- Messages
- 18,376
- Points
- 67
I just sent an applicant my draft staff report for a themed chain sit-down restaurant proposed in the municipality where I worked. The applicant made some changes to their prototype design, but they stood pat on a few issues that seem minor, mostly involving our four-sided design requirements. They are:
1) Incorporation of mullions into the windows.
2) Adding some pilasters to add visual interest to side walls.
3) Adding brick patterns that resemble window casements or surrounds to continue a fenestration pattern, and
4) Adding details to the service entrance doors to match the level of detail on the main entrance door.
5) Elimination of wall-pack lighting in the dumpster area.
These seemed like fairly minor issues, expecially compared to the changes they did make ... incorporation of brick, eliminarion of neon building outline bands, changing the roof color and materials, and so on. They did make some major changes to their prototype (a Western/icehouse theme steakhouse), but the end result still wasn't up to the standards seen from other freestanding restaurants in the area.
Unfortunately, I had to recommend denial in my staff report. I said
"The proposed design is an improvement over the standard (name of chain) prototype building design, but in the opinion of Planning staff it does not comply with the Commercial Building Appearance Guidelines, and is not designed with the same attention to detail as other freestanding restaurants in the vicinity."
I just got off the phone with the developer's representative. They might pull out of the project ... all over a few details of four-sided design. Why? Because planners in other cities might see the changes that were made here, and demand similar concessions in their towns. "If you can incorporate pilasters on all elevations in (my town), Kansas, why can't you do it here?"
I'm going to stick to my decision, despite the chain's threat of cancelling the project. Every time I've heard a chain say they were pulling out of a project because of design issues, it never really happens; they come back a month later. (Only once in my career, many moons ago, did a chain drop its plans and never return; it was a low-end motel that insisted on high-rise signs for all their locations. They applied for a variance, I recomended denial, they threatened to set up shop in sign-happy El Paso instead, and the BoA said "go right ahead.")
Still, though, the fear of formula businesses is real; if I put up a really nice building in community X, I'll have to do it everywhere now. We're making some progress, folks.
1) Incorporation of mullions into the windows.
2) Adding some pilasters to add visual interest to side walls.
3) Adding brick patterns that resemble window casements or surrounds to continue a fenestration pattern, and
4) Adding details to the service entrance doors to match the level of detail on the main entrance door.
5) Elimination of wall-pack lighting in the dumpster area.
These seemed like fairly minor issues, expecially compared to the changes they did make ... incorporation of brick, eliminarion of neon building outline bands, changing the roof color and materials, and so on. They did make some major changes to their prototype (a Western/icehouse theme steakhouse), but the end result still wasn't up to the standards seen from other freestanding restaurants in the area.
Unfortunately, I had to recommend denial in my staff report. I said
"The proposed design is an improvement over the standard (name of chain) prototype building design, but in the opinion of Planning staff it does not comply with the Commercial Building Appearance Guidelines, and is not designed with the same attention to detail as other freestanding restaurants in the vicinity."
I just got off the phone with the developer's representative. They might pull out of the project ... all over a few details of four-sided design. Why? Because planners in other cities might see the changes that were made here, and demand similar concessions in their towns. "If you can incorporate pilasters on all elevations in (my town), Kansas, why can't you do it here?"
I'm going to stick to my decision, despite the chain's threat of cancelling the project. Every time I've heard a chain say they were pulling out of a project because of design issues, it never really happens; they come back a month later. (Only once in my career, many moons ago, did a chain drop its plans and never return; it was a low-end motel that insisted on high-rise signs for all their locations. They applied for a variance, I recomended denial, they threatened to set up shop in sign-happy El Paso instead, and the BoA said "go right ahead.")
Still, though, the fear of formula businesses is real; if I put up a really nice building in community X, I'll have to do it everywhere now. We're making some progress, folks.
