[ Pledge of Allegiance]
[00:00:08]
AND TO THE REPUBLIC, ONE NATION THE MINUTES
[1. Consider Action on the Minutes from the August 17, 2021 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting.]
FROM OUR AUGUST MEETING ARE IN YOUR PACKET.ARE THERE ANY ADDITIONS OR CORRECTIONS? CAN I HEAR A MOTION FOR APPROVAL MOTION? ALL IN FAVOR OPPOSED? NO MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY.
[2. Hold a Public Hearing, Present, Discuss, and Consider Action on a Recommendation regarding an Ordinance Amending Planned Development (PD) District Ordinance O20-54 for a 2.034-Acre Property Located at 3820 Belt Line Road, to Modify Minimum Lot Size Requirements and to Establish Future Cross-Access Requirements. Case 1838-Z/3820 Belt Line Road.]
CASE FOR THE EAP IS A RECOMMENDATION.WE'RE FINDING AN ORDINANCE AMENDING PLANS, DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT ORDINANCE OF TWO ZERO DASH 5 4 4 A 2.034 ACRE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 38 20 BELTLINE ROAD TO MODIFY MINIMUM LOT SIZE REQUIREMENTS AND TO ESTABLISH FEATURE COSTS, ACCESS REQUIREMENTS.
WE HAVE THE CHAKRA GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS CAN SCHMIDT DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES FOR THE TOWN OF ADDISON.
THIS REQUEST, UH, TONIGHT IS FOR, UH, TO AMEND A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT ORDINANCE OH 25 4 TO MODIFY MINIMUM LOT SIZE REQUIREMENTS AND DO ESTABLISH FEATURE CROSS ACCESS REQUIREMENTS.
UH, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 38 20 BELTLINE ROAD.
UH, IT IS AT THE, UH, SOUTH EAST CORNER OF BELTLINE ROAD AND BUSINESS AVENUE.
SO THIS PROPERTY, UH, WAS, UH, REZONINGS PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT.
UH, INITIALLY IN 1993, AS AN OUT PARCEL OF THE ADDISON TOWNS UNDER DEVELOPMENT, UH, IN 2020, UH, THE COMMISSION, UH, AND COUNCIL ULTIMATELY APPROVES A REQUEST TO REZONE, UH, TWO MAIN PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT WITH MODIFIED BELTLINE DISTRICT STANDARDS, UH, TO FACILITATE THE DEVELOPMENT OF A STORY-BUILDING, UH, WITH OFFICE AND RETAIL USE ON THE EAST SIDE OF THIS 2.03, FOUR ACRE LOT, UH, CURRENTLY, UH, THE SITE, UH, REMAINS INACTIVE.
UH, THE, UH, BUILDING THAT AS PROPOSED WITH THAT, UH, 20, 20 REZONING HAS NOT BEEN CONSTRUCTED.
AND THERE IS AN EXISTING RESTAURANT ON THE WESTERN PORTION OF THE SITE OF FORMER HUMPERDINCK STROUT.
UM, THAT, UH, FACILITY HAS BEEN VACANT SINCE 2017.
SO THE PURPOSE OF THIS REQUEST, UH, REALLY IT WOULD, IT COMPRISES TWO COMPONENTS.
ONE OF WHICH WAS PRESENTED BY THE APPLICANT AND ONE, WHICH WAS A RECOMMENDATION OF SET BY STAFF AS A RESULT OF THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST.
SO THE APPLICANT HAS REQUESTED TO REMOVE THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE REQUIREMENTS THAT WERE ESTABLISHED, UH, WITH THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT REZONING IN 2020 WITH THAT DISTRICT, UH, THE TOWN, UH, ESTABLISHED A MINIMUM LOT SIZE OF 2.03, FOUR ACRES, UH, THAT IS THE CURRENT SIZE OF THE EXISTING LAWN.
SO EFFECTIVELY, UH, THE PURPOSE OF THAT LOCK THAT REQUIREMENT WAS TO PREVENT FUTURE SUBDIVISION OF THE PROPERTY, UH, FOR STAFF, UM, AS A CONDITION OF THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, UH, WE WOULD WANT TO SEE A CONDITION PLACED IN THIS PD ADDRESSING CROSS ACCESS BETWEEN ANY LOTS THAT WERE CREATED AS A RESULT OF, UH, THE SUBDIVISION CURRENTLY, UH, THIS LOT HAS ACT DIRECT ACCESS TO BUSINESS AVENUE TO THE WEST, AND IT HAS ACCESS TO COMMERCIAL DRIVE TO THE EAST THROUGH ANOTHER PROPERTY THAT ALSO HAS AN ACCESS EASEMENT.
UM, IF, UH, THIS LOT, UH, OR SOME DIVIDED INTO MULTIPLE LOTS, UM, YOU COULD BE RADICALLY HAVE SAME AREAS WHERE, UM, ONE OR BOTH LOTS DID NOT RETAIN BOTH OF THOSE ACCESS POINTS.
SO IT WILL BE ATTENTIVE, UH, REQUIRING THEM TO HAVE A CROSS ACCESS EASEMENT WOULD ALLOW THEM TO, UH, ANY NEW PROPERTIES TO RETAIN ACCESS TO EACH OF THOSE ACCESS POINTS, WHICH WOULD ALLOW THEM DIRECT ACCESS, UH, TO, TO SIGNALIZE INTERSECTIONS, UH, FURTHER THAT WOULD PREVENT THE MEANS FOR ANY NEW ACCESS DRIVES ON BELTLINE ROAD.
UH, GIVEN THAT THERE ARE TWO NEARBY POINTS OF ACCESS TO BELTLINE ROAD, UH, THAT WOULD BE AN UNNECESSARY,
[00:05:01]
UH, BREAK IN THE BELTLINE STREET FRONTAGE.AND IT WOULD ALSO, UM, CREATE POTENTIAL TRAFFIC ISSUES GIVEN THAT SO CLOSE TO TWO EXISTING INTERSECTIONS.
ADDITIONALLY, YOU WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO HAVE A LEFT TURN OUT OF ANY NEW, UM, ACCESS DRIVE FROM THIS SITE ON THE BELTLINE DUE TO THE, THE MEDIAN AND BELTLINE ROAD.
SO WITH THE REZONING OF THIS PROPERTY TO A PD, BASED ON THE BELTLINE DISTRICT STANDARDS, REALLY THE INTENT OF THAT WAS TO FACILITATE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE BELTLINE DISTRICT VISION.
SO THAT VISION WAS ADOPTED BY THE TALENT IN 2006, UH, IT INCLUDED A PLANNING FRAMEWORK, BUT THEN ALSO A ZONING DISTRICT CALLED THE BELTLINE DISTRICT.
UM, THE BELTLINE DISTRICT IS A FORM-BASED CODE DISTRICT, AND IT'S REALLY INTENDED, UH, TO ESTABLISH, UM, UH, CHARACTER, UH, AND FORMED STANDARDS VERSUS, UH, RELYING ON MORE PRESCRIPTIVES ON REQUIREMENTS SUCH AS LOT SIZE.
REALLY THE INTENT OF A FORM-BASED CODE IS TO, TO FOCUS ON THE ESTABLISHMENT OF AN URBAN BLOCK PATTERN, UH, PRIMARILY THROUGH THE ESTABLISHMENT OF URBAN BLOCKS THAT AREN'T DIVIDED UP BY INDIVIDUAL ACCESS DRIVES AND HAVE CONTINUOUS BUILDING FRONTAGE ALONG THOSE BLOCKS.
THE BELTLINE CORRIDOR IS A VERY SUBURBAN AUTO ORIENTED CORRIDOR.
SO IMPLEMENTATION OF THE BELTLINE DISTRICT IS, IS SOMETHING THAT IS REALLY, UH, A LONG-TERM PROPOSITION.
UH, WE HAVE MANY, UH, MUCH OF THE CORRIDOR REMAINS VERY HEALTHY.
SO THERE IS NOT A LOT OF MARKET SUPPORT FOR TRANSFORMATIONAL CHANGE, UH, WHERE THERE HAS BEEN TRANSFORMATIONAL CHANGE.
UM, UH, WE'VE SEEN DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS THAT ARE, UH, SIMILAR TO THE INTENT OF THE BELTLINE DISTRICT, BUT STILL THE TOWN HAS HAD A VERY LIMITED APPLICATION OF ACTUALLY IMPLEMENTING THE BELTLINE DISTRICT ON THE ONLY PROPERTY IN THE TOWN THAT HAS DEVELOPED UNDER THE BELTLINE DISTRICT STANDARDS IS THE AS VERY SIMPLE NEIGHBORHOOD IMMEDIATELY TO THE EAST OF THE SITE.
UH, HERE ON THIS SLIDE, YOU HAVE THE BELTLINE DISTRICT GOALS.
I PROVIDED THOSE IT'S JUST TO PROVIDE A FLAVOR OF THE, THE, THE INTENT OF THAT DISTRICT.
AND THEN ON THIS NEXT SLIDE, YOU HAVE AN INTENT STATEMENT, A SERIES OF INTENT STATEMENTS, AND THE ONES I HIGHLIGHTED AND READ I THINK ARE REALLY APPLICABLE TO THIS CASE.
AND IT REALLY SPEAKS TO THE ATTEMPT OF THAT DISTRICT AND CREATING A MORE URBAN FORM AND NOT REALLY CARRYING FORWARD THE EXISTING PATTERN AND THE BELTLINE CORRIDOR, WHERE YOU HAVE, UM, A FAIR AMOUNT OF SURFACE PARKING AND PAD SITE TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT.
SO, AND THEN THIS SLIDE SHOWS THE, UH, FRAMEWORK PLAN THAT WAS ADOPTED WITH THE, THE BELTLINE, UH, DISTRICT, UH, ZONING STANDARDS.
SO AS YOU CAN SEE, IT'S QUITE EXTENSIVE AND COVERS, UH, UH, THE ENTIRE CORRIDOR.
UM, YOU CAN'T REALLY SEE IT HERE, BUT, UH, THERE ACTUALLY, UH, A FOCUS AREA, UH, OF THIS PLAN THAT WAS, UH, ESSENTIALLY CENTERED, RIGHT, RIGHT ON THE PARCELS THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT.
SO IT HASN'T BEEN IMPLEMENTED ON THESE PARCELS.
SO, UM, WITH REGARDS TO THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE REQUIREMENT, ONCE AGAIN, THIS IS A VERY, UH, ATYPICAL, UH, REQUIREMENT FOR COMMERCIALLY ZONED PROPERTIES, UH, BOTH IN ADDISON, AS WELL AS OTHER COMMUNITIES.
UH, I'M NOT AWARE OF ANY OTHER ADDISON DISTRICTS THAT REGULATE MINIMUM LOT SIZE FOR COMMERCIALLY ZONED PROPERTIES.
AND THIS IS INCLUSIVE OF ADDISON IS THEY ESTABLISHED DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS.
SO MINIMUM LOT WITH MINIMUM LOT DEPTH, MINIMUM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS.
AND REALLY THE PURPOSE OF THAT IS TO ENSURE THAT LOTS THAT GET CREATED THROUGH THE ZONING AND SOUTHERN DIVISION PROCESS ARE, ARE DEVELOPABLE.
UH, YOU DON'T WANT TO CREATE LOTS THAT YOU COULDN'T PROVIDE ACCESS TO MINISTRY, OR IT'S NOT WIDE ENOUGH TO SUPPORT A BUILDING.
SO THAT'S REALLY THE INTENT HAVING A REQUIREMENT THAT A LAW IS OVER TWO ACRES IN SIZE.
IT IS UNUSUAL, VERY UNUSUAL FOR COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES.
UM, THE OTHER THING I WOULD HIGHLIGHT IS ONCE AGAIN, THAT THE BELTLINE DISTRICT ITSELF IS SILENT ON LOT SIZE.
SO THIS WASN'T SOMETHING THAT WAS COMING DIRECTLY FROM THE DISTRICT STANDARDS.
IT REALLY WAS INTENDED TO TRY TO MEET THE INTENT OF THE PLAN AND NOT PROVIDE FOR FURTHER SUBDIVISION OF LAND, MAKING IT MORE COMPLICATED TO, TO FACILITATE REDEVELOPMENT.
[00:10:01]
SAY THAT THAT THE REZONING WAS APPROPRIATE BECAUSE IT, IT FACILITATED REINVESTMENT IN AN AREA THAT A PROPERTY, I SHOULDN'T SAY THAT IS STRUGGLING VACANT RESTAURANT FOR NOW FOUR PLUS YEARS.ANY INVESTMENT IN THAT PARCEL, UH, CERTAINLY IS POSITIVE, PROVIDED THAT IT IS SOMETHING THAT IS QUALITY AND, AND GENERALLY MEETS THE INTENT OF THAT CORRIDOR.
BUT TO SAY THAT A RETAIL PAD SITE WITH OFFICE, UM, FULLY MEETS THE INTENT OF THE BELTLINE DISTRICT VISION, IT IS PROBABLY, UM, UH, NOT CORRECT.
UM, SO WHAT I WOULD SAY IS IT WAS A GOOD REQUEST, BUT ALSO, UH, TO BE EQUITABLE AS IT RELATES TO SOME DIVISION AND, UH, EXPECTATIONS FOR COMMERCIAL PROPERTY OWNERS ELIMINATING THIS MINIMUM LOT SIZE REQUIREMENT WOULD BE EQUITABLE AS WELL TO FACILITATE FURTHER INVESTMENT IN THIS PROPERTY.
UM, SO WITH THE CROSS ACCESS REQUIREMENT, I TOUCH ON A LOT OF THIS EARLIER.
IT'S, IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE'LL BE ADDRESSING WITH THE UDC.
SO IT'S A REQUIREMENT VERSUS US HAVING TO STIPULATE IT VIA PDS.
UH, BUT ONCE AGAIN, IT'S NECESSARY AND IT WILL ALLOW FOR, UM, UH, MORE ORDERLY DEVELOPMENT AND REDEVELOPMENT AND SUBDIVISION OF THIS LAND IN THE FUTURE.
SO IT WOULD BE IMPORTANT TO THIS REQUEST.
UH, STAFF DID, UH, NOTICE THIS CASE IN ACCORDANCE WITH TOWN AND STATE LAW AND 18 ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS RECEIVED NOTICE.
UM, WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY RESPONSES TO THAT NOTICE AT THIS TIME, UH, STAFF DOES RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THEIR REQUEST AND THE APPLICANT IS WITH US, UM, WITH HEISENBERG, UH, FROM, UH, KOHLER ENGINEERING, SEEDED REPRESENTING HIS CLIENTS, GREG SCOTTY OF WISCONSIN DEVELOPMENTS.
IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF OR FOR, WITH ISO HAVING TO ADDRESS THIS, YOU SAID TO BUY THE PROPERTY, THEN YOU ALLOW FOR THE CROSS ACCESS, DO YOU LOSE ANY PARKING? SO THE PATHOGEN, IF THEY WERE TO SUBDIVIDE THIS LAW IN THE FUTURE, IT WOULD HAVE TO COMPLY WITH ALL REQUIREMENTS OF THE PDS ZONING DISTRICTS THAT WAS PREVIOUSLY APPROVED.
SO IF THEY DID NOT, UH, PROVIDE FOR ENOUGH PARKING THAT EXISTS ALREADY ON THAT LOT ON EACH LOT, THEN THE SUBDIVISION COULD NOT BE APPROVED JUST SUBDIVIDING.
THE LOT WOULD NOT RESULT IN ANY NEEDED IMPROVEMENTS.
IT'S, IT'S ESSENTIALLY JUST DIVIDING THE LAND.
IF THEY WERE TO PROPOSE REDEVELOPMENT OR CHANGE THEIR DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR THAT MIDDLEMAN OR FOR THE HUMPER NEXT BUILDING, THEN PARKING COULD BE POTENTIALLY LOST.
UH, BUT REGARDLESS IF THEY CREATE LOTS WHERE ONE OF THOSE BUILDINGS ARE ON EACH LOT, THE EACH LOT HAS THE, HAVE THE REQUIRED PARKING REQUIREMENTS.
THAT'S SORT OF WHAT I WAS GOING, BECAUSE I WOULD HATE TO RESTRICT THE USES OF THIS BUILDING TO BE BUILT BECAUSE YOU GET INTO A POSITION WHERE THERE WOULD NOT BE AN APARTMENT SUPPORT, SECOND RESTAURANT ON THAT SPACE.
SO THEY DON'T CURRENT HAVE ANY, UM, ENTITLEMENTS TO DO IT A SECOND RESTAURANT, UM, ON THAT PROPERTY.
SO THEY JUST LIKE ANY OTHER RESTAURANT, THEY WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH AN SEP PROCESS TO DO THAT.
SO THEY WOULD HAVE TO MEET THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR THE CURRENT RESTAURANT SPACE, WHICH IS VERY LARGE, SO PRETTY EXPENSIVE PARKING REQUIREMENTS.
THE LIKELIHOOD OF THAT, CONTINUING AS A RESTAURANT IN ITS CURRENT FORM IS LOW.
IT COULD REDEVELOP IN THE FUTURE AS A RESTAURANT, BUT REGARDLESS THEY WILL HAVE TO MEET THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR ALL OF THEIR USES, UH, WHETHER THEY SUBDIVIDE OR, OR THEY KEEP THE CURRENT LOT DISPOSITION.
SO KEN, JUST SO I'M CLEAR, THIS REQUEST IS SIMPLY TO, UH, DO AWAY WITH THE SIDES AND JUST GIVE THE APPLICANT THE OPTION OF AT SOME POINT SUBDIVIDING.
HE MAY, HE MAY NOT, THEY MAY NOT EVER SUBDIVIDE IF THEY DO, THEY HAVE TO COMPLY WITH, WITH EDS, EVERYTHING ELSE OUT THERE.
THE, THE ONE THAT I DO RECALL A LOT OF DISCUSSION ON AND DO THE HUMPERDINCK SIDE OF THE PROPERTY.
AND THAT WAS BECAUSE THEY WEREN'T GOING TO BE ABLE TO COMPLY WITH MASTER TRANSPORTATION THAT STILL DOESN'T GO AWAY.
SO WHATEVER THEY COME BACK WITH THERE, THEY ARE GOING TO HAVE TO CONTINUE TO COMPLY WITH PARKING REQUIREMENTS, THE MASTER TRANSPORTATION PLAN, AND PERHAPS SOME PART OF THE HAWAIIAN VISION.
BUT THE ONLY THING THAT CHANGES AS IT RELATES TO THIS PD, IF THIS WAS APPROVED IS THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE REQUIREMENT AND REQUIRING TO HAVE CROSS ACCESS.
[00:15:01]
WE HAD NO IDEA WHAT POTENTIAL CROSS TRANSPORTATION LOOK LIKE OR WHAT, HOW TO MAKE SPLIT THIS THING UP.THEY'RE DEFINITELY TO BE DETERMINED.
I DON'T KNOW IF THEY WILL EVEN PURSUE IT.
I THINK THE PRIMARY THING IS BECAUSE HE'S HAD SUCH CHALLENGES WITH SPECIFICALLY THE HUMPER NEXT COMPONENT OF THE LOT.
HE WANTS TO RETAIN ALL OPTIONS TO, TO, UH, FOR HIS INVESTMENT.
WOULD THE APPLICANT LIKE TO SPEAK ONLY IF THERE'S QUESTIONS? ALRIGHT.
IN THAT CASE, I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.
I ASSUME WE HAD NO ONE TO SPEAK.
I AM NOT AWARE OF ANYONE THAT HAS ASKED TO SPEAK AND NO ONE, NO ONE IS SUBMITTING TALENTS.
AND THEN I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND ENTERTAIN A MOTION, UH, 1833 C SLASH
UM, THAT MOTION, CAN YOU REPEAT THAT, SIR? SURE.
I MOVED THAT WE APPROVED, I APPROVED CASE 1838 DASH C SLASH 30 20 STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS.
POSABLE AMENDMENT DOES NOT MATERIALLY ALTER ANY OF THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED.
SO DISTRICT OH 24 ASSOCIATED PD GOT APPROVAL, ANY OPPOSED MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY.
[3. Hold a Public Hearing, Present, Discuss, and Consider Action on a Recommendation regarding an Ordinance Changing the Zoning on a 2.99-Acre Properties Located at 4150 Kellway Circle, from Industrial-1 (I-1) to Planned Development (PD) District with Modified I-1 District Regulations. Case 1831-Z/4150 Kellway Circle.]
PACE FOR THE EVENING IS, UM, TO HOLD LOOKING FOR IT.HERE WE ARE WITH A PUBLIC HEARING, PRESENT, DISCUSS AND CONSIDER ACTION ON A RECOMMENDATION REGARDING ORDINANCE CHANGING THE ZONING ON A 2.99 ACRE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 41 50 CALLAWAY CIRCLE FROM INDUSTRIAL TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT WITH MODIFIED DISTRICT REGULATIONS.
UM, WE UNDERSTAND FROM STAFF THAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO, TO TABLE THIS AND BRING IT TO US NEXT TIME.
UM, CANVAS THERE ANYTHING FURTHER THAT YOU NEED TO TELL US AT THIS POINT? NO, UH, STAFF AND THE APPLICANT IS STILL WORKING THROUGH, UM, UH, COMPONENTS OF THE APPLICATION AND, UH, BASED ON THAT, UH, ONGOING DIALOGUE.
DID REQUEST A TABLE TO THE OCTOBER 19 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING.
UH, ALSO WITH THIS APPLICATION, UH, STAFF, UH, UH, NEEDS TO CORRECT SOME DEFICIENCIES IN THE TEXT OF THE NOTICE.
UM, AS YOU CAN SEE, UH, WITH THIS IMAGE, UH, THAT THE, THE MAP IS, IS APPROPRIATELY DISPLAYING THE SUBJECT OF THE, UH, PLAIN DEVELOPMENT REQUEST.
BUT, UM, THERE IS SOME NEED TO CLEAN UP THE LANGUAGE AND THE TEXT TO CLARIFY THAT IT IS ADDRESSING, UH, TWO LOGS AND NOT ACTUALLY ONE LOCKED TO THAT.
SO THE BENEFIT TO THAT AS WELL WILL BE THAT, UH, ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS WILL RECEIVE ADDITIONAL NOTICE THAT THE CASE IS DELAYED AND IT WILL BE ADDRESSED BY THE COMMISSION IN OCTOBER.
IF THE COMMISSION APPROVES THIS REQUEST, CAN I HEAR A MOTION TO TABLE? RIGHT? IS THERE A SECOND? ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE, OPPOSED MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY.
WE WILL SEE EVERYBODY IN OUR COVER MEETINGS.