Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Commercial Retrofit topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Factory Building 1: tenant plans for storefront glazing, painted siding and elevator prompt DRC requests for visibility and signage details
Summary
A tenant at Building 1 of the Factory campus proposed repainting soffits and dormers, enclosing an existing second‑floor plexiglass porch with aluminum storefront, replacing windows and adding signage and site lighting; staff and commissioners supported many rear‑enclosure changes but asked for clarification on the proposed elevator shaft's profi
John Brown presented design changes for Building 1 at the Factory campus, including painting selected soffits/eaves in light and dark palettes, replacing a second‑floor plexiglass enclosure with an aluminum storefront system, removing several casement windows and replacing others with single‑light glazing, new tenant signage and landscape/site elements (post lights, string lights, a small potting shed with green roof and an exterior sales/display area).
Staff reminded the committee that Building 1 is reviewed under residential guidelines because of its pitched roof and residential reading; staff supported many rear‑enclosure changes and the reuse of the existing building mass in the plan, but flagged two prominent issues: (1) the proposed elevator shaft projects above the building roof line at a visible location and "does not meet the recommendations of the guidelines as it is highly visible," and (2) several proposed sign sizes exceed the sign‑size recommendations in the residential sign guidelines (four signs were proposed in multiple locations and most wall signs were larger than the recommended 4.5 square feet in the residential guidance). Staff also noted that string lights in the proposed location may not be allowed under the zoning ordinance and requested the applicant confirm with the zoning administrator.
Commission comments: Commissioners said they supported enclosing the second‑floor plexiglass terrace with a stable storefront assembly rather than retaining the existing wood/plexiglass frame. Several commissioners asked for the proposed lighting fixtures' exact sizes and asked the applicant to show fixtures to scale on elevations; Bob and Madeline specifically suggested simplifying ornate electric fixtures and using specifications to show how the chosen fixtures relate to façade openings. Several members also suggested the storefront could read as a clearly contemporary intervention rather than be contrived to imitate original windows; they asked for consistent finishing (anodized or Kynar) with the rest of the campus.
On the elevator, commissioners agreed it is functionally understandable but asked the applicant to explore commercial light‑headroom elevator systems or alternative elevator types and to provide a visual study showing the elevator’s visible profile from Franklin Road and other approach angles. On signage, staff and commissioners asked the tenant to reduce wall sign sizes to align with guidance or to make a case for larger signs to be considered as an exception in a campus context; staff noted the site already has directories but recommended limiting wall signs on this building, or using a site directory at the parking area to reduce façade signage.
Site elements: the potting‑shed concept received general support as an accessory structure if made from compatible materials; staff pointed out the guidelines do not typically encourage freestanding post lights for residential buildings and asked the applicant to confirm code compliance for the proposed post fixtures.
Next steps: Applicant to return with (1) a visual study of the elevator impact from public approach angles or explore lower‑profile elevator types, (2) sign sizing and lighting fixture specs and scaled elevations, (3) confirmation from zoning staff on the string‑light allowance and post‑light appropriateness, and (4) material details for the potting shed.
