Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Commercial Development Factory topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Design review focuses on parking garage materials, parapet screening and hotel detailing at Factory campus (230 Franklin Road)
Summary
The Design Review Committee reviewed proposed parking garage, refuse enclosure and hotel designs at The Factory campus and asked applicants for more detail on brick systems, joint spacing, parapet screening and hotel base and window detailing.
Representatives for The Factory campus presented proposed designs for a parking garage, refuse enclosures and a hotel on the site at 230 Franklin Road. The applicants discussed two facade approaches for the garage — a panelized thin‑set brick solution and a traditional stacked brick — and showed parapet and material studies intended to illustrate how parked cars would be visually screened from Franklin Road.
Applicants argued the thin‑set, factory‑cast brick panels would reduce on‑site scaffolding and construction impacts where the new garage sits adjacent to historic masonry buildings (Buildings 3 and 5). They said the thin panels can be finished with varied mortar/joint profiles and distressed faces to better match historic masonry while limiting disruption to adjacent structures. Staff and several DRC members cautioned that introducing a new, panelized product into the historic overlay requires careful justification; staff noted spacing of movement joints differs by system and requested details about panel joints and soldier coursing.
On the parapet and visible rooftop, applicants showed a metal parapet and a study with modeled cars to demonstrate that taller vehicles might still be glimpsed. The team proposed compact parking stalls along the Franklin Road‑facing level to limit large vehicle visibility and recommended a metal parapet/architectural metal paneling to coordinate with other factory campus materials. Staff asked for material percentages per facade (zoning limits metal paneling as an accent) and requested additional detail on intended mortar/joint profile.
For refuse enclosures, the team proposed sliding doors rather than swinging doors; the DRC favored sliding doors for operational resilience in tight drive aisles and to reduce recurring damage from refuse truck contact.
On the hotel, the applicants proposed brick and metal materials, a recessed base element, aluminum commercial windows with narrow muntins, a standing‑seam metal roof in a complementary color rather than exposed corrugated fastened roof panels, and a mechanical‑screening strategy set back from parapets to reduce the need to raise parapet heights. Staff asked for quantified amounts of metal paneling (zoning limit 25% per facade), more elevations and a clearer base detail; commissioners also asked the hotel team to study the cube element so it appears as assembled window units with structural separation rather than a single curtain wall.
Commissioners and staff expressed mixed reactions to the thin‑set brick panels: some praised the reduced construction impact adjacent to historic masonry and the potential for controlled joints and weathering; others worried about precedent in the historic overlay and asked for typical installation details and interval of movement joints. Several members favored the traditional brick on highly visible facades but acknowledged the panel system could be appropriate in constrained back‑of‑house locations.
No formal vote was taken. The DRC asked the applicants to provide additional material samples, joint/movement‑joint details, elevations showing panel spacing and pilaster rhythms, roof color samples, and refined mechanical screening drawings for the hotel and garage before returning for a follow‑up review.
