Planning and Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

one. Welcome to the uh January 14th, 2026 Planning and Zoning Commission uh meeting for the city of Brentwood. I I'd like to call the meeting to order and if you could please join me in the pledge of allegiance. United States of America and to the republic for which it stands.

All right. Thank you. Uh happy 2026 everyone. Uh Mr. Moran, could you please call the role? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Markaza here. Carl Carlin here. M Foreman here. Thank you. Jeff Moore here. Paul Moran's here. Hart Nelson here. Lisa Sharing here. Jack Shelton here. We have a quorum, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Moran. Next item of business is the approval of the agenda. The agenda has been distributed. Are there any changes or adjustments that need to be made to the agenda this evening? Seeing none, any actually Mr. Foreman making sure uh any objection to approval of the agenda by acclamation? Seeing none, the agenda stands approved. The minutes were distributed as well. These are from December 10th, 2025. Are there any adjustments or changes? Do the minutes needed? Seeing none, any objection to approval of the minutes by acclamation? Seeing none, the minutes are approved. Next item of business is any citizen comments for items not on the board, excuse me, the commission's agenda this evening. Anyone wishing to address the commission? Anyone online? Moving on. Next item of business is old business. This is 6.01 case 2514. This is a site development plan for a new building at 350 Hanley Industrial Court. I believe a new design for something that we looked at at least some time ago. Uh is the applicant or their representative here this evening. If you could please come forward, tell us your name, address, and what we'd like to tell us about your project.

Sure. Um good evening. My name is Tyson Pile. I live at 636 Sherwood Drive. uh Webster Groves 63119. Um I am the architect. I'm a principal at Tourists. I'm here representing Carboline. Um as you just mentioned, we are here again for for this project. Uh this is phase three. So the culmination and Carbalines uh

uh the culmination of Carbalines's reinvestment into their facility uh located between Hanley Industrial Park and Litinger Road. Um, if you recall about a year or 18 months, I believe ago, we were in here for the Litzinger facade update where we did a a [snorts] full architectural redesign and um updating a lot of elements with that facade including parking and also [snorts]

uh uh entry for customers and the like. Um so on the Hanley side, so on the north side of the property, uh the client wishes to do something a little bit more uh in depth. So, previously we had looked at just upgrading the existing facility, doing a doing a large a large renovation. Right now, we're looking at doing uh a tear down and a replacement. So, we're proposing a two-story office and laboratory building located on approximately the exact same footprint as the current facility. [snorts] Um, it's actually set back further because the current facility is actually um it's it's in the rightway so it doesn't meet the existing setback conditions. Uh we went through for get a variance for a for a rear yard setback um not too long ago. Um and we were asking for a three-story building, but actually we it's going to be two stories. Um we had due to construction and program uh programmatic um sorry [snorts] uh programmatic issues, we decided to keep it at two. So two stories approximately 12,000 square feet total. Again, office and laboratory. Um the front of the front I think in your report you can see very well uh the front of the facade is going to be brick with metal panels. So we're wrapping the primary sides that that face that face the public and Hanley. It ties into multiple existing facilities. Each of those facilities has varying degree of of uh materiality. So metal panels there is some brick uh on the warehouse side. So we're trying to tie it all together. Um and then also screen where we can. There's a note in here about a chain link fence. That is not going to be the screening for the uh for the enclosure. That's going to be a solid metal fence. Um totally opaque. That's going to be a little staging area where they keep some rolloff dumpsters that go back into actually one of their furnace rooms. Uh [snorts] but yeah, so it's it's uh it's going to be a total new brand new class A facility um located on their existing

existing site. uh from accessibility standpoint, we're uh we're updating that as well. So, there's going to be more uh accessible parking right out front that complies with the new or with the current zoning uh codes to be able to not have parking that previously was non-compliant. Um and then there is an issue with the landscaping, but we can we're we'll be sure we comply with all sidelines and landscaping requirements as well. So, um that's sort of what I got. If I'll take questions or

just one quick question, Mr. P. We'll go to staff report on page and this is 16 of our packet. It may be different. It's figure 11. Uh it still shows the proposed threetory building. Is that just to show the rear variance? The rear lot variance. Okay. It's twotory building. Correct. That's just a hold over from the initial design. Thank you. We'll go to staff report, please, Miss Kelly. Please.

As the applicant has indicated, um, and as you may remember, they were here this time almost last year, um, to do improvements to the existing structures. Um, however, due to um, code requirements for upgrading the building, they found that the structure was not viable. Therefore, they are doing a tear down rebuild. They are pulling the existing structure was non-conforming and then it did not meet the front yard setback with parking in front. Um they have pulled that back to meet the 50-foot front yard setback um and provide ADA parking. They have the surface lot um further down Hanley Industrial Court. So, there is sufficient parking throughout the site and that was discussed at the last time. Um so overall the structure is two stories um with a brick facade and then the mechanical screening incorporates from the ground all the way up to tie in the mechanical screen screening on the roof with the rest of the building. Um the landscaping was pretty consistent with the prior plan. So, we did not have a full landscape review, although there was questions about some of the sight lines that they can work with us on and just shifting the trees along the front. But yes, the item on 16 and they did receive a variance at the December 3rd board of adjustment meeting when the original proposal was for three stories. when we combined all of the properties into one. Um these are all the the dark gray is all of the um existing structures. So they are non-conforming along the rear and that was the area that had to meet the 25 foot setback. They got approval up to three stories but they have since lowered that to two

stories which is part of the application tonight. uh CBB did not provide any um traffic sense or parking since that was adequately covered at the last meeting and they're not and they're actually improving upon even that and um other than your review of the architecture I didn't have any other concerns. So they did submit a revised landscape plan that I uploaded into the packet today. Was it today? Yeah. Um, so that is very close. The only uh question was the sight line entering and exit the um the site. So,

and I don't see Mr. Frankie here, so I assume he hasn't had time to review that. But if that is resolved, no concerns from staff based on that. Thank you. If y'all have any concerns on the architecture, uh, we can certainly discuss those. We will open up for discussion. Any questions from members of the commission?

Yeah, I'd like to start please going to be I'm going to start with Whitney. You can stand up if you want. So I'm going to start with Whitney. There's just like there's lot there's like nine conditions here prior to the actual resolution, right? Um are you totally satisfied that these either have been met or are going to be met? Um yes, the nine conditions are our general standard of conditions that include, you know, that the applicant will submit for a building permit consistent with the drawings as you've reviewed them. Um the and a grading for the landscape plan, the revised there is the condition number four, a revised land landscape plan shall be submitted to adequately address the comments from planning design studio as indicated in the staff report for tonight. Um, so they are working on that. That item can be addressed later, but they are working on those. And then all of the others is just our standard conditions of approval that all landscaping shall be maintained and good condition with the same quality and quantity. Uh, fencing, as he mentioned, the fencing that you see had a note that it was going to be chain link, and he did acknowledge that that was an error. You can see it there. It's going to be a solid black metal. Um, so it was just including that as a condition so that it's further understood by all parties.

Am I seeing that as is that fencing or a a gate? Because I that's like a gate. I do see a roll or roll overhead beyond. So you can see it right there. Yeah. All right. It's a gate. It's a gate and a fence. Gotcha. Yeah. Thank you. Sorry, Mr. Moran. Yeah, that's okay. Answer my question. Thank you. I think it's been a while since we've had a full build, too. So it does seem like more conditions than normal, but it's a full build. So, right, just as long as we anyone can say, "Yeah, yeah, we're good." Just as long as that actually happens. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Moran. Other questions for members of the commission?

Mr. Foreman, any questions? Any members of the public wishing to address the commission on this application? Sorry, slow with the mute button. It looks it's a nice clear proposal. I think the materials and the massing are in keeping with the original building and it looks like it's going to fit nicely on a very compact site. It is a difficult site to build on, I would imagine. Thank you, Mr. Foreman. Any members of the public? Is there a motion?

Yes, there is. I move to recommend approval of the site development plans for the new de building at 350 H industrial court for carb blind subject to all those conditions and discussion of the January 14th PNC commission. Motion by Mr. Moran. Is there a second? Second. Second by Mr. Carlin. Roll call vote please. Markaza. Yes. Carl Carlin. Yes. Matt Foreman. Yes. Jeff Moore. Yes. Former is yes. Lisa Sharing. Yes. Jack Shelton. Yes. Yes. It's unanimous. Mr. Chair, thank you, Mr. Moran. That will be going to the uh board of alderman on the um it's 2026. I have no idea what the calendar [laughter] looks like. So,

it'll probably be February uh 2026. I will have to check the calendar.

We Mr. Probably will get back to you with the date, but it will go before the ball of Aldin with our recommendation to approve. Thank you. Uh, next item of old business is 602, which is a presentation of the commercial design guidelines, which we got a preview of. We're looking forward to those. [snorts] Uh, thank you everyone again. Uh, my name is Tim Bryhan with H3 Studio. Uh, it's good to see everyone in the new year. Um so what I wanted to do tonight is to go through um the revised draft commercial design guidelines. Um these have been updated uh based upon feedback that uh you all provided uh when we presented these uh back in I think it was on December 10th. And then um prior to that I had presented to [snorts] the board of alderman. We also had our um our public openhouse. Uh so these have been updated with all of the feedback um that we've gathered through that process. Um so I'll just sort of give an overview. This is going to be very similar uh slightly brief slightly more brief version of what we presented what I presented to you on December 10th. Um really and then kind of highlight the uh the revisions that have been made. So just as a reminder in terms of the applicability to these guidelines, um they are intended to apply to the GC general commercial district, RSC retail service commercial district, UD urban development uh over uh district, the PD plan development overlay, and the LI light industrial district with some exceptions specifically for that district uh for

any project that requires a building permit. Um the one thing that we uh started out doing in this uh commercial process was analyzing the commercial lots to understand what of the desired uh characteristics could be achieved through the design guidelines and what would uh be best handled through uh amendments to the uh zoning code. [sighs] And I went through that in some more detail with you uh last time, but but fundamentally what we found was that when we have lots that are uh less than 115 ft in depth, um those don't support parking uh in the rear in combination with a 25 foot front setback and 12t rear setback. Those are the minimum commercial setbacks that are permitted today. Um, and so because of that, uh, we understand that there will be there will continue to be some lots that are developed with a 50- foot setback and some lots that are developed with a under the current zoning, a 25- ft setback. So, there is naturally there are going to be different front setbacks um along those corridors. Generally for the small lots the main limitation to development is the setback requirements and for large lots the main limitation to development is site coverage limits. Um on lots with depths of less than 165 ft uh minimum parking requirements will limit uh building height and in some cases in smaller lots the minimum parking requirements will actually limit the ability to redevelop lots or reoccupy reoccupy lots at all. Um, on lots with uh depths of less than 165 feet, a two-story building with the minimum required parking will generally exceed the maximum permitted lot coverage limits. When we go to lots

deeper than 165 ft, um, building heights will still likely be limited to two stories uh, due to maximum permitted sight coverage limits unless structured parking is utilized. So site coverage um is the most likely limitation to taller development. Uh and in our analysis uh we found that would be that would likely prohibit new development taller than two stories. And finally, it's important to note that many of the existing commercial developments, particularly those along Brentwood Boulevard, um exceed the site coverage limits of the zoning code. and a couple of examples of projects that um that have some varying combinations of these factors that are uh inhibiting their development or occupancy. These are three examples. 2428 South Brentwood, 2533 South Brentwood, and 2601 South Brentwood. Um these all exhibit some combination of uh either nonconformity with uh setback requirements, site coverage requirements or um an inability to provide the required number of parking spaces. So, I think this is important to note and I I think this this uh commission is well aware of this, but these uh these zoning limitations given the small the the the number of small smaller lot sizes uh particularly along Brentwood Boulevard are actually inhibiting the ability for owners to redevelop or reoccupy the sites and therefore inhibiting um the the vibrancy and the function economic function of these corridors. and we'll get into recommendations uh for zoning uh at the end of the presentation. So in terms of the contents and organization um we start out with uh purpose and administration again describing the applicability which I

already summarized the planning and zoning commission review. Um, in the draft document, I did also add um some language that suggests that if it were the desire of the city to um put commercial uh project review into the purview of the architectural review board that that could be done through uh modifications to uh the city's code of ordinances. Um and that of course any project can be reviewed or can be referred to the architectural review board um if the commission wishes. Um and then also apologize for jumping ahead there prematurely. Um there are conditions similar to what we did with the uh residential design guidelines. There are specific uh project types specified that can be that are recommended to be able to be uh done with a staff review or administrative review only. Um and then specific uh requirements for the submitt for those types of projects in order to facilitate uh staff review of those projects. Um then moving on to uh section B building design. So we start out with a discussion of building materials. Building materials are um classified as either major materials, which are those that are uh required to make up at least 75% of the solid portion of each facade, and minor materials, which are allowed to uh comprise up to 25% of the solid area of each facade. And there are permitted uh major materials and minor materials and prohibited major and minor materials. The one uh key update uh and this was based on um input from uh Mr. Foreman at the last meeting was moving for the minor materials moving um ephus

uh in in exterior insulated facade system uh assemblies to a permitted uh minor material. Um it was formerly listed as a prohibited uh minor material um and it is currently still listed as a prohibited major material. So again the this would allow for up to 25% of of any facade the solid area of any facade to be rendered in in ephus. Um, and then moving on to So that Sorry. Sorry. Oh, go ahead.

That that's a pretty nerdy comment that I made last time and I'm I just I was wondering if the board members themselves understood that material and that conversation enough to have an opinion on that. And I don't know, Mr. Carlin or one of the other members if you would do we need to help people understand what that material is. Last time I referenced the vast majority of the outside of the galleria is that acrylic stucco over insulation. It's not necessarily a very uh shall we say noble material but it's very economical and it's very energy efficient. So I believe it has a place as a minor material

which is up to 20%. So I think that up to 25% 25 excuse me. Thank you. And I'll just say too there are uh later in the presentation I have some photos of some existing buildings that utilize that. Um if it's helpful to reference those. Yeah I think Mr. Foreman let's wait and take take a look at that and then if we can put a pin in that Mr. Ryan that would be great.

Okay. Um so then the next section uh sections deal with building details, design features and structures and building entrances. I won't go through these one by one but again you know providing some of the uh example images. These are both good examples of buildings that utilize a variety of the details that would be um recommended and required in the guidelines. um so that there's a good variety of of pedestrian scaled uh human scale design elements um and and a and a you know variety of building design uh throughout the areas. Um similarly the guidelines uh deal with uh requirements for facade articulation and building roof line articulation. Um please note that uh in terms of the building roof line uh those those specific requirements are actually exempted in the light industrial uh district um for uh property or for buildings that are not fronting um Hanley Road. So there is some additional flexibility there. Um but again these are two examples. Although the architectural style of these projects may be questionable, they do uh technically um meet the requirements showing a a good variety of um differentiation between uh lower commercial floors and upper office floors uh and a good you know texture and articulation of facades. Um then uh some uh recommendations around incorporating uh bicycle and pedestrian access and guidelines for windows and doors. Um one of the comments that we received at the uh public openhouse back in November was uh permitting um solid doors uh in certain

uses. And so that is an update that's been made um in in magenta there. For commercial use storefronts including office of service businesses and eating and dining establishments, clear glass doors may be used. Solid doors of water metal of a design that is complimentary to the building may be approved by the plane and zoning commission and optionally the ARB on a case-byase basis. I think the idea here is that um it's important for retail spaces to have glass doors as part of their storefronts, but non- retail spaces can have some additional flexibility uh provided that they meet the design uh that they're compatible with the overall design of the building. Can we pause there for just a second? Any concerns from the commission on that?

I think it makes sense. Allows flexibility, but just since it was something that came from other comment. Yeah.

Thanks, M. And again, um, you know, two examples of of glazing and, uh, door treatments that are high quality and very appropriate to, uh, retail space or multi-function space in the case of kitchen conservatory. Um, and then, uh, signage. So, there are a variety of, uh, guidelines dealing with signage. Um again, one um one piece of of input that we did receive at the um at the public openhouse was that it's important to call your attention to is a recommendation to prohibit billboards um on any property within any of the commercial districts that these guidelines apply to. Um I believe that that is currently the case in that that this prohibition is currently the case in the uh MC uh Manchester corridor district. Um there was a comment uh again at the public openhouse to uh extend that to all the commercial property. So that is something that um we would be interested to get your input on as well. We'll pause there. Um, I am trying to think of billboards that we have in any of these districts right now and I'm probably going to blank. Any comments, questions from the commission on that one. Certainly not opposed to a prohibition on billboards in many cases, but just want to see

a like a billboard type sign. I don't know.

Yeah, I guess there I Well, Mr. Cronin, we know we've had some conversations lately about what is a sign is a mural a sign is a sign a billboard. Um and so I think you know some of that may come to us with comprehensive sign plans. Um is there a general definition of billboard that we should be working from a freestanding advertising is that what if the freestanding is that a component of a billboard? I think the I I would say that the common the common understanding as I would say it as I would see it would be a a freestanding um advertising sign that is not associated with the use of the building. So, um, I think there's an argument that, you know, the the while while while the APA building does have a billboard style sign, that probably should technically be classified as a pylon sign, um, uh, whereas something that is, you know, for lease, for general advertisement, would be a billboard. And that's I that's the the desire of what

Miss Kelly, is the city comfortable with that or is city's attorney comfortable with that? It's just as a working definition for now. We're not putting that into work. Actually, our sign regulations does have a a definition for billboard. Even better. It is any sign which is one located on a lot not containing a building uh visible from any point of traveled ways of an interstate highway and not a roof sign, post sign, or standard sign, monument sign, or a projecting sign.

But it doesn't state not having to do with the business in question. But all right, we have a definition. Um, I have no particular opposition to not allowing that definition in those locations. Any other input from folks? Mr. Foreman, anything? Miss Builderback's not here to kick me to remember that you're online. I was going to say I'm staying out of the signage stuff. [laughter]

Thank you, Mr. Brian. We're good to go. Um and then again just some examples of uh these both uh good examples of the way in which signage can be integrated into the overall design of the buildings. Um then the third section section C uh deals with um site design. So there are some specific uh guidelines around outdoor seating uh plazas and large patio areas, wayfinding signage and features and public art. Uh basically encouraging the uh inclusion of those into into projects where where applicable and appropriate. Um and again these are you know some examples example photographs from Kirkwood and from uh Clayton Road um showing examples of those types of features in commercial developments. I will also mention uh please remember that image on the right of Clayton Road um because I'll get to that in a minute when we get to the zoning uh recommendations. Um, just for to remind everyone, we did talk about this back in December. The the distance in this photograph from the back of the sidewalk, so where the grass starts, which is the property line, to the facade of those buildings is 20 ft. That's a 20 foot setback. Um, that that accommodates landscaping areas. a secondary pedestrian sidewalk at the front of the building. You know, not the sidewalk for the ride ofway, but a secondary pedestrian sidewalk and then some uh seating, outdoor seating that you can see in the distance there. Um, and then site design continues with uh recommendations and and guidelines for building placement, um, utility services, utility service location and screening requirements. Uh building

placement deals primarily with um uh emphasizing corner corner lots and corner buildings with specific design uh features. And two um two existing examples of that that uh do a good job of meeting that requirement. Although again the specific architectural style might not be to everyone's taste, but these projects do a good job of responding to their corner locations. I will note that the um the building uh the the photograph on the right again uh with the clock tower um that is an example of a building that has ephus cladding on it. Um and I think the you know the the issue and the reason why we are recommending that it remain prohibited as a primary building material. Um you know as as Mr. foreman mentioned it is it it does meet energy code requirements. It is relatively inexpensive. Um but it does tend to have kind of a flat appearance and it is a little bit more uh subject to weathering and damage and things like that compared to masonry materials. Um so it's you know something that uh I think we are comfortable with having in the guidelines as a permitted uh minor material but the guidelines in in in our opinion as your consulting firm should not encourage entire large buildings to be clad uh in in ephus just because it isn't the most durable and attractive uh material. Um and then uh additional additionally continuing in site design uh guidelines for landscaping and requirements for the front landscape zone of the building. Um we are recommending a minimum uh 10-ft deep

landscape zone measured perpendicularly from the property um which extends the entire uh width of the lot. And then um a requirement that that landscape zone be planted with street trees uh at an interval of not less than 40 feet. And in the guidelines document themselves uh the itself rather there are um uh requirements from the city's uh code of ordinances on permitted tree species uh that can be planted. Um, and again, two examples. Um, a lack of a consistent landscape zone on Brentwood Boulevard, even though you do have some sporadic street trees, um, versus a consistent landscape zone and sidewalk on Manchester Road as part of the kitchen conservatory development. Um, and then, uh, moving on to lighting. Um so these uh recommendations um are uh coordinated with the other recommendations in the city's code around around lighting requirements. Um one thing that we did uh modify uh in the previous version there was in this in the section that talks about uh the temperature color temperature of LED lighting. Um there were uh two kind of contradictory requirements. Um, one said that the the color temperature could not exceed 3,000° Kelvin and then it said, but it could potentially go up to 4,800 uh degrees Kelvin but not exceed that. That's been uh refined and clarified at 3,000 degrees Kelvin. That is um, you know, generally for for LED lights, that's generally consistent with other light bulb designs. so you don't have that that kind of blue uh very cold uh uh light temperature. Um and then you know obviously

requirements for uh spillover and other things like that that that um are are in line with with other requirements in the city's code. And then uh section D parking and access this is the final section of the actual architectural design guidelines themselves. um requirement for a traffic study um where possible um uh access driveways provided from side streets and not from uh Brentwood Boulevard, Manchester Road or Hanley Road in order to minimize uh curb cuts and promote more consistent uh sidewalk access along there. Um limitations on the total width of sidewalks or sorry of of access drives when when they're from Brentwood, Manchester or Hanley Road. Um uh looking at internal circulation driveways and promoting that, promoting separated uh cross access for vehicles and pedestrians and also promoting vehicular cross access between adjacent parcels to help facilitate minimizing those uh those curb cuts onto the main streets. Um and then and likewise providing um pedestrian cross access uh which helps to facilitate uh where you don't necessarily have a good sidewalk along the street or the buildings are set back. Um it promotes that idea of a kind of a secondary pedestrian zone in front of the in front of the uh buildings. So then finally um moving on to the recommended zoning code amendments. Um so based upon uh feedback from the last meeting um what we are looking at is basically again and this is this is

the the same um conceptual approach but uh for for probably easiest to say it this way for properties along Manchester Road um those properties would be permitted to have a 50-foot front build two line or a 20 foot front build to line with no parking in front. For all other streets, basically Brentwood Boulevard um and and and Hanley Road, only the 20 foot front build to line would be permitted. So, there would not be parking to be permitted. And and at the last time that we presented this to you all, um that minimum was it was 25 ft. that's been reduced to 20 ft based upon feedback uh from the group. So this is a kind of a typical condition on a shallow 90 foot lot. Um when you move up to 115t lot you have with the same uh two conditions you have the ability to do uh rear parking. Um, again, also note that on the on the uh Manchester Road frontage, if a 50- foot front build two line is utilized, um, there is a required 8-ft minimum pedestrian zone. That's what we are recommending. That would be at in front of the build two line. So, you basically have that secondary consistent sidewalk condition behind the parking. Um and then you know just showing the implications of that on 165 foot deep lots and then on the large you know larger lots um up to you know 400 ft deep. So the specific requirements or or the specific recommendations rather for the zoning code amendments um we are recommending that in order to improve walkability uh safe and

efficient vehicular access and promote a unified and attractive visual character that the zoning districts be updated in one of the two following manners. either reclassifying the GC, RSC, GC and RSC districts as planned development overlay and then amending the yard and setback requirements as outlined herein or amending the yard and setback requirements individually for each of those districts but in a consistent way. So, the intent of of both of those approaches is to standardize the front side and rear setback requirements across all of the commercial zoning districts. Um, the recommendations again are to replace the minimum front yard setback requirement with a front yard build to line of 20 ft for frontages on Brentwood Boulevard and Hanley Road and prohibit parking that is located between the building and the front lot line. And then to replace the minimum front uh front yard setback um with a front yard build to line of 20 feet or 50 feet for frontages on Manchester Road and prohibit parking that is located between the building and the front lot line uh for front yard build lines of 20 ft. When the 50-foot build two line is utilized for frontages on Manchester Road, a required pedestrian sidewalk with a minimum width of 8 feet is required to be located directly in front of the uh build two line with cross access. And then um the side and rear yard minimum setbacks would be amended to 12 ft. Um and then in terms of the building bulk requirements, um similar to what is utilized in the PD overlay today, we are recommending a um a maximum building height that is based on rear building

setback. So 2 and a half stories would be the maximum building height. Um, if you have a 12 foot uh rear yard setback, if that rear yard setback is increased from 12 feet to 50 feet, the uh the maximum building height could be increased to four stories. And if it's increased further to um 100 ft, then the maximum building height could be increased to six stories. And then we are also recommending that the code be updated to wave minimum parking requirements for all lots with a depth of less than 165 ft subject to a parking and access study uh plan that's approved by the planning and zoning commission. And then finally, we are recommending that within the light industrial district um that subsection C permitted uses be amended to include the following. all uses permitted in the MR multif family residential all all uses permitted uh in RSC and all uses permitted in GC as well as uh motel and hotels. So that would allow for the um transition of portions of the light industrial district over time with with new uses. Um and so that concludes the presentation and I'll be happy to take any other questions or comments you may have.

Thank you, Mr. Brian, can you go back to that last one? I think um I'll at least have some questions on the permitted uses in LI. U but I'll open it up to the other commission. Any questions from the commission for this? I think the action that we're looking for tonight is a recommendation of approval to take to the board of alderman. Is that the action that we have?

Well, actually this is a will be adopted by the planning and zoning commission. We did have um I initially tried to notice it as a public hearing for tonight, but there was an error in the date. So, we would just continue it to the next night for um review for adoption of a resolution and a public hearing. Um we did present this to the board of aldermen. Um but I will discuss if we want to take it back to them for anything or not. Um and let you know. Uh any questions from members of the commission? Mr. Carlin,

I guess considering that we're not we're continuing it. So question is not disruptive necessarily. Um I think you know the balance for something like this is to get you prescriptive and performative sort of things correct in the balance right so um most of this I'm I have read before as my first meeting having been presented to. So I have some questions, but the one that comes to mind particularly on that balance would be the the corner application of design stuff. So as an architect, you know, I'm obviously um and I've said this in this in this forum before looking for um the ability to maintain freedom of action, you know, by a designer to come up with a better idea than we might have had, right? So the idea that the that um the corner is sort of prescriptively designed always with a taller element. Um I feel as an example there may be others with time that I could refer you know refer back to the to staff but that maybe crosses the line from performative to prescriptive and in in so much as that the world does not have to all be CVS and Walgreens right you know

so um I think there's other ways you know with with with proper you know spirited talented design to accommodate a corner that doesn't necessarily require that exact specific requirement right would would simply removing of greater height than the rest of the roof status because I mean then it's pretty general. It says buildings should include a prominent architectural feature or emphasis at the corner where the two public streets meet. I would prefer that knowing that there's lots of different ways to achieve the goal, not all of which require, you know, a popup. Sure. Right. You know, or a bell tower or whatever, right? Yeah. I I wouldn't I would have no opposition to that change.

And so I don't want to hold up the rest of the meeting. There may be others that I might look more closely now that I've seen this um given that we have a little bit time to think about it. So I I will think about it and come back if I if I do. Thank you, Mr. Carlin. Other members or questions from our commission? Oh, Miss Miss Kelly, please. I'm sorry. Um Mr. Carlin, if you could email us your thoughts before the next meeting so that they can get incorporated and Yes. And I I might even think of some more tonight, but I'll make sure you put make sure you caveat that as a Carl idea so we can look at it. [laughter] All right, other questions from the commission.

I I do if you could I know I keep having to move back and forth. I think the one that um maybe and I may just be it's been a week. Uh caught me by surprise is motel hotel as a permitted use rather than a conditional use in LI. Um it seems a significant change from the intent of L and I know that that has morphed over time. Um interested I guess Miss Kelly what's the city's position on that or that that's one that the others I don't particularly have a problem with but motel and hotels as permitted rather than conditional which I believe they are now why would we not want to have the opportunity to have a conversation about that with a cup? [snorts]

Well I mean any new construction requires site plan approval at the planning and zoning commission and at the board of alderman. So it is essentially the same review. um it's just less of a restriction uh regarding the use of or question regarding the use for the applicant. The comprehensive plan does talk about changing the large part of the light industrial area to more of a um office park development, a mixeduse office park. Uh but that is certainly something we can debate later. These are just recommendations. So they we would have to come back for a text amendment for any of those and we can certainly further discuss that and further refine those uses at that time as well. Or an applicant may submit an application for a text amendment if they wanted to propose a project um for that area. Yeah.

All right. So no action this evening. I mean do we need a motion to table? It's just been presented. Motion to continue for public hearing at the February 11th meeting. All right, that is a recommended motion. Do I have a motion from the commission, Mr. Carlin? Move to continue this to the date that was just stated that I forgot the public meeting in February. [laughter] February. Thank you. There's a motion by Mr. Carlin. Is there a second? Second. I think all we need is a voice vote on that. All in favor say I. I. Same sign.

All right. We'll continue that to the next meeting. Uh thank you very much and we look forward to that. Appreciate the work on that. One small thing I think we' uh just as a for accuracy. It does continue to say residential rather than commercial on the presentation. It's in the template it looks like. Oh no. I apologize on that. That is a that's a mistake on my part. Thank you for noting that. I'll make sure to update it.

Thank you. Uh next I we go to new business. This is case 26. All right. We're in the new year. Uh text amendment to sections 400.2900 400.2910 2910 and 4003020 of division 8 of chapter 400 title 4 the code of ordinances for the city of Brentland regulating flood hazard controls. Miss Kelly tell us all about this. SE FEMA and SEMA uh the state emergency management that oversees the flood plane management for the state um has asked or is recommending and a lot of other cities have rec have moved to requiring that for those properties within the flood plane that improvements are to be two feet above the base flood elevation rather than one foot. And this is for the long-term protection of the residents um or equipment within the building. Um they have also suggested or requested that um instead of having the renovation can if if any renovation exceeds 50% of the building's current value, then they have to take measures to bring the building out of the flip plane such as elevating some of the mechanical equipment, dry proofing the doors, those kind of things. Um right now our codes is just reviewed on the case by case basis. So, for instance, um if a a structure is valued at 500,000, in order to avoid that, they may someone may go, "Well, I'll do 240,000 worth of improvements this year and 10,000 or another hundred next year to avoid having to flood proof when FEMA and SEMA have recommended that it really should be cumulative over a 10-year period um in order to protect the longterm term um building structure and occupants within that. Um so that's what

the tax amendment we have for you tonight. Um there's any questions on that?

Is there any way to get at one of the things we take at least I recall us taking a look at when we look at text amendments whether it's electric vehicle chargers and things like that is what is the cost going to be for someone building a new building? Is there any way we can get at how much is this? And I I think the answer is going to be no. Um but is there any way of this is going to add XYZ to the cost of a home? Um and residential is more what I think I'm concerned about. Um I will caveat right my own question right away with the but it means your home is less prone to being damaged in a flood which is a good thing and we want that. So any

it is it is hard to tell. Um for renovation of an existing structure it can be quite expensive. um carbaline as you are aware that they've just talked about having to do that with their structures. Um they've went ahead and done all of that and um but that's existing structures. If it's a new build, it's hard to say. It depends on the overall um cost of the project, but it would simp it would require elevation of the structure 2 feet above the base elevation. Sometimes that's it hard to say. Mr. Carlin, look like you wanted to say something.

It's just that's it's adding one foot to the current requirements, right? So, I mean, I'm there's probably an incremental cost difference, but probably nothing significant, I would imagine. I like that. Any other questions for members of the commission on this proposed text amendment? Mr. Foreman, I see you're off mute. I think I see you're off mute.

Yes. Is in the I don't know pushing 20 years of doing residential. I think this has only come up on one house down by the um by the park where the Brentwood days is held and they were elevating up the main floor and leaving the garage down low. Do we have a map, Whitney, that shows where our flood zones are? The answer was yes. I don't know if you heard Oh, yes. No, I can show you the the flood maps. It's probably the most accurate. Um I'm my hunch is this is a pretty limited impact, especially in large part. Yeah, especially with our

new maps. Yeah, the new maps that and the adoption of the Lomar But the Yeah. So, it's along Deer Creek largely there. And are you able to project that? Oh, I'm sorry. I thought Give us a sec, Matt. We're trying to There we go. Oh, so it's largely along the industrial area of Black Creek.

Um, it does get a little bit um especially in here, but that's 200 years. So that's not really applicable, but and there might be a couple of small residential properties where it slightly touches, but it's largely the industrial area that's um

Miss Kelly, this is get to the hundred-year flood line or what is the Sorry, did I miss that? I'm sure. So the the red hashed is the flood way which they generally don't want anything in the floodway. Um the blue is zone AE which would be the 100redyear and the orange would be the 2% or less than 2% area of flooding. Um gotcha.

So um so largely the areas that would be applied would be the zone AE in the floodway. Um so for the most part it is a largely the commercial areas that would be affected. Um some of the areas south um along Deer Creek there's house your Foreman is referring to would be this one right here. Yep. That's the one.

Yeah. That was built above the you know elevated the structure. So the garage is on the base ground floor. And this applies to main floor living area, not garages. Correct. Any other Sorry, Mr. Forman. Anything else? No, I think to Mr. Carlin's point, if you're in the industrial area, you're adding one foot of concrete to a foundation. Done a lot of that lately. All right. Anything else for members of the commission?

Is there a motion? Mr. Faza, I move to recommend approval of the text amendments to the various sections of division 8 flood hazard control regarding construction and renovation within the flood plane areas as presented and discussed during the January 14th planning and zoning commission. We have a motion by Mr. Favaza. Is there a second? Second. Second by Mr. Carlin. A roll call vote, please. Markaza, yes. Coin, yes. M forman, yes. Jeff Moore, yes. Yes. Lisa Sharing, yes. Chuck Shelton, yes.

Unanimous. Thank you. Thank you, Miss Moran. This will go forward to the board of aldermen. Next item of business is case 260005. Another text amendment to sections division 4, division 8 of chapter 400 relating to building permits for residential building and construction projects and declaring when approval of the architecture architectural review board is required. Miss Kelly, tell us about this one. So [clears throat] this is really based upon direction from the architectural review board. [clears throat]

the since we have now adopted the archite the residential architectural design guidelines um in order to lessen the burden on the ARB. We are proposing a text amendment that would allow staff approval for those projects that are at the rear of the home and not visible from the public rightway [clears throat] um and that would be consistent with those design guidelines. um those projects that are visible from the public rightway to the front of the home or large additions or if we had any concerns then we can still refer those back refer those to the ARB for review but we were seeing a lot of rear porches um sun rooms that um we would like to not have keep projects moving forward and not require ARB review provided that it is consistent with their guidance. I will refrain from asking if Mr. Foreman and Mr. Carlin are just lazy and don't want to see things, but I'll ask for their input on this. Uh, if you have any on from the ARB perspective, if that's

Matt, you are chairman, so I defer to you initially. [laughter]

Thank you, Mr. Carlin. Now, we've we've actually been talking about something like this since Whitney joined the city. Um, in recent years, our staff skill level has improved greatly. um and coupling that with the design ordinance that gives us much better guidance on elements and massing etc. I think this is more than appropriate. We do see a lot of, you know, patriot sun rooms or, you know, someone's building a pergola on the back that no one's ever going to see and our staff has the judgment to say, "Well, that's pretty big. It might intrude on the neighbors. Let's call the ARB." Or we're just doing a new porch off the back to get down to the back driveway. So, I I think it's an appropriate revision.

Thank you, Mr. Foreman. Mr. Carlin, anything else? I am in agreement. first time. Any other uh questions for members of the commission? Any member of the public wishing to address the commission on this issue? Is there a motion? Everyone's quiet. I'll do it. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Sharing, I move to recommend approval of the text amendments to various sections of chapter 400 relating to the review of residential building and construction projects to allow staff approval and declaring when approval of the ARB is required as presented and discussed during the January 14th. We have a motion by Miss Sharing. Is there a second? Second.

Second by Mr. Favaza. Roll call vote, please. Faza, yes. Callin, yes. More. Yes. Jeff Moore, yes. Formers, yes. Lisa Sharing, yes. Jack Shelton. Yes. That's again unanimous. Thank you, Mr. Moran. Also be referred to the board of alderman. Uh next item business, Alder Manic report. Seeing no alderman, uh director's report, please, Miss Kelly. We do have a couple of uh items on the February 11th meeting. Um coffee shop in the Brentwood Prominade is looking to come in. Um townhouse development at 8815 match.

Yes. And then some modification to the chiller at 2555 Hermalan which is in the light industrial district for Candiba which um yeah to address help address some noise uh concerns from the chillers.

One item of business for the commission is that Mr. Ritter has provided his resignation. uh he has served on the board I on the commission uh for I believe 10 years um or more than that actually now but uh we will be recognizing him at some point in the future but want to thank him you know I'm sure he's watching the live stream missing being here but want to thank him for his service uh to the city and to the commission and really I've appreciated being able to work with him on this so uh we will recognize him at some point in the future uh of course if anyone else is watching we're always open to applicants and people interested in joining planning Planning and zoning commission. Any other items of business this evening? Is there a motion to adjurnn? Actually, we don't need one. We finished. I keep forgetting. We have finished our agenda and we are now adjourned.