2025 Tree and Landscaping Subcommittee Revision List (Draft)

[Jeff Hewgley]

Commissioners,

In support of Action Item VI.1 on the agenda for our 2/12/2026 P&Z Commission meeting, I’ve attached the list of issues and recommendations developed by the 2025 Tree and Landscaping Subcommittee. After we review and reach consensus on these proposed changes, I recommend that we direct staff to incorporate them into an updated ordinance draft for our subsequent review, refinement, and eventual referral to the City Council.

I’m happy to walk us through the document during the 2/12/2026 meeting and continue the discussion here on the board. Thank you for your time and engagement.

 

[Dave Stewart]

Hi Jeff,

There needs to be a minimum soil depth for sod yards in the landscaping. It was addressed in the WCP about 8 years ago. Sodded yards should also be required to use drought tolerent grasses.

Dave

 

[Lynda Aird]

Commissioners,

In support of Action Item VI.1 on the agenda for our 2/12/2026 P&Z Commission meeting, I’ve attached the list of issues and recommendations developed by the 2025 Tree and Landscaping Subcommittee. After we review and reach consensus on these proposed changes, I recommend that we direct staff to incorporate them into an updated ordinance draft for our subsequent review, refinement, and eventual referral to the City Council.

I’m happy to walk us through the document during the 2/12/2026 meeting and continue the discussion here on the board. Thank you for your time and engagement.

Thank you for the recommendations - I've noted some comments, questions and council members' previous input - (would not "post" my file is "too large")

 

[Jeff Hewgley]

Hi Jeff,

There needs to be a minimum soil depth for sod yards in the landscaping. It was addressed in the WCP about 8 years ago. Sodded yards should also be required to use drought tolerent grasses.

Dave

Thanks for bringing up the sod depth for sod yards.

I also think we should require lawn grasses/covers that are drought tolerant. The current ordinance recommends drought tolerant native grasses such as Buffalo Grass but does not require them.

 

[Jeff Hewgley]

Commissioners,

As a quick update ahead of tonight’s meeting: for our discussion of the proposed Tree and Landscaping Ordinance revisions, I’m prepared to walk us through the document page by page, or we can move through the recommendations by exception—whichever approach the Commission prefers.

I also want to flag a timing concern. With new development applications on the horizon, time is of the essence if we want meaningful protections in place for our existing tree canopy. With that in mind, the original idea of sending the full set of recommendations to staff for drafting may not be the most efficient path for the immediate need.

Instead, I’d like to suggest that we identify the top several revisions in the document that are most important, most impactful, and least complex and refer those directly to City Council for prompt consideration. We can then return to the remaining recommendations in future meetings and work with staff on additional ordinance updates. The following are the top items I propose we try to move forward with tonight. The numbering matches that of the attached recommendations.

• (Not in proposed changes document) Refine definition of allowed uses of funds from fees in lieu of tree replacement.
  Current: If it is not possible or feasible to provide for the replacement of the total number of inches of protected trees to be removed, the owner or controlling agent of the property shall pay a fee to the City of Lago Vista in lieu of tree replacement in accordance with Appendix A, Fee Schedule. Any such fees collected by the City shall be placed in a special fund and the use of these funds shall be restricted for the planting of trees or other greenery, for development or improvements of trails, or for development or improvement of pocket parks as determined by the City Council.
• 10. Raise fees in lieu of mitigation (Protected tree replacement fee)
  Current: $250.00 per inch, with a maximum of $10,000 for one or two-family residential properties.
  Cedar Park: $450 per inch for protected trees 26 inches or more in diameter 1 foot above the ground, $300 per inch for 19- to 25.9-inch trees, $150 per inch for 8- to 18.9-inch trees.
  Proposed: $450 per inch for protected trees 26 inches or more in diameter 1 foot above the ground, $300 per inch for 19- to 25.9-inch trees, $150 per inch for 6 to 18.9-inch trees. Maximum of $50,000 for individual one or two-family residential properties.
• 9. Add requirement for posting signage before removing trees.
  Proposed: $200 per sign. (ex. Flower Mound)
• 3.b. Requiring a permit for removal of any trees at any time – to prevent clearing of trees from land not related to development. Tree protections must apply to all properties whether they are currently being developed or not.
• 5. Change definition of “Protected Tree”:
  Current: “Protected Tree” shall mean any tree, except an ashe juniper with a main trunk diameter of ten (10) inches or larger measured at forty (40) inches above ground.
  Proposed: “Protected Tree” shall mean any Native Tree with a main trunk diameter of six (6) inches or larger measured at forty (40) inches above ground.
• 15.Increase minimum size of replacement trees
  Current: minimum of two (2) inches caliper measured forty (40) inches from the ground and six (6) feet in height when planted.
  Proposed: minimum of two (3) inches caliper measured forty (40) inches from the ground and six (8) feet in height when planted.
• (Not in proposed changes document) Add an exemption for one or two-family residential properties, which have been issued a certificate of occupancy, from all tree-related restrictions.

I look forward to discussing this with you all tonight.