Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Mixed Use Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Design Review Committee gives cautious nod to 318 Franklin Road mixed‑use plan but urges changes to scale facing Morningside Drive
Summary
Developers presented a preliminary recommendation package for a mixed‑use development at 318 Franklin Road. Staff and committee members generally supported the approach but urged additional detail on heights, materials and stronger stepping and buffering where taller buildings meet mid‑century houses on Morningside Drive.
Developers seeking a preliminary Historic Zoning Commission recommendation for the mixed‑use proposal at 318 Franklin Road presented updated massing and architecture intended to respond to feedback from a prior DRC meeting and a site visit. The parcel includes land behind the Franklin Road hilltop and several properties fronting Harpeth Industrial Court; parts of the site are inside the Franklin Road Historic District.
Presenters said they had converted a previously‑proposed multifamily building at the north edge to ground‑floor commercial with residential above, lowered roof pitches and adjusted massing so buildings nearest Franklin Road would remain two stories and buildings closer to the railroad could reach three stories consistent with Envision Franklin guidance. The team said the development would preserve the hilltop and its trees, include a pocket park and a pedestrian connection to a parking structure and provide rooftop patios on some buildings.
City staff reminded the committee that DRC review for a preliminary recommendation examines building locations, streetscape rhythm, lot widths and building type, height, massing and parking. Staff requested explicit height dimensions, noting that the Envision Franklin plan calls for a two‑story maximum within 507 feet of Franklin Road and three stories from 700 feet to the railroad; staff also noted the factory campus industrial vocabulary influenced the proposed materials and that more elevations were needed to understand relationship to adjacent houses on Morningside Drive.
Several commissioners said they were pleased the hilltop would be preserved. Others voiced concern about the 3‑story building closest to Morningside Drive. Commissioner Lisa said the massing “is almost shockingly in contrast” with the smaller mid‑century duplexes on Morningside and requested stronger step‑downs or added buffering. Commissioners asked for sections showing grade relationships, clearer elevations facing Morningside Drive and comparisons to nearby buildings so the commission could assess whether the proposed three‑story elements are sympathetic to adjacent residences.
Applicants said the 3‑story elements adjacent to Morningside were stepped back and that some parts of the development are outside the historic overlay. Staff and commissioners asked the team to continue refining massing, reducing repetitive horizontal rhythms on long facades, and limiting heavy, industrial ornament that could create a false sense of history. The committee did not take a formal vote on a preliminary recommendation; staff said the submittal could be advanced to planning commission with DRC guidance but requested more measured heights and facade detail for a future Historic Zoning Commission recommendation and final COA review.
