Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Large Scale Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
DRC praises massing reductions at Factory redevelopment but flags visibility, materials, Building 10 treatments
Summary
Developers presented a reworked double-helix parking garage and hotel plan at the Factory at 230 Franklin Road that lowers most massing and moves parking entrances away from pedestrian areas. Staff asked for fuller elevations and details on banding, stair-tower visibility (submitted plans list heights above guideline thresholds), and screening for mechanical/refuse areas.
Developers returned to the DRC with a substantial redesign for the Factory campus at 230 Franklin Road, presenting a revised double-helix parking garage and related hotel changes meant to reduce visibility and massing adjacent to historic buildings.
Reed Tallis, the project's representative, told the committee the double-helix ramp allows the design team to "bring the height down" and to pull the garage facade away from adjacent buildings so it "feels like a building in the background" rather than a dominant wall. Emily (staff) summarized technical constraints, noting that the preliminary recommendation set a 10% threshold above the campus average (42 feet 11 inches) and that the submitted plans showed a maximum height of "44 feet 2 inches," with a stair tower slightly higher in earlier documents. She recommended a meeting with building and neighborhood services to confirm code compliance and asked for more detail on banding widths and window opening rhythms.
Commissioners generally praised the direction. One said the changes were "positive" because they lower visibility from Franklin Road, move circulation to the alley, and allow mechanical equipment to be relocated to ground level where it can be screened. Several commissioners sought alternatives to the proposed perforated metal mesh in Building 10's infilled openings, questioned the historic fit of retractable awnings on the west facade, and urged simpler screening solutions for the mechanical/refuse enclosure so the treatment reads as compatible with on-site precedent.
The DRC did not vote on the revisions. Staff asked the applicant to provide full elevations, clarify banding and material choices (masonry profile and window sizes), confirm parapet and stair-tower heights in relation to the 10% guideline, and present examples or precedents for Building 10's mesh treatment at the next review.
