Commission recommends approval of Addison Junction transit‑oriented development concept plan

The Addison Planning and Zoning Commission on Jan. 20 recommended approval of a preliminary plan and rezoning for Addison Junction, a transit‑oriented mixed‑use project that staff and the developer presented as a multi‑phase concept for land surrounding Addison Circle Park.

Leslie Knipe, Director of Development and Neighborhood Services, summarized the site’s history and the town’s prior planning work. She said the town began assembling land around Addison Circle Park in the 1990s and that a 2018 Addison Circle special area study had identified three broad development options. “This concept plan includes things like hotel, two parking garages, office, as well as a variety of entertainment, retail and restaurant spaces,” Knipe said. The staff presentation described a concept that includes a roughly 150‑room boutique, full‑service hotel (seven stories with an attached five‑level garage), a small indoor/outdoor entertainment facility, a trio of retail buildings for a ‘‘farmers market’’ concept (≈11,000 sq ft total), a two‑story 12,000 sq ft hangar‑style retail/restaurant building, and a six‑story hybrid mass‑timber office of about 155,000 sq ft with a connected six‑level parking structure.

Staff told commissioners the proposed zoning largely aligns with the town’s M4 (Mixed Use Center) district but requests several targeted deviations: allowing a full‑service boutique hotel, defining an indoor/outdoor entertainment/event facility, relief from the build‑to range in some frontages, and other use‑specific allowances. Staff also noted several standards that would be more restrictive than the UDC, including roof‑mounted mechanicals and consolidated solid‑waste strategies to protect the pedestrian experience. Knipe said the applicant and town had negotiated a master development agreement and that the current request is for preliminary plan development entitlements and concept plan approval; if the commission recommends approval, the matter will proceed to city council and, if approved there, return to the commission and council for final plan development approval before any construction permits are issued.

Commissioners questioned parking counts, trip generation and traffic thresholds. Staff said the concept requires 1,180 parking spaces per the unified development code’s calculations; the applicant proposes 1,377 spaces across garages, surface and street parking (about 117% of required parking). Staff added that if the surface parking between the retail cluster and entertainment facility were ultimately replaced by future development, the plan would still provide about 1,279 spaces (≈108%). Becky Divini, director of public works and engineering, explained that the town uses the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) trip generation rates and that the project did not meet the town’s current thresholds for a full traffic impact analysis (about 1,000 trips per day). Knipe also noted a Part 77 study will be required at the building permit phase to evaluate building height for airport safety; because no residential uses are proposed, FAA noise‑contour residential limits did not apply to this concept.

Wayne Emerson, director of economic development, said the town commissioned a hotel market study with Quadrant Investment Partners (QIP) and contacted local hotels, including the Renaissance and Courtyard, which provided generally positive feedback about the entertainment component and potential weekday demand. Chad Cook, a developer representative, described financial and programmatic reasons for avoiding deep underground parking and said the plan intentionally provides more parking at opening to support patron access with the option to redevelop surface parking later as demand and transit use evolve. On venue scale, Cook said a potential small concert tenant might want a space for about 200–300 people; the team did not expect stadium‑scale events at this site.

The public hearing produced no speakers in person or online. A commissioner moved to recommend approval of Case 1947 with staff’s two recommended conditions: that development be executed according to the attached concept plan, permitted uses and development standards and definitive agreements, and that final plan development site plan approval be completed before issuance of any construction permit for site infrastructure. The motion was seconded and passed by voice vote; the transcript does not show a roll‑call tally.

If the council adopts the commission’s recommendation, the developer and town would return to the commission and council with final plan development submittals and the usual technical reviews before any permits are issued.