Design review board hears Steel Giraffe LLC plan for addition; neighbor screening, setbacks discussed

The Portsmouth Design Review Board reviewed a proposal from Steel Giraffe LLC to build an addition to an existing commercial building in the West Maple industrial area, with discussion centered on neighbor screening, two minor setback variances and materials for the new Morton-style building.

The proposal would place a new Morton pre-engineered building behind an existing structure to enclose equipment and shipping-container work that the petitioner said is currently stored outside. The petitioner told the board the new structure "is as back as far as it is ... it's gotta be 45 feet to meet this particular crane," and that moving the building farther from the neighbor would interfere with existing garage doors and operations.

Board members and the petitioner said the project previously went to the planning board for a developmental plan review, which added conditions the design review board must consider. The petitioner said planning-board conditions included an engineered drainage plan showing no net increase in runoff onto public drains and a requirement to meet with an adjacent resident about screening. The petitioner said commercial neighbors sent letters supporting the project, while the single adjacent resident asked for additional screening at the top of a stone wall on her property.

Board members pressed for details about landscaping and lighting. The petitioner said planning-board conditions call for planting a row of screening trees behind the stone wall and that the team proposed spacing of roughly four to six feet on center and starting heights of about six feet for new specimens so they will provide quicker screening. When asked about lighting, the petitioner described soffit and downlighting intended to be dark-sky compliant and limited to security-level illumination: "it's really just sort of perimeter lighting ... there's no reason to illuminate the parking lot more than it is now."

Members discussed two minor variances the planning board had already granted: a rear-yard setback variance and a small side-yard setback tied to the site's topography. The petitioner said the proposed building footprint is on macadam/paved surface and that, because the addition will remove some existing paved area for footing excavation, there is no net increase in impervious surface.

Board members and the petitioner addressed neighbor concerns about trees and shade. The petitioner said some small, partially dead trees at the property line were proposed to be removed at the neighbor's request and replaced by a row of more suitable screening species. Board member Ray Abraham asked about removing mature trees on the neighbor's property; the petitioner and the board clarified that tree removal would be limited and, where possible, the plan would save existing, healthy trees.

No formal vote or binding design-review approval was recorded in the transcript. The board indicated it would confirm scheduling with staff to finalize any follow-up consultation required by the planning board condition and to resolve minor design details, such as exact door styles and final screening species.

Plans and clarifications the board requested include finalizing the garage-door specifications to better match existing doors, confirming the exact tree species and planting heights to meet the neighbor's screening request, and ensuring lighting fixtures are specified to provide only downward-directed security lighting.

The board closed the item after the petitioner said it would comply with the planning board condition to meet with the neighbor and would return any materially changed plans to the planning board if Lehi (planning staff) determined changes were material.