Addison staff presents draft Unified Development Code; council questions parking, trees, lighting and signage

At a work session, staff presented a draft Unified Development Code, or UDC, that would consolidate development rules and add new requirements for circulation, parking, landscaping, exterior lighting and signs.

The draft matters because it would change how the town reviews and enforces development across multiple districts and would allow future text amendments only through the town’s normal public hearing processes. Leslie Hancock, a planning staff member presenting the draft, said the UDC “is really focused on implementing various multimodal opportunities” and emphasized new pedestrian and cross‑access standards to reduce conflicts between vehicles and people.

Staff told the council the UDC carries forward existing code enforcement procedures (notice of violation, roughly 10 days to cure, fines and escalation for public‑safety risks) while consolidating enforcement into the unified document. Hancock said zoning text amendments would still require two public hearings — first the Planning and Zoning Commission and then the city council — and public notice “per state law,” including notice to properties within 200 feet of affected parcels.

On circulation and pedestrian access, the UDC would require sidewalks on both sides of arterial and collector streets in Addison and add minimum sidewalk widths and crosswalk design standards. Hancock said the code would also require internal pedestrian access through large parking areas and a separate pedestrian entrance for parking garages.

The draft reduces several minimum parking ratios while adding alternative compliance options. Hancock gave the example that, under the current code, restaurants require one parking space per 70 square feet; the draft would change that metric to one per 100 square feet. To offset lower minimums the UDC adds shared‑parking agreements, proximity-to-transit reductions and parking‑demand studies as ways to right‑size parking. The draft proposes a 20% reduction for properties within a quarter‑mile of a commuter or light‑rail stop (the Silver Line), though staff said some residents urged expanding that buffer to a half‑mile; Planning and Zoning recommended keeping the quarter‑mile standard.

Councilmembers asked several pointed questions. One councilmember warned of a “slippery slope” if property owners reduce parking and then overfill centers with multiple high‑demand uses; another asked whether lower parking minimums would make Addison less competitive than neighboring locations. Staff repeatedly stressed that shared parking and demand studies are intended to allow compatible uses with offsetting peak hours (the presenter cited an example where restaurants and offices used the same supply at different times) and said variances remain available through the Board of Zoning Adjustment for individual cases.

On technology and sustainability, the draft introduces EV‑charging requirements for nonresidential sites with larger parking supplies and proposes a cap on maximum parking so sites cannot build unlimited spaces. Hancock said the EV standard would not apply to existing developments built before adoption. Staff did not provide a firm numeric table for every EV scenario in the presentation; where the transcript was unclear, the article notes the requirement as “proposed, not specified.”

Landscape and tree‑protection rules were expanded. The draft continues a 20% open‑space standard for many nonresidential, non‑mixed‑use developments but applies more urban landscaping standards in mixed‑use areas (street trees, smaller urban open spaces). The UDC increases tree‑replacement ratios: protected trees (4–19 caliper inches) remain 1:1, “significant trees” require roughly 1.5:1 replacement and heritage trees (30 caliper inches or greater) would require 1:2 replacement and additional council review for removals. Parks Director Janet Tugel confirmed that the town requires stump grinding and restoration of the site when the town’s right‑of‑way trees are removed.

A new exterior‑lighting article would assign maximum light‑level districts and set pole‑height limits, glare controls and separate standards for pedestrian, parking‑lot and canopy lighting. Staff said light levels will be measured with a light meter and enforced through site plan review and inspection; they also discussed a potential requirement that designated pedestrian paths be provided with a minimum level of security lighting.

Sign regulations were reorganized and clarified. The draft carries forward many existing prohibitions (off‑premise billboards, mobile and animated signs) and creates a consolidated set of temporary‑sign rules. Hancock reviewed the election‑sign provision: temporary “election event” signs would be allowed up to 60 days before an election and must be removed within two days after the election; staff said the draft sets a 36‑square‑foot maximum area and an 8‑foot maximum height for those temporary signs and requires placement behind sidewalks where sidewalks exist. The draft also keeps a 10% window‑coverage limit for storefront glazing (signs covering glazing areas) though councilmembers asked staff to explore options that would treat heavily glazed storefronts and low‑glazing storefronts more equitably.

The UDC includes a nonconformities article and staff said previously approved planned developments would remain as planned developments rather than be rezoned. Staff told council they have prepared maps and will provide additional analysis to show where site features might be nonconforming under the draft, but they did not present a parcel‑by‑parcel count at the meeting.

Council direction and next steps: staff said the UDC is on an adoption timeline that could bring an adoption ordinance to council for consideration on March 25; staff asked the council for guidance on several policy choices, including whether to expand the transit proximity zone from a quarter‑mile to a half‑mile, and whether to allow additional temporary sidewalk signage for multi‑tenant centers. Hancock closed by saying staff will return with refinements and additional comparative charts if council wants them.

The work session included a lengthy question‑and‑answer period; several councilmembers requested side‑by‑side comparisons and more data on how the proposed standards would affect parking supply and redevelopment costs. The draft remains under review and staff will return with revisions and additional materials before final action.