Georgetown staff propose UDC changes to boost tree preservation, adjust impervious-cover rules and add traffic-calming requirements

Planning staff presented a package of proposed Unified Development Code (UDC) amendments to the City Council steering committee and asked for council feedback on tree-preservation credits, impervious-cover standards and circulation requirements.

Sofia (UDC project lead) said the steering committee reviewed draft language over several meetings and recommended changes intended to increase incentives for preserving trees and to improve administrative clarity. "The goals that we have been working towards have been to enhance incentives for retaining trees and planting new trees, improve readability and process associated with tree preservation," she said.

The measures under consideration and council questions included:

Tree preservation (Chapter 8) - On-site credit trees: the draft raises the allowable mitigation credit for existing protected trees from 75% to 100% in some cases, letting preserved on-site trees count fully toward mitigation obligations. - Heritage-tree credit: the draft proposes a 3:1 credit for heritage-tree inches preserved in excess of 50% of heritage inches on a site; the extra credit applies only when a site preserves more than half of its heritage tree inches. - Planted-tree credit: trees planted from the city's approved plant list would count toward mitigation (the draft would no longer limit credit to only plantings above a residential minimum). - Floodplain and invasive-species discussion: council members and developers debated whether trees in floodplain areas should receive full mitigation credit. Some developers argued that without credit they would remove floodplain trees during grading; some council members and staff suggested targeted removal of invasive species (e.g., cedar, mesquite) in low areas to protect valuable oaks and provide mitigation credit for that removal. - Mitigation options: the steering committee recommended removing the strict rank order of mitigation steps so applicants could pursue the options most appropriate for a site (planting, structural protections, soil aeration, or, as last resort, payment in lieu). Steering-committee members and councilors emphasized that payment in lieu should remain a last resort because it is typically the most expensive option.

Impervious cover (Chapter 11) - Pools: the steering committee recommended counting pool water surface area as 100% impervious surface for the purposes of lot-level impervious calculations (decking and patios around pools remain counted separately). Staff noted other nearby jurisdictions treat pools this way and cited practical problems that occur when homeowners have no remaining impervious capacity for a pool. - Small-lot products: the draft increases impervious-cover allowances for some attached products (townhomes and duplexes) and proposes conditional higher allowances for certain multifamily urban products, with the higher allowance tied to adoption of corresponding multifamily development standards. - Applicability: staff clarified that the changes apply to new development and that building permits for retrofits will still require lot-level impervious calculations.

Pedestrian and vehicle circulation (Chapter 12) - Traffic calming: the draft specifies horizontal traffic-calming devices (curb extensions, bulb-outs, chicanes, roundabouts and similar features) and establishes block-length intervals that would trigger a requirement to provide some traffic-calming treatment as part of new development or when new local streets are created. - Turn-lane and deceleration requirements: developments that add a driveway or street connection to a roadway shown on the future mobility plan would be required to provide deceleration or left-turn lanes as appropriate. - School zones: new school developments would be required to provide signage, flashing beacons, crosswalks and sidewalk connectivity where applicable.

Council-level discussion - School-district exemption: the steering committee did not reach consensus on whether Georgetown Independent School District (GISD) should be exempt from portions of the UDC. Committee votes split, and councilors debated two approaches: (1) include a code exemption for GISD (or for all ISDs in the city's jurisdiction), or (2) handle exemptions through an interlocal agreement (ILA) between the city and any exempting ISD. Several council members said an ILA would be a cleaner way to make specific arrangements with school districts while preserving the UDC for other users. - Administrative clarity and enforcement: council members and staff discussed the need to streamline disagreement processes (for example, when an applicant's arborist and the city arborist disagree on whether a tree can be saved) so project timelines do not stall.

Staff said they will research two follow-ups requested by council: (1) adding mitigation credit for removing invasive species that threaten heritage trees and (2) comparing impervious-cover proposals to U.S. Green Building Council guidance. If council concurs, staff planned to advance the package for public hearings and formal ordinance drafting.