Often, the factors that derail future expansions are the ones nobody’s talking about. These five overlooked details can make a facility more flexible…or more fragile than expected.
Designing an expandable facility can get overwhelming fast. Small details get missed, and those little misses can cause major trouble later. Expansion doesn’t fail dramatically all at once, it fails because dozens of small decisions quietly remove future options.
We reached out to senior Dennis Group engineers and project managers with years of experience designing and executing expansions in food and beverage manufacturing to uncover the lesser-known factors that can make or break a plant’s long-term expandability. From their insights, we pulled together a list of five areas that sometimes go overlooked. It’s far from a comprehensive list, but it’s one worth reviewing.
This isn’t textbook engineering, it’s real experience, real lessons learned, and knowledge that might just make you a hero on your next project. Whether you’re designing a greenfield or an expansion, make sure you’ve got these details covered.
Expanding food and beverage operations can mean a wide range of wastewater challenges. Facility expansions often bring new product lines, which introduce new ingredients, different cleaning processes, and higher‑strength effluent.
What a facility produces and its downstream impacts on municipal infrastructure is surprisingly complex. A single oily, fatty, or water-soluble product line can disrupt or kill the microorganisms in a city’s wastewater treatment system, potentially shutting it down.
DG’s Head of Sustainability and Site Search, Jacqueline Kull, has a lot of experience assessing wastewater risks during site selection and expansion planning and working directly with cities to resolve them. She notes, “if the municipality can’t handle the increased load, the cost of upgrading your facility’s wastewater treatment late in the project can be significant—sometimes over $10 million, even for low‑volume manufacturers.” Jacqueline added that it can take 2-5 years for municipal improvements to accommodate industrial wastewater treatment, so many expanding manufacturers install pretreatment on their own sites.
These implications underscore the importance of addressing wastewater requirements early in the design process. An initial check‑in with an environmental engineer can validate local capacity and determine whether pretreatment will be needed, helping teams design a system that can adapt to future loads without costly retrofits.
Centralized thermal utilities like steam, boilers, refrigeration, and process heating/cooling are challenging systems to plan for future expansion, because their constraints are easy to downplay early on. Smaller, decentralized equipment like air compressors or standalone water heaters can usually be added incrementally, but systems like steam, boilers, and refrigeration rely on shared infrastructure that’s difficult and disruptive to modify once a facility is operational.
Oversizing these systems upfront may seem like the right move, but it introduces a delicate balance between planning for growth and overengineering. Thermal systems that are too large often struggle with turndown limitations, operate inefficiently at low loads, and require energy‑wasting fixes like bypass loops, throttling valves, or bleed systems just to function as intended. A more flexible approach is to oversize utility rooms, corridors, and access paths (instead of the equipment itself) and to plan thermal utilities in modular phases.
Program manager Trent Moore highlighted a utilities design strategy driven by mechanical engineer Nick Maini on a recent project where a client is planning a phased approach to expanding their plant. Instead of installing an oversized header up front, the DG team designed the pipe rack system with space for multiple right‑sized headers that can be added as demand increases, allowing systems to perform efficiently at each stage of growth.
Modular planning gives teams room to adapt early on, but a solid production forecast still plays an important role in right‑sizing utilities and ensuring they operate efficiently at every phase of their growth.
Egress and fire‑rated wall construction may seem like minor early‑stage details but not accounting for them can quickly cause big problems. Fast and safe evacuation is critical in manufacturing environments, so exit spacing and where to locate fire-rated wall assemblies deserve early attention.
For a moderate‑hazard facility with a sprinkler system, the International Building Code (IBC) generally limits exit travel distances to 250 feet, with the ability to stretch that to 400 feet under the right conditions (such as higher ceilings and suitable facility layouts). As facilities expand, the distances to exits also grow, and what once worked can suddenly fall out of compliance.
Understanding these limitations and planning for them early in a project makes all the difference. Higher clear ceiling heights, well‑placed fire‑rated corridors, and fire‑rated building separations can all provide flexibility by effectively “resetting” travel distances as the building grows. Lower ceilings are another option, dramatically reducing allowable distances (sometimes down to 200 feet) and tightening layout options.
For many clients, investing in higher ceilings for conditioned spaces or constructing additional fire-rated walls for future needs can feel painful and costly upfront, but the added cost is minimal compared to the expense and disruption of retrofitting an active facility later.
Though stormwater is underground, it can quietly become one of the biggest barriers to future expansion. Stormwater is often designed to the bare minimum required for an initial building footprint, with little consideration for what comes next.
As facilities expand, that early decision quickly becomes a constraint. Adding roof area increases runoff, and undersized storm lines can force new tie‑ins, pipe replacements, or drainage rerouting. This in turn could require excavation near active buildings, complex grading changes, and additional permitting or environmental review. Poor grading and drainage paths can also block logical expansion zones entirely. Stormwater is especially difficult and expensive to fix after the fact since it affects site layout, elevation, and regulatory compliance all at once.
A more resilient approach is to plan stormwater infrastructure as a backbone for future growth. Project Manager Steven Murray expressed that he was very happy with the stormwater design on a recent greenfield project in McCalla, Alabama, where a large diameter (48‑inch) stormwater main was installed early to support a much larger future roof area. The building also features interior roof drains that route water vertically into the stormwater main, avoiding exterior downspouts and piping that would need to be redesigned in the future on the expandable face of the building.
Thoughtful stormwater planning upfront can preserve site flexibility, reduce disruption, and avoid some of the most challenging retrofits a growing facility can face.
Dock loading positions affect everything from site grading and foundation walls to truck circulation, safety, and business continuity. When dock locations and future capacity aren’t considered early, adding new docks later can become highly disruptive.
Cutting new dock openings through exterior walls not designed for them often requires new foundations, structural reinforcement, and slab replacement—expensive, time-consuming work difficult to perform in an active facility. Expansion‑driven construction can also interfere with truck traffic, forcing vehicles through construction zones, slowing operations and progress, and creating potential safety concerns. Pausing shipping and receiving is rarely an option, and while temporary docks may be a workable solution for a time, they’re often impractical or fail to meet code requirements.
These challenges can be avoided with careful upfront planning. Chris Siart, Program Manager and Building Systems Lead, highlighted the benefit of designing “plugged knock‑outs,” which allow exterior walls and slabs to accommodate future dock loads, turning what would be a costly redesign into controlled, predictable construction. He also noted the importance of planning dock locations and truck access so future building expansions occur away from active docks, allowing shipping and receiving to continue uninterrupted. A bit of extra consideration for dock planning preserves flexibility, protects a client’s operations, and prevents one of the most disruptive expansion obstacles facilities can face.
Small choices, big impact
Expandability isn’t defined by any single big decision: it’s shaped by dozens of small, early choices that either preserve or limit future options. Every project team must balance flexibility and expandability differently depending on the clarity of a client’s future plans, but the earlier we surface these conversations, the better the outcomes.
While no design effort is perfect, the discipline of capturing lessons learned and carrying them into the next project is what elevates our work. Thoughtful planning isn’t about avoiding every challenge. It’s about ensuring the facility has room to evolve long after construction is complete.◆
Thank you to contributing PMs for their help in developing this article: Jacqueline Kull, Trent Moore, Steven Murray, Stephen Renaud, Chris Siart, Mark Snieckus
EN 
PT-BR 
ES-MX