Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Major Redevelopment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Factory redevelopment: DRC probes thin‑brick panels, mechanical screening and a wider hotel canopy; zoning limits accent materials
Summary
Designers showed updated hotel, parking structure and service‑area plans for the Factory site; staff warned the combination of concrete banding and metal panels would push accent materials above the zoning limit and commissioners asked for on‑site mockups and revised façade plans.
Designers for the Factory redevelopment presented an updated package that included material studies for a new hotel façade, a multi‑story parking structure, mechanical equipment sight lines and refuse locations.
Project lead Benton Smothers and the design team showed a detailed window‑module study, new canopy (marquee) options for the hotel drop‑off and a material study that tested a thin‑brick face integrated into structural precast panels as an alternative to conventional full‑bed masonry. The team also outlined locations for rooftop mechanical equipment on the new parking deck and precise siting for two refuse enclosures, including a compactor adjacent to the garage and a smaller enclosure serving the hotel back‑of‑house area.
Staff told the committee the zoning ordinance requires rooftop mechanical equipment to be fully screened from adjacent streets or internal drives and asked the team to verify whether the proposed rooftop units would be visible and to provide the screening approach. Staff also flagged a regulatory threshold: the zoning code limits accent materials to 25% of the net façade, and staff’s tabulation showed that adding the proposed concrete banding to the metal panels on some facades would raise accent materials to 32–43% on individual elevations — above the permitted maximum. “The zoning ordinance limits accent materials to 25% of the net facade,” staff said, and asked the team to restudy banding locations and material percentages so the structure complies.
Commissioners focused discussion on three topics. First, the marquee/canopy at the hotel entrance: several members said the narrower, shallower canopy that marks the principal drop‑off reads better than a full‑width heavy canopy and recommended the team show a centered, proportionate option and a version that is symmetric across the entry to minimize visual weight. Second, rooftop mechanicals: staff required either full parapet screening or a black/dark screening element to hide equipment; the team was asked to provide equipment specs and to meet with building‑services staff to confirm exhaust and clearance requirements. Third, the parking‑structure cladding: the design team argued the thin‑brick precast option would match the campus’s overall tone while offering faster installation and better control joints. Designers presented samples and on‑site mockups; applicant representatives said the thin‑brick panels can be detailed so that control joints align with concrete banding and read as a coherent field.
Several commissioners remained skeptical about thin‑brick panels because the site is bounded by historic brick buildings; they asked for comparisons with full‑thickness brick and for additional mockups showing corner returns and joint details. Commissioner Madeline asked for clear drawings showing where concrete banding appears relative to window heads and sills on adjacent historic buildings so the committee can evaluate vertical alignment. The committee asked the team to provide material mockups on site and to rework the parking‑structure elevations so accent materials meet code limits or to show how banding might be reallocated to reduce the percent of non‑brick accents.
No formal decision was taken. The design team was instructed to return with full material samples, manufacturer specifications for rooftop units and a revised façade plan that addresses the zoning percentage limit and shows the parking structure’s return corners and joint detailing.
