree to determine if it is Protected or Heritage.
UDC Sections Affected:8.02.020
Page 25 of 38
18
TP.06 –Removals of Trees within a ROW or PUE
Issue:Clarify applicability of City approval for the removal of protected trees within a right-of -way or public utility easement and assessment of mitigation fees.
Possible Solutions:1.Add language to address the removal of Protected Trees for utility work. This may include:
•Making a recommendation that removal should be allowed for Protected Trees (current process)
•Making a recommendation that removal should be allowed for Protected Trees and mitigation fees assessed.
•Making a recommendation that stand tree protection practices should be observed around Protected Trees
Background:
•City approval is required to remove Heritage Trees from a City right-of-way and public utility easements.
•Current UDC is silent on the procedures for removal of Protected Trees in the ROW.Currently,can be processed through SDP or CON plan.
UDC Sections Affected:8.02.030, 8.02.040, 8.06.040, 3.23
Page 26 of 38
19
TP.07 –Tree Inventory Option
Issue:Consider requiring a Tree Inventory for new projects and phased projects whose surveys need to be update after 5 and 10 years.
Possible Solutions:1.Require a Tree Inventory in lieu of a Tree Survey. This would allow for a better understanding of:
•The health of a tree
•Canopy cover
•Site feasibility
•Disease hotspots in the City
•The tree’s aesthetic and environmental value
•Requests for removals 2.On long term multi-phase projects require a tree inventory to verify health of all trees originally identified as protected (i.e. Credit, Protected, & Heritage)
Background:
•Only a Tree Survey is required on applications. This only includes information on the location, size, species, and status of each tree.
•Currently, every 5 and 10 years a survey is required to update only tree sizes
•Existing phased projects are beginning to experience tree health decline which affects previously established tree preservation requirements
UDC Sections Affected:8.05 Page 27 of 38
20
TP.08 –Tree Protection as a Priority
Issue:Consider prioritizing the preservation of protected trees to allow flexibility in site design elements (I.e. parking layout, monument sign location). Clarify the existing process for Heritage Trees.
Possible Solutions:1.Clean up Heritage Tree Priority Determination process to allow to be processed as an Administrative Exception. Current UDC provision is unclear on the process and review authority. 2.Protected Trees over 20” could take priority over site features, site layout, and building design. Triggers may be determined by DBH size and groves of protected.3.Incentives:a.Square inch of canopy to square foot impervious cover. (Must meet approved installation specifications)b.Allowing of overlap between streetyard and gateway requirement (i.e. 20-25 inch protected, or grove of protected trees count toward gateway requirement)
Background:
•Preservation of heritage trees take priority over conflicting UDC development standards (i.e. setbacks, sidewalks, signage, parking, drainage criteria, etc).
•Protected Trees may take priority over the design and construction of public sidewalks.
UDC Sections Affected:3.16, 8.02.050
Page 28 of 38
21
TP.09 –Project Boundaries for Tree Preservation
Issue:Consider establishing boundaries for calculating protected and heritage trees on projects (i.e. floodplain, ROW, Limit of Construction, Phase or Section specific)
Possible Solutions:1.Exclude trees located within the 100-year floodplain from Credit Tree calculations2.Evaluate tree removal criteria to consider areas along existing and proposed roadways. Determine whether or not these trees should be considered toward mitigation credits.3.Limit only trees located within the Limit of Construction (LOC) to be included in tree preservation and mitigation calculations, when the project boundary is larger than the LOC.4.Phased projects are required to meet tree preservation and mitigation calculations independently per phase.
Background:
•Boundaries may be determined by the project or property line.
•Leander prohibits the counting of trees within the floodplain
UDC Sections Affected:8.05.010, 8.05.020
Page 29 of 38
22
TP.10 –Information on Tree Health
Issue:Consider requiring additional information on the health of a protected and heritage tree to address disease control issues as it relates to tree preservation.
Possible Solutions:1.Consider a scalable requirement for providing additional information based on:
•Acreage, lot size, project type, tree density
•Residential, Commercial
•Location within the subdivision (e.g. public parkland, along trails)
•Negotiated agreements2.Include a requirement for a geo-referenced CAD file of tree survey required to be submitted with all projects (if applicable).3.Trees on-site identified with Oak Wilt are required to be evaluated for survivability, impact to surrounding trees, and properly handled in accordance with ISA disease control standards.
Background:
•Currently, collected tree information does not include health of the tree.
•Generally considered an industry best practice
UDC Sections Affected:8.05.010
Page 30 of 38
23
TP.11 –Tree Mitigation Options
Issue:Consider additional options for tree mitigation.
Possible Solutions:1.Divide Protected Trees into two classes for the mitigation & reevaluate fees. Revaluate Heritage Tree mitigation fees.2.Increase ratio at which trees are replaced on site by inch. Currently at 2:1.3.Revise administrative process to allow removals over min. percentages of trees to remain. Consider additional fees for these removals.
4.Encourage more on-site mitigation in residential subdivisions. Planting in common spaces maintained by an HOA or other community organization or in residential streetyards.5.Allow developers to pay mitigation fees in advance, issue reimbursement for fees after on-site plants are installed/inspected.
Background:
Current options include:
•On-site replacement
•Fee-in-lieu
•Aeration & Fertilization
•Off-site replacements (not
commonly used)
UDC Sections Affected:8.02.040
Avg. Tree Density Min. % of Protected Trees to be Saved
1-10 Trees per Acre 30%
11+ Trees per Acre 20%
Page 31 of 38
24
TP.12 –Tree Mitigation Options
Issue:Consider altering the situations in which required landscaping trees can be removed –specifically related to signage.
Possible Solutions:1.Remove and replace with a tree that will reach a similar size as the removed tree in the same general area.
Background:
Current code allows for trees to be
removed in four situations, including
“[when] blocking existing signage”.
UDC Sections Affected:8.02.040
Page 32 of 38
25
TP.X –?
Issue:Possible Solutions:
Background:
UDC Sections Affected:
Page 33 of 38
26
UDC Annual Review Process
Topics are introduced by City Staff & Public
City Council discussion, P&Z recommends list of amendments
City Council reviews & approves topics to be amended.
UDCAC and City Staff begin to prepare draft amendments
Public Outreach UDCAC, P&Z Make Recommendation Council Approval
5/26 06/16 07/14 08/2020
Given the COVID-19 pandemic the UDC Advisory Committee has not been meeting and have not been included in the review of the annual list of amendments.
Page 34 of 38
27
Next Steps
Confirm direction on tree preservation, removals, and mitigation
Discuss Streetyards, Gateways, & Parking
Confirm direction on Streetyards, Gateways, & Parking
Discuss Screening, Buffering, & Water Conservation
Confirm direction on Screening, Buffering, & Water Conservation
Discuss Group Homes, Signage, UDC/IFC Conflicts on Street Sections
Confirm direction on Group Homes, Signage, UDC/IFC Conflicts on Street Sections
Review Draft Ordinance, Public Outreach Efforts
9/9
UDCAC and City Staff begin to prepare draft amendments.
10/6
Page 35 of 38
28
Call to Action (Homework)
•Review UDC landscape requirements and identify areas of concern or interest
•Observe existing landscapes as you move around the city –especially in gateways
•Bring with you to our next meeting:
•Comments on Chapter 8 (section specific)
•Potential solutions or discussion points
Page 36 of 38
29
Requested Feedback
•What additional information/resources do you need for the next meeting?
Page 37 of 38
City of Georgetown, Texas
Unified Development Code Advisory Committee
September 9, 2020
S UB J E C T:
Update on the Unified Development C ode (UDC ) amendment proc es s , and the 2020 UDC Annual
R eview P lan, S chedule and Next S teps -- Andreina Dávila-Q uintero, AI C P, C urrent P lanning Manager
IT E M S UMMARY:
T he purpos e of this item is to dis cus s the Unified Development C ode (UDC ) amendment process,
and provide an update on the UDC Annual R eview P lan, tentative s chedule and next s teps. In addition,
C ity S taff and members of the UDC AC will disc uss the tas ks identified at the previous meeting, as well as
new tas ks to be c ompleted for the next meeting. F eedbac k and information received on eac h task will be
inc orporated when related UDC topics are sc heduled and presented for disc ussion.
F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
None.
S UB MIT T E D B Y:
Andreina Dávila-Q uintero, AI C P, C urrent P lanning Manager
Page 38 of 38