Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Virginian Lodge Employee Housing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Design Review Committee continues Virginian Lodge employee housing project for more design work
Summary
The committee unanimously continued final review of a 32‑unit modular apartment proposal at the Virginian Lodge (P25‑232, 750 West Broadway) citing concerns about connectivity, placemaking, entries and overall character; staff and applicant will return with revisions.
On Jan. 14 the Design Review Committee voted unanimously to continue final review of P25‑232, a proposed four‑building, 32‑unit apartment project in the southeastern corner of the Virginian Lodge property at 750 West Broadway.
Planning staff (Tyler Valentine) described the submission as a final development plan that lacked material samples for this meeting and noted several site constraints, including an existing pathway/sewer easement along the south property boundary. Applicant Hal Hutchinson (for Virginian Lodge LLC) said the modular project totals roughly 15,000 square feet across four buildings and would provide 32 rental units intended primarily for employee housing (24 first‑floor one‑bedroom units and eight second‑floor two‑bedroom units). He told the committee the four buildings add 16 parking spaces while the project requires 36, and that the overall Virginian site contains 247 spaces; the applicant said identified snow‑storage areas exceed the requirement and that ADA adjustments could be made if required at the permit stage.
Committee members raised multiple design concerns: the development reads as inward‑facing and disconnected from the public realm, circulation to the second‑floor units relies on a single centralized landing, there is limited common outdoor space, and the modular buildings do not clearly relate to the historic character of the Virginian Lodge. Members recommended more attention to entry sequencing, pedestrian connectivity and placemaking, and some suggested color/material choices that would better tie the new buildings to the existing property. There was debate about whether remaining issues could be resolved by conditions, but the committee concluded more substantive revision was required and moved to continue the item for further design work.
A motion to continue the application was made, seconded, and carried unanimously (6‑0). Staff indicated the item will return to the committee when the applicant submits revised plans and final materials.
