Franklin DRC reviews Magnolia Hall site work, Winslow and Fair Street alterations, and a contested Main Street repainting

Franklin’s Design Review Committee met to discuss nine development and preservation items, ranging from small site features to larger additions and façade work. Commissioners examined proposed site and landscape changes at Magnolia Hall and the William Campbell House, a proposed covered breezeway and pergola at 1002 Fair Street, rehabilitation and an addition at 106 Winslow Road, an application to repaint metal panels at 98 East Main Street that has been the subject of a violation notice, roof and dormer work at 728 Fair Street, an addition and accessory-structure changes at 1008 Fair Street, and façade and accessibility work at Building 1 of the Factory at Franklin.

Why it matters: the projects are largely within or adjacent to Franklin’s local historic district. The committee’s role is advisory at this stage — the DRC provides guidance to applicants and staff on whether the proposed changes align with the city’s historic-district design guidelines and where applicants should revise designs before a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) or building permit review.

Most urgent items: the DRC gave detailed feedback — not final approvals — on several items the committee described as needing redesign or additional documentation before a voting meeting.

1002 Fair Street — Covered walkway and pergola

Applicant Jeff Fleschauer described plans to add a covered dogleg breezeway from the main house to a new cottage and a pergola over a rear sitting/dining area to provide sheltered access for household guests who use wheelchairs. City staff noted the guidelines do not explicitly address breezeways connecting historic accessory structures to primary historic buildings but said the proposed routing would preserve visual separation between house and accessory structure and is behind the building and not visible from the street. Commissioners asked for additional detail drawings showing rooflines, column detailing, and how the breezeway meets existing corners; several asked the applicant to set support posts slightly back from the historic corner so the addition reads subordinate to the house. The committee’s guidance: supply scaled elevations showing the roof geometry and column details at the voting meeting.

Magnolia Hall / William Campbell House (multiple items)

Jason Goddard and property owners presented updated plans for fencing, gates, hardscape, lighting and other site elements around Magnolia Hall and adjacent William Campbell House. Key points: - Fencing: the team reduced the fence extent that had previously encroached into the front yard of Magnolia Hall; the proposed 4-board horse fencing will mostly be set well back from the front porch (applicants stated the closest point is roughly 130 feet at one skewed angle and about 182 feet straight off a front corner). Staff noted the site and subdivision were vested under 2016 guidelines that recommend 3-foot front-yard picket-style fences; the newer/updated guidelines allow rural horse fencing in some contexts but staff said the property sits in a more blended neighborhood so the 4-foot horse fence is a borderline case. Commissioners generally thought the fence style could work on this property because of existing precedent but asked the applicant to show historic photographs and detailed fence profiles for the voting meeting. Codes staff also warned that wire-backed horse fencing does not meet the city’s requirements for a pool barrier and may be climbable; applicants said they would check Code and consider iron fencing where pool-barrier rules apply. - Hardscape and driveway: the William Campbell plan showed a new concrete motor court apron and a repurposed brick lead walk with gravel drives and garden paths. Commissioners raised concerns the concrete area read too large and recommended exploring pavers, narrower concrete, or defined planting edges to reduce a “parking-lot” visual effect; applicants agreed to test alternative layouts and materials and to provide photos and dimensions for the voting meeting. - Lighting and iron fencing reuse: the team proposed reuse of an existing cast-iron fence around a small “clipping garden.” Commissioners supported reusing historic iron where possible but asked for final elevations and details, and for staff to confirm code compliance for any pool enclosures. On lighting, commissioners recommended simpler fixtures more compatible with the 19th-century main house rather than ornate Art Deco pieces for primary facades, and asked for fixture dimensions shown to scale on elevations.

106 Winslow Road — Exterior restoration and rear additions

Owners Steven and Nancy Marr and their architect presented a package of exterior repairs and new work: replacement of deteriorated trim, roof and gutters; enclosure and repair of a rear basement entrance; a new screened or glassed rear porch; dormers on portions of a 1970s rear addition; and a modest rear covered porch and breezeway. Staff said most restoration items (repointing masonry, trim repair, in-kind gutters) were appropriate. Issues flagged by commissioners and staff: - Dormer visibility and scale: a proposed dormer on the right elevation would be visible from Winslow Road and previously similar designs had been denied; commissioners asked for dormer proportions that relate to windows on lower floors and for the applicant to show the dormers in elevation and in context; the left-side dormer (tucked behind the main form) appeared more acceptable. - Front stoop canopy: commissioners suggested a restrained metal awning or small cover rather than a large shed gable that would materially change the front appearance. - Chimney height: commissioners recommended a modest extension with a historic-looking chimney pot or a short stone cap consistent with the house’s Cotswold/Tudor details rather than an obvious modern extension. Commissioners encouraged the applicants to return with drawings that show dormer proportions to match the house, gutter style, roof material selections, and clearer site photos.

98 East Main Street — Repainting and code/violation discussion

Tyler (applicant) and property owner Jay Franks sought DRC guidance after the city issued a violation for repainting previously white metal panels dark gray/black. Staff and commissioners reviewed historical photos and earlier meeting records. Staff said historic photographs and 1960s aerials indicate the station at this address historically read as a lighter color (white or pale tones), consistent with the building type, and that the metal panels historically had an enamel finish; Secretary of the Interior treatment language and the district guidelines favor preserving historically appropriate paint treatments and finishes on metal panels rather than repainting to a modern dark scheme. Several commissioners urged the applicant to return the metal panels to a lighter (historically appropriate) color scheme — several suggested the earlier white-and-blue scheme tied to the original service-station archetype — and to bring precise color samples and any documentary photos or demolition photographs that show original finishes. The DRC gave applicants direction to coordinate with staff on a specific historically appropriate palette before a voting meeting; the repainting remains the subject of the city’s enforcement notice.

728 Fair Street — Roof replacement, rear infill and possible dormer

Applicant Amanda McCreary asked for guidance on replacing an aging metal roof, enclosing and repairing a rear addition, and an optional small dormer to bring light into a bonus attic room. Staff indicated the house is a contributing resource in the National Register district and recommended that roofing color/material and dormer placement be consistent with historic materials and not introduce high-visibility contemporary elements. Commissioners recommended keeping the historic or historically compatible green/metal roofing color if it can be matched in appropriate material (or an appropriately finished metal rather than painted panels), and suggested the dormer be modest in proportion, tucked behind the primary roof, and shown to scale on elevations. For rear infill, staff and the committee asked for traditional wood porch details (simple rail/column designs) and more information on materials and drainage at the enclosed foundation area.

1008 Fair Street — Rear den extension and accessory structure options

Applicant Jacob Lane presented a revised plan that lowers the height of a proposed rear den extension so it no longer rises above the main ridgeline, and proposed modest attic storage via a small dormer. The DRC generally advised simplifying roof forms and avoiding a large, complex pop-up mass that would dominate the historic 1-story facade. Commissioners recommended the addition read as an enclosed porch in massing and detail, to use window proportions that relate to the house (double-hung appearance) and to simplify accessory-structure detailing so a new or replacement garage reads subordinate to the main house. The committee also requested documentation on the detached garage’s age (building-permit/Sanborn records) because demolition or larger replacement of an accessory building is handled differently if the structure is historic.

Factory at Franklin — Building 1 façade changes and elevator question

Representatives for a proposed retail tenant and façade upgrades at Building 1 (the pitched-roof building facing Franklin Road) presented a package of storefront and site changes, including repainting soffits and trim, infilling one door opening near an exterior stair, replacing an upper-level enclosed plexiglass/wood dining area with an aluminum storefront assembly, installing concealed linear sign lighting, adding ground-level exterior lights and string lighting for a small outdoor retail/display area, and a proposed elevator shaft that would project above the flat-roof portion for accessibility and freight movements. Staff noted the building’s pitched form has historically been treated as residential in the guidelines; commissioners and staff raised several concerns: - Elevator headhouse: the committee said the projected elevator enclosure is likely visible from Franklin Road and asked the applicant to explore lower-headroom elevator technologies or alternate placement options; commissioners asked for 3-D or drive-by sightlines to confirm visibility. - Rear storefront assembly and glazing: the DRC accepted that an enclosed second-floor space that was previously screened/plexiglass could be replaced with more permanent aluminum storefront, but asked for details and materials that respect the campus’ industrial character and for confirmation that stairs and railings will meet code without using all-glass rail systems that the guidelines do not support. - Signage and lighting: staff flagged the narrow range of signage recommended under residential-form rules and asked the team to confirm whether the site should be treated under commercial sign allowances; the DRC asked the applicant to show final sign dimensions and prefer gooseneck fixtures instead of concealed linear sign lighting where appropriate. The committee also reminded the team to check zoning limits for string lights and freestanding posts, as those may require separate zoning approvals.

Process and next steps

Commissioners repeatedly asked applicants to return to a DRC voting meeting with clearer, scaled drawings: elevations with fixture sizes to scale, roofline details, window and column details, and documented historic photographs where available (notably for 98 East Main and the Magnolia Hall fence discussions). Codes staff flagged pool-barrier constraints for fence proposals and asked applicants to confirm pool-barrier compliance where the rear fence is being proposed to also act as a pool barrier. Several applicants said they would revise materials and return with further details.

What’s next: applicants were asked to coordinate with staff to supply photographic evidence, color samples, detailed elevations and sections, and code compliance notes before a formal COA/voting meeting.

Quotes

“I’m trying to construct something that actually for my girls in their wheelchairs actually becomes invisible. There’s no obstacles,” applicant Jeff Fleschauer said describing the proposed covered walkway at 1002 Fair Street.

“Wire-backed horse fencing is not a code-compliant pool barrier,” Jared Carter of Codes warned during the Magnolia Hall discussion.

“The proposed elevator projects above the roof and the position and screening does not meet the recommendations of the guidelines as it is highly visible,” staff noted regarding Building 1 at the Factory.

Ending

Applicants were encouraged to return with scaled drawings and material samples; staff will compile DRC recap comments and circulate a list of requested information ahead of the next formal review or voting meeting. The committee also announced a special DRC session for 318 Franklin Road and a public open house for the city’s preservation-plan update.