Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Historic Preservation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Factory Building 1 cleanup: DRC generally supports removal of nonhistoric equipment, debate continues over replacing metal roof with shingles
Summary
Holiday Properties sought feedback on removing nonhistoric exterior equipment and on replacing the painted standing‑seam roof at Building 1, 230 Franklin Road; staff cited historic photos showing a shingle roof and recommended renderings and material samples.
Holiday Properties and design team members presented a multi‑part cleanup and repair program for Building 1 at the Factory campus (230 Franklin Road). The scope includes removal of nonhistoric green awnings, exterior kitchen and HVAC equipment, a walk‑in cooler and other accretions; replacement of a failing mechanical screen with corrugated black metal matching other campus elements; in‑kind repair and replacement of deteriorated siding/columns/windows; and replacement of the presently painted standing‑seam metal roof.
Staff said the 1997 National Register documentation and historic photography show Building 1 historically had an asphalt shingle roof. That made roof material the central debate: the applicant proposed a dark‑bronze standing‑seam metal roof to match the industrial campus palette and for long‑term durability; staff and several committee members noted the guidelines recommend preserving or replacing with materials that match historic composition and appearance (i.e., shingles). Other committee members and the applicant argued that standing‑seam metal has been in place for nearly three decades, is found across the campus, and changing back to shingles could be counter‑productive to overall campus coherence.
Commissioners otherwise welcomed removal of the nonhistoric awnings and kitchen equipment and supported replacement of the deteriorated mechanical screen with a corrugated black metal screen similar to other campus screens. Staff suggested limited repair (replace single panes where damaged) rather than wholesale window replacement where feasible, and urged applicants to present masonry/brick or standing‑seam samples and a rendering showing shingle vs. metal options for the roof. Committee members also urged the applicant to coordinate tenant improvements (which are expected) with the landlord‑led work so that future tenant changes align with the campus aesthetic.
No formal decision on the roof or COA was made; staff recommended the applicant return with material samples and renderings, and indicated the project will return to the Historic Zoning Commission for formal action when the application is complete.
