Planning and Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

to welcome you to the March 11th, 2026 meeting of the Brentwood Planning and Zoning Commission. If you could please join me in the Pledge of Allegiance. Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America for which it stands. One nation. All right. Our next order of business is to call the role. Mr. Moran, would you please call the role? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Hart Nelson here. Markaza here. Paul Moran's here. Chuck Shelton here. Sher Bilderbeck here. Jeff Moore, yes.

Brian Nolan here. Jeff Hunt here. Lisa Sharing here. M Foreman here. Carl Carl and John Ber aren't here, but we have a quorum. Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Moran. Uh, the agenda has been distributed. Are there any changes or alterations that need to be made to the agenda? If not, any objection to approval of the agenda by acclamation? Seeing none, the agenda is approved. Next item of business, the meeting minutes for our February 11th, 2026 meeting have been distributed. Are there any alterations or changes that need to be made to the minutes? Any objection to approval of the minutes by acclamation? Seeing none, the minutes are approved. Next item of business is citizen comments. Are there any citizens wishing to address the commission on items not on the agenda this evening? Anyone online? All right, we'll move on to old business. Our first item is case 2601. This is a comprehensive sign plan amendment for the veterinarian emergency group ER for pets at 21101 South Brentwood Boulevard is the petitioner or their representative here this evening. If you could please state your name or address for the record and we'll hear a little bit about good good to see you again and we'll hear a little bit about the updates.

Good evening. I'm John Simon with Simon Sign. I am the sign contractor for our client veterinary emergency group. Uh we are located in downtown St. Louis on St. Louis Avenue. Um, essentially, um, our client is just doing a basic rebrand with a new logo. There are two existing building signs, um, on the north elevation and the east elevation, as well as an existing monument sign, and we're just rebranding those with the new logo. Um, no major changes, just going like for like. I believe the north elevation has already been approved as well as the monument sign reface. Um but the east elevation is the issue where the proposed sign is slightly larger than the existing. Um we don't feel that it looks out of place but nonetheless the math isn't in our favor. So thus we are here

and I understand that there were some requests if I'm recalling correctly for some alter or some changes to the um landscape. Is that actually we'll go to staff report I guess. Let me do that. Miss Kelly please. Staff report. Um, as the applicant has indicated, they are seeking a comprehensive sign plan. Um, the existing north facing sign on the building does meet with the code in that it is 44.35 square feet where they have the frontage that allow up to a 53 foot sign. it is on the east elevation that they are where the frontage would limit them to a 28.45 square foot sign and they're asking for the same size sign. Um, initially because of part of a comprehensive sign plan that requires landscaping around any ground sign. Um, and initially there was an error where they were looking to where they submitted that it would be adjusted, but now they're now showing that it it meets with the code and is just a reface of the existing. However, uh, since they submitted for a landscape plan, we did have planning design studio review it and there are some missing landscapes um, from the prior proof plan. So, and we just had them look along the Brentwood Boulevard and forgot what street that is. um pine. Thank you. Um and along the face of the building. So, a condition of approval does include that they will add back the missing landscape plan. Missing landscape per the memo from the planning design studio.

Thank you, Miss Kelly. Any questions uh from the commission regarding this application? Is there a motion? Oh, I'm sorry. Thank you. Actually, yes. Anyone from the audience wishing to address? See, there we go. I missed you. Uh, wishing to address the commission on this application. We don't have anyone in attendance. Excellent. Thank you. Uh, now is there a motion? Mr. Moran, I believe.

Yes, there is. Mr. Chair, I move to recommend approval of the comprehensive sign plan for the veterinary veterinary and emergency group at 21101 South Brentwood. Subject to the conditions of discussion of this meeting. We have a motion. Is there a second? Second. Second by Mr. Hunt. We have a motion by Mr. M. Second by Mr. Hunt. Uh, roll call vote, please. Maraza, yes. Paul Morans, yes. Jack Shelton, yes. Sher Bbec, yes. Jeff Moore, yes. Brian Nolan, yes. Jeff, yes. Lisa Sherink, yes. Morning, yes. It's unanimous, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Moran. Thank you, Mr. Simon. This will go to the board of aldermen on

um April 6th, I believe. April 6th. Thank you very much for your time. Thank you. Next item of business, old business is case 260006. This is a site development plan for the new 9-unit town home at 8815 MG. Uh there's been a request by the petitioner to postpone this to our April 8th meeting. Uh is there a motion to table this motion until that time? So moved. Is there a second? Second. Second by Mr. Favaza. A motion by Miss Buildback. Sorry. Second by Mr. Favaza. I think voice vote suffices for this. All in favor say I.

I. All oppose. Same sign. All right. We will table that to the April 8th meeting. Moving on to new business. First up, we have case 26007. This is for Encore nails and foot facials, a CUP, conditional use permit, excuse me, at 8044 Manchester Road. Petitioner here, please, if you could state your name. Tell us a little bit about what you're going to be doing.

Hello, my name is Jacqueline Coats. I am a medical nail technician and I will be servicing clients that um have conditions such as diabetes or uh thickened toenails per se and yeah just servicing one person at a time and this will be understand this is a use within a different an additional facility. Excellent. Yes. All right. Uh we'll go to uh the staff report, please. Miss Kelly.

Um Miss Coats is submitted for a conditional use permit. She's renting an office space at 8040 Manchester Road, also addressed as 8044 Manchester Road um which is zoned MC um district and where personal services including nail salons are a conditional use for properties less than one acre. um is located within the dance uh convergence dance and body studio where twothirds of the building consists of the dance studio where they have most of their classes are in the evening and the other third of the building is a chiropractic office and gyroinesis and gyroonic movement office um which uh is as a medical is part of the medical offices So in review of all of the parking, we did not find an issue as there are 32 parking spaces on site and with all of the various uses, it would require um a total of 20 spaces. So we don't have any issues. Great.

Thank Kelly. Any questions from members of the commission on this application? Any members of the public wishing to address the commission on this application? Is there a motion? Yes, Mr. Chair. Move to recommend approval of the conditional use permits and site development plans for encore nails and foot facials at 8044 Manchester Road. Subject to the conditions and discussion of this meeting. Motion by Mr. Moran. Is there a second? Second. Second by Miss Builderback. Roll call vote, please. Marza, yes. Paul Moran, yes. Jack Shelton, yes. Sher Bbeck, yes. Jeff Moore, yes. Brian Nolan, Jeff Hunt, yes. Lisa Sharing, yes. Matt Foreman,

yes. Thank you very much. It's very That's uh unanimous, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Moran. Miss Co, that will go to the board of alderman again on April 8th. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. April 6th. 6th. 6. I even wrote it down. Thank you. We'll write it down again. Next item of business is again new business is 702. This is case 260008, Bonefish Grillil Comp sign Plan Amendment at 8780 Eager Road. Petitioner has requested that this also be tabled pending to the next April meeting. Is that correct or we do not have a date? Motion table. So the applicant said that they would resubmit when the um proper the bonefish ownership were ready to proceed. So just a motion to table.

Okay. Table no date. Is there a motion to table? So moved. Moved by Mr. Moore or motion by Miss Moore. Excuse me. Is there a second? Second. Did I get that wrong? Yeah, that was me. Sorry, Mr. Hunt. Second by Mr. Moore. All right, you guys are just too quick over there. We'll do a voice vote, please. All in favor signify by saying I. I. I. All oppose, same sign. That is tabled. Next item of business is case 26009. This is Two Dog Fitness Limited Liability Company. does business as Gateway Fitness conditional use permit at 80, excuse me, 824 Hanley Industrial Court. I believe the applicant or the representative is here this evening. If you could give us your name, address, and tell us a little bit about your application.

Oh, yes. I uh Mark Whitner. I'll be opening at 824 Hanley Industrial. As the gentleman said, um I am a oneonone 211 3141 personal training studio. Uh I've been training for the better part of 20 years. Uh, I've been open in one space or another since 2011. Uh, first of all, thank you for having me and uh, open for any questions you may have. Great. Thank you. We'll go to staff report, please, Miss Kelly.

As the applicant has indicated, they are seeking a conditional use permit. Um the property is own plan development overlay district where there are some pre-existing non-conformities on the site but under the plan development overlay district. It includes open enclosed or open recreational uses including health clubs and fitness facilities uh as a conditional use. The property consists of two separate buildings that are approximately 16,300 square feet each and they are leasing approximately 2,00 square foot space at 8024 Hanley Industrial Court. The property is addressed as 820. So this is the tenant space is 80 824 Hanley Industrial Court. Um there are a number of other uses on the site and um with all of those uses include there are other fitness facilities on the site and with those uses the total required parking is 64 spaces. Um, based on a counting of the aerial photograph, I counted 87 spaces and then when I went to the site, I I believe there was a few more parking spaces behind the building where there's loading on on the south building that I counted 96. So therefore, we don't see any parking issue on the site. Uh, Mr. Whitner, one question I had for you. see that in the uh there are very specific hours of operation listed um with variation every single day of the week. Um and that part seems a little unusual to me. Uh I I have here six six on Monday.

So it's basically by appointment. So it's it's the training training is by appointment. Is there a reason you wouldn't want a consistent hours of operation? Maybe because they don't seem to vary too much and I'm just wondering to avoid confusion. for right now. I'm the only trainer, so my my own sanity more than anything else. You're comfortable with this. Just wanted to ask that question. All right. Any other questions from or any questions from members of the commission? Miss Builderback. Uh what if I mean you're the only trainer now, but what if that changes in the future? Then you have to come back if we include this in the plan for different hours of operation. It does allow the director to alter the hours. So it wouldn't have to come back to us. But I was just saying if you wanted to go to I think the latest is to 7 p.m. Why not make them all 7 p.m.?

I honestly as far as the latest will be 7 p.m. I I've been in the industry for quite some time and most trainers don't want to work past that especially after after being at on on site at 6 a.m. So Miss Kelly, is there particular reason why the city would be would have a problem with that or is it okay? Sorry I just caught my attention. Yeah, I just want to point out I did include that we staff would be able to approve additional hours. Say if they wanted to stay open on a Saturday uh later on a Saturday or Sunday or start at 5:30 and in the morning um we could that without them having to come back and I think the flexibility makes ton of sense. Sorry, Miss Brack, this is your motion. Sorry.

Um no, I mean that was that was it really. Uh, and the I I just rather than having to come back for anyone, I think that it might make sense to have that, but uh, obviously that's your preference. Uh, all right. Any other Sorry. Any other questions for members of the commission? Any questions for members of the public? Your motion? Mr. Chairman, I move to approve this and recommend it to the board of alderman as submitted with the conditions outlined in the staff report. We have a motion. Is there a second? Second by Mr. Nolan. Motion a second. Roll call vote, please. Uh, Mark Faza, yes. Paul Moran, yes. Jack Shelton,

yes. Jerry Bbec, yes. Jeff Moore, yes. Brian Nolan, yes. Jeff Hunt, yes. Lisa Shering, yes. M Foreman, yes. It's unanimous, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Moran. Mr. Whitner, welcome to Brentwood and again, April 6 to the board of alderman. Thank you so much. All right. All right, next item of business, some text amendments, Miss Kelly, about fun things. Uh, first is case 26 010. This is a text amendment regarding data centers and establishing regulations for such uses in our two square miles of Brentwood. Um, I'm interested in this, please. Staff report.

Yes. Um so because there's been recent discussion throughout the region regarding data centers and their preponderance of using significant amount of water and electricity, we wanted to go ahead and get ahead of this. Uh while we will likely not see the larger data centers that take up 400 acres, we could see for some of the mid-range. Um so therefore we made it as a conditional use in only in the light industrial district and we've included specific requirements under the supplemental reg regulations for that. We did allow as permitted uses those data centers that are within an individual less than 10% of an individual office and only part used for that office. You know like we have our own you know server here in the building. So a bank that's yeah those are less and they're not sold out to a third party. Those can be approved anywhere as part of the permitted use or a conditional use depending on the use. Um it's only this freestanding larger data centers that we're looking to have as the conditional use in the light industrial district.

Thank you Miss K. One question I had water use you mentioned the other is obviously significant power use. Is there any need to have anything in here? And I don't recall seeing if it is, please correct me on um you know power lines, right? This is a thing where you're not going to have buried power lines for these. They'd be big overhead power lines. I'm not sure if that would be something that would be dealt with in the construction in the building permit. Probably be dealt with as part of the building permit and uh site development plan approval as part of a conditional use permit. We do have a requirement of if they have backup generators and lighting um under the supplemental regulations and uh sound study standards that they would have to comply with the city's regulations.

That's a good call. Great. Thank you, Miss Kelly. Other questions for members of the commission? What what um is the current treatment of data centers? What box would it fall into right now as far as right now? It could be argued that uh in the light industrial district it allows for warehousing and manufacturing and technically speaking some data centers could be seen as their manufacturing uh electric space uh for the internet um or it's warehousing of the dum equipment um so therefore that's why we want to specified it as a specific use

else Mr. Hunt other questions any questions from anyone online AI perhaps no uh sir is there a motion Mr. Faza. I move to recommend the approval of the text amendments to various sections of chapter 14 400 relating to the regulation of data centers as presented at this evening's meeting. The motion by Mr. Favaza. Do I have a second? Second. Second by Miss Sharing. Uh roll call vote, please. Markaza, yes. Paul Moran, yes. Chuck Shelton, yes. Shack, yes. Jeff Moore, yes. Brian, yes.

Jeff Hunt, yes. Mr. Sherink. Yes. M Foreman. Yes. Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Moran. Our next item of business is case 260001, a text amendment for marijuana cultivation and manufacturing conditional uses in the LI district and various sections regarding the regulation of marijuana facilities. Miss Kelly, staff report, please.

Um, yes. So, this text amendment came based upon complaints regarding the cultivation and manufacturing facility in Rock Hill due to the smell. Um, currently these facilities are listed as a permitted use in the light industrial district. So, we were making we are proposing to change that to a conditional use. And then where we have the testing of facility and um dispensaries, we're revising all of that language to be compliant with the state law that allowed for recreational. So all of those will now be referred to as medical marijuana, comprehensive marijuana or micro businesses dispensary facilities. Um and those are not changing. Um they're conditional in various districts and permitted in the light industrial. So, and then it includes new definitions for comprehensive marijuana facility and cultivation facilities. Yeah.

Applaud the city on making sure we're learning from the perhaps missteps of others. So, uh, any questions from members of the commission? Miss Builderback? I'm really glad because I think it's horrible. I can't stand to drive through Rock Hill because you smell it and it reeks and it makes me nauseous. Like, it's so bad. So, I I applaud that like wholeheartedly. I think that's really important. And my question is how do we under what categories of the for conditional use permit like we have the different things that we have to look at where would we be able to deal with the smell that is already under the cultivation I mean under the supplemental regulations. Okay. Um which I thought I had addressed in the staff report so I apologize. I might have missed it.

Um but I knew you would be able to tell me. Yeah. It's where they have to address the odor. It could be in Yeah, supplemental. It's on in the draft ordinance on page six and seven. Okay. Where the the supplemental regulations already to have specific requirements for marijuana facilities that include um smell dealing with smell um distance from any school or church um that kind of thing. So, it already addresses those kind of issues. Okay, great.

Signage, operation plan. Yeah. I mean, it had been a long time since I remember looking at this, you know, like and now we're editing it, so I didn't remember all the base legislation that gives us more teeth for that, would you say? Great. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Any other? Yeah, just Mr. just got I mean I guess it's totally not in order with the with the meeting but if somebody came and said we're going to have a we want to open a facility in Brentwood and by the way there won't be any smells don't worry about it what would we say what would you say Whitney

um they'd have to provide how they're going to address that and then if they do not if there's issues we would get into a code enforcement as a conditional use the ordinance does allow um the board of aldermen to repeal a business license if they do not comply with the city's regulations. Uh okay, that's a great answer. Thank you very much. Other questions for member of the commissions, Miss Pervac? I that was a really great question, Mr. Moren. And I have a a follow-up question. That puts a lot of political pressure on the board of alderman to do that. Is that ever likely to really happen?

I mean, do you know what I mean? if they violated it. I'm not sure we uh speculation at that level is is uh something. My point being, do we leave it up like that or do we nail it down a little bit more as part of our job on the planning commission to support the board of alderman in their work? That's what I'm getting at. Maybe our attorney can address that. Does that make sense? You know where I'm going? Like I don't want to just punt stuff to the board of alderman because they're busy.

Yeah. So that would be that would be the second step. So the first step would be to address um air filters and other um odor control mechanisms at the cup stage. And so you would look, they would have to bring to you proof. And what we might want to do is um if they were to bring us a a facility such as this, we would bring in maybe an outside um expert who could look at it and who um would be able to address their filtering systems and that kind of thing to make sure that this that the smell um did not leave the property. So, so similar to when they come through for the cup to get that, then we can require these things be done just like we require the lighting plan and the landscaping plan and all that as a normal course of our operations. But in this case, it would or a sound plan, but in this case, it would be a smell plan.

Exactly. And it wouldn't perfect. Okay. Yeah. they would have to show how those filtering mechanisms would actually work and um if they've been used in other sites and how they've worked there and then let's say that we went through all of this and you had all these conditions on the cup that you they have to maintain them and if it if the smell um um does permeate beyond the property boundaries then they have to install other mechanisms perhaps and if they fail to do all of that then the next step would be that there is a revocation process for the cup. Okay. So, there would be like layers that we could go through of what we have in the cup process. So, we're not just automatically punting.

And in fact, before you even get to revocation, let's say that they've gotten their CUP and they have all these conditions. You could actually bring them back in for additional conditions in order to mitigate these adverse effects that you're seeing before you even get to the revocation stage.

Okay. If I recall correctly, I think our neighbors to the west are in that because they have an air lock and filters that are apparently not functioning and I believe that there has been some requests uh from the city of Rockill for that. I will say my day job we have a we teach some of this because we teach a lot of things um and had to go through an airlock and these special filters as well and to the point of calling it a specialist. There are engineers who specialize in this which is amazing to me and that is who we engage for that purpose.

It's strong enough recourse that if like in that situation like if the stuff breaks it's not working that we have recourse without just going to the board of alderman and having try and have the the citizenry try to have them revoke a license. Okay. Thank you. So, um, just so you know, under subsection 10 of the operate, uh, 10 operation plan under the supplemental regulation for marijuana facilities, number B, odor control. The facility shall provide a plan for the mitigation and control of odors and other environmental impacts which may emanate from the facility. Such plan shall describe the ventilation system for the premise. Appropriate ventilation systems to prevent any odor of marijuana fumes from leaving the premises of a facility or other changes to a facility may be required to abate the public nuisance.

That's part of getting a business license. Is that part of the No, that's part of the C process. Okay. I read the lead in to 10 there and it says as a condition of processing a business license. assume that A and B both well we would look at you know we look at all of these as part of the cup and then they would also have to provide that information for the part of the business license permit for any building. Um,

so as we've seen recently with a number of different things in front of this board, the noise that we just talked about down Henley Industrial and other ones, those are easier to tie back to you can, excuse me, you can get a phone app that'll measure decibb. You can get a phone app that'll measure light levels lux or the no the wording that is in here is no odor which isn't very quantifiable. Do we need to tie this to an ashray standard or other engineering standard of parts per million etc. So we can actually benchmark what no odor means.

I think that's he's nodding because he knows that's a good question. Yeah, I do. And that's a good question. Mr. I think that um yes, no odor is are you talking about if there's a generator there and it produces diesel exhaust, that's an odor um and it's an odor that's not particularly pleasant, but if there's a generator and we've authorized a generator, it's an odor that we're expecting. So I think

and having dealt with air reintrainment, other clean rooms, hospital environments, etc., We tie everything back to American Society of Heating and Ventilating Engineering. Ashray has a lot of standards about those kind of things. They're the ones that actually control the standards for the filtering packs that our friends in our neighboring city are having issues with. I think that would be a good addition if it's something that's attainable. Anything else, Mr. Foreman? Sorry. I think it's a good addition. Perhaps when a motion is made, it might be added. I

I was just wondering if it uh if you don't mind if if if that doesn't come under the um providing a plan for the mitigation and control of odor. So, it's something we could handle at the time of application rather than trying to get really too specific with micro units of whatever you measure smell in. Good point. So that could be similar to what we do with a civil engineering with storm water and residential. They have to fund the study. Maybe it's a similar issue where they have to provide an engineering study based on ashray and industry standards stating that that system meets.

I recall it's similar to what we just discussed with the sound where they had a temporary in place. They were at a certain decel level and our request has once this is fully in place, let's make sure it actually worked and report that back out to the city. Right. But to Miss Bilderbeck's point, if we can quantify it and control it, it doesn't just get kicked to the board of alderman and that could be handled in through the cup process, right? And that would be a condition then on the CU discussion. I appreciate any other questions or comments.

Great. I appreciate that. Uh, is there a motion, Miss Builderbeck? I'd like to make a motion to recommend approval of this text amendment to the board of alderman. We have a motion. Is there a second? Second. Second by was it Mr. Ruban? Uh, sorry. Yep. Uh, roll call vote, please. Markaza, yes. Paul Ran, yes. Jack Shelton, yes. Sherry Bbeck, yes. Jeff Moore, yes. Brian Nolan, yes. Jeff Hunt, yes. Lisa Shering, yes. M forman, yes. Unanimous, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Moran. Uh, seeing no alderman, I assume no aldermanic report. Uh, director's report, please, Miss Kelly.

We have two applications for the next meeting and and then the continuation of the town homes. Um, that meeting is April 8th. Mark your calendars. Let us know if you're not going to be here or not. Um, which I failed to do. Please, as a typical or a usual reminder, please get your RSVPs in. I was a violator of that. So please attempt to do that so we sure we have quorum. It's great to see everyone here this evening. Good turnout. Uh with that our business is concluded and we stand adjourned. Thank you everyone.