Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Bus Garage topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Design review board tables GLS bus garage plan over masonry and buffering concerns
Summary
The Green City Design Review Board tabled a proposed two‑building bus garage and storage facility for the school district after members pressed the applicant for higher masonry percentages, more buffering near Kleckner Park and the cemetery, and an aggregate masonry-by-elevation summary.
The Green City Design Review Board on Jan. 3 heard a presentation on a proposed two‑building bus garage and storage facility for the school district and tabled the item after members said the design did not meet appearance and buffering expectations.
Andrew Lawton, representing the design team, said the project includes two buildings: a roughly 9,000‑square‑foot city storage building and a roughly 7,000–7,700‑square‑foot school bus repair garage; the combined site includes nine 14×14 garage bays, a bus wash bay and parking sized for up to 50 buses (Lawton said the district currently stores about 35–40 buses). He described an above‑ground fueling tank (the applicant estimated “about 8” to “10,000 gallons”), a proposed 8‑foot security fence with black vinyl privacy slats, and some arborvitae screening along property lines.
Board members focused on visibility and materials. One board member pressed that major commercial buildings in the jurisdiction generally meet a 60% masonry standard on visible facades and asked how the applicant reconciled the proposed metal siding with that standard. Lawton said the design uses a pre‑engineered metal building for cost and speed, and that some elevations show roughly 50–70% masonry while other faces are substantially less.
“Right now you don’t meet the 60%, and we’d like you to come back with a summary of the percentages of masonry by elevation so we can compare it to our standards,” a board member said. The board also requested additional buffering between the site and adjacent residences and ball fields and suggested moving the fence or adding staggered plantings.
A board member moved to table the item so the applicant could revise the elevations and provide an aggregate masonry calculation and buffering options; the motion was seconded and approved by roll call. The applicant was asked to return next month with the masonry percentages and design adjustments.
Next steps: the applicant will revise the submittal to address masonry percentages by elevation, demonstrate screening/buffering, and return to the board for reconsideration.
