Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board clears revised, smaller event space on East 13th with lighting condition
Summary
The board approved a redesigned, smaller standalone event space on East 13th Avenue with a condition that staff approve added rear lighting for safety.
Get email alerts on the Land Use Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The University District Review Board approved a revised, reduced-size standalone event space on East 13th Avenue on Jan. 23, imposing a staff-approval condition requiring at least one light on the rear elevation for safety.
Staff reported the project is a redesign of a plan previously approved in 2023; the new proposal trims gross floor area from roughly 6,810 square feet to about 3,300 square feet, drops a rooftop patio and eliminates a previously proposed second-floor connection between two structures. Staff recommended approval with conditions to recess or cover the main entrance and to add lighting to the rear of the building for safety.
The applicant said rising construction costs prompted the smaller, single‑story masonry design and that the revised structure is an enclosed, lower‑occupancy venue. As the applicant described the change: “The smaller footprint reduces the gross area from about 6,810 square feet to 3,300 square feet,” and the design retains a curved roof silhouette and a large glazed opening required by zoning.
One Committee member commented, “I think it’s a nice design. Honestly, I like it a little better than the previous one,” while other members emphasized enlivening the rear facade and agreed with staff’s lighting recommendation.
Mister Fleming (Committee member) moved approval with the condition that staff approve lighting on the rear elevation; another board member seconded. The motion carried on recorded votes by members present.
Staff will review the rear lighting detail and the applicant will supply the lighting plan as a condition of approval. The board discussed recessing or covering the main entrance but did not require an awning if the applicant can demonstrate an alternate approach that meets staff’s safety guidance.

