Planning and Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

All right. Good evening, everyone. Welcome to the July 8th, 2026 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting for the City of Brentwood. If you would please join me in the Pledge of Allegiance. All right. Next item of business is the roll call. Mr. Moran, please.

Yeah. Hart Nelson. Here. Mark Vazza. Here. Paul Moran's here. Jeff Moore.

Here.

Matt Foreman on Zoom. Not yet, maybe. Jack Shelton. Here. Lisa Shering.

Here.

And Brian Nolan. Here. We have a quorum.

Thank you, Mr. Moran. Next item of business is the approval of the agenda. I believe we do have one change or one comment this evening. Ms. Kelly?

Yes, thank you, Chairman. I just wanted to announce for the public or if anyone was here, item number two under new business, case number 26020, Titanium Fitness has requested to postpone to the August 12th meeting, so we will postpone that to the August 12th.

All right, are there any other changes or alterations needed for the agenda? Any objection to approval by acclamation? Seeing none, the agenda stands approved. The minutes for our June 10th meeting have been distributed. Are there any changes or adjustments that need to be made to those? Any objection to approval by acclamation? Seeing none, the minutes from June 10th are approved. Are there any citizens here wishing to address the commission on items not on the agenda this evening? Anyone online? All right, moving on we have no old business new business first up is case 26018 and 26019. This is extra space storage boundary adjustment site development plan and conditional use permit at 8071 through 8075 Manchester Road is the applicant or their representative here this evening. Please, if you could come up to the podium, give us your name, your address for the record and tell us a little bit about your proposal.

Yeah, so my name is Beau Reinberg. My address is 7018 Maryland Avenue, St. Louis, Missouri, 63130. So this project is, quite frankly, a long time coming. It's the relocation efforts. and further enhancements of Manchester where we're relocating the existing storage facility now into a new Class A facility much closer to the intersection of Manchester and Hanley Road. You know, this, it's, you know, an interesting situation because you get this kind of, you know, and being a self-storage developer, I don't often get, like, applauses from planning departments or P&Z, so I don't expect one. But what I can tell you is that 1 in 10 households utilize self-storage. 30% of our tenants are small businesses. This is an important issue. Amenity for the city of Brentwood you have it right? It's fully occupied people use it people have used it for two decades It's not in the right location for what this corridor Wants to be and it's not the right product type for what this corridor should look like And so with working with the city and and the other folks along this corridor what we've designed is a class a facility with retail on the first floor and a look that really enhances the entire. corridor As you come into to Brentwood. We've worked exhaustively with the city on the development agreement and With guidance from Joel and Hale and the entire team on how do we make this a successful? venture But I also think about it too is you have residents you have businesses that are utilizing this service in your community right now and This is the most seamless way to get them staying in your community, being serviced the way they need to be serviced in a Class A facility, just right down the road. So I think that as we look further at the site plan and elevations, I think if something is glass and it should be brick or brick and it should be glass, I know we can figure those types of things out. If somebody doesn't like a green wall right here and wants a brick wall, we can figure something out. Our goal is to create a successful facility for the current customers and new customers and then enhance and really drive the continued growth down Manchester. This will be the most capital that's ever been spent by Extra Space on a facility in St. Louis by probably 40%. So this is not being taken lightly from a investment standpoint. And I think that we've proven that working with the city on the signage and the entrance into Brentwood, that we want this to be something that looks the right way, but also serves the customers that it's currently serving. Because again, those are, Those are residents. Those are small businesses. Our trade circle is three miles max, but most of our customers come from within a mile and a half. So I think that's really important to highlight.

Thank you, Mr. Reinberg. How this will work is we'll go to our staff report next, and then the commission may have some questions for you and for anyone else. Sir? Great.

Joel Oliver, Halo Ventures, 900 North Rock Hill Road. We're the master developer for this corridor. I just want to echo what a great partner Bo has been through this. We had our first conversation on this project. It was over three and a half years ago when it was actually life storage. It was before life and extra space merged. Today is over three and a half years in the making. I think what everybody realizes is the current facility down in the southwest corner of the redevelopment district is one of the most key pieces of land in this whole district with its adjacency to the park and the amenities in the park. And Extra Space is a massive, really big company, and they have been very thoughtful in how they've interacted over all of this time to get here. So just give Bo and his team kudos. They've really done a spectacular job. They've been very respectful to the the city process and we're thrilled to be here. So, thanks. Thank you.

All right, Ms. Kelly, staff report, please.

So I'll just pop up. There we go. So, yes, as you are aware, earlier this year, we. As you're aware, earlier this year, we did do a text amendment to allow for self-storage where the ground floor is to have a minimum of a 30 percent retail and an effort to facilitate relocation of the existing extra space storage out of the floodplain. So the applicants have submitted for that boundary adjustment to combine the two lots at 8071 through 8075 Manchester Road and for the site development plan. There are a number of key issues that we need direction from the Planning and Zoning Commission. You have the elevations here. The extra space storage is approximately 106,992 square feet with 8,396 square feet of retail, approximately 31.5%. While they call it ground floor retail, it is on top of a 7-foot, 10-inch retaining wall due to the slope in the property. So that may be a discussion point for the Planning and Zoning Commission to create that connectivity with the adjacent properties. And they are showing some branded elevations on the materials, branded color elevation of materials. There is a materials board right here at the end if you want to pass that around for that review. So you see the dark gray here and is the retail location. And then we have the office that is also included as part of that retail for the extra space storage. Have a few of the renderings adjacent to the houses to the north. A couple of the key components that should be addressed is that the code requires a 12 foot buffer where adjacent to residential. They are currently showing a five foot buffer because of the existing retaining wall and the significant landscaping that's already available there. Staff does recommend that additional landscape buffer should be provided. If you remember with the approval of the town homes on this planned development overlay district recently that had a 50 foot setback requirement where adjacent to residential and a 25-foot landscape buffer. And currently, the applicants are showing a 5-foot landscape buffer where adjacent to the residentials. The code does allow for the Planning and Zoning Commission to waive that transitional requirement. maybe by conditional use permit or site development plan, but it can be imposed more stringent or less stringent required in order to mitigate the adverse effects of one land use upon another or conflicts between the two different land uses. So that is a discussion that the planning ends up before you tonight. The building would be set at 38.5 feet at the east corner and 37.96 feet from the north property line where adjacent to the residential. And here's the close up you see there. So staff has asked for that. In addition, the The code under the MC district includes design discussion requirements, not really requirements, but design discussion of the permit exterior materials. It does include that EFIS is to be not more than 30%, which they are meeting that. It does include brick or brick veneer. And metal panels is used as an accent feature, includes types such as a lucubond and other similar materials. The use of the materials in this instance is largely the metal siding, metal panels that represent, I believe, approximately 63% on the south elevation, 43% on the east elevation, 44% on the west elevation, and 89% on the north elevation. Additionally, they are, the code does require that There is a stream buffer where adjacent to any stream that is designated as a blue line at the USGS is to have a 50-foot stream buffer from the top of the ledge. Any other creek is at 25 feet. Black Creek is shown as a blue line on the USGS maps, and they are showing that the site plan would have grading into the 25-foot buffer where 50 feet is required. That will require a variance at the Board of Adjustment, which is scheduled for July 23, which is why we're asking that this be continued. But we would like your initial input on some of these other issues as well in order to have the applicant work on that for the site development plan subcommittee or the future planning and zoning commission meeting. Matt Foreman joined the meeting at 637.

Thank you.

While the report from CBB has not been completed at this time, Lee Cannon is here and can provide some things that he has been looking into that they can address. The report should be completed by the time of the site plan subcommittee, if not earlier next week.

Do we want to have Mr. Cannon address that now, or do we want to wait until the end?

You can have him address that now.

Mr. Cannon, if you wouldn't mind.

Good evening, Chair and members of the Commission. For the record, my name's Lee Cannon. I'm with CBB out at 12400 Olive Suite 430, and I am working on behalf of the city as your on-call engineer. City planner requested that I look at two main issues which are traffic impacts as well as parking. So this facility, while large, is not going to generate a whole lot of traffic. We do not have our findings yet regarding traffic impacts But there won't be many impacts because self-storage units don't generate a lot of in and out traffic. You may see more than typical as they open, right, over the first, say, six months or a year. But after that, it'll die down quite a bit. And similarly with parking, they've got more than adequate parking on the site. We might even recommend ultimately that they have less parking than they currently show unless they can demonstrate that they absolutely need it for some reason we may not be considering. So as Whitney said, we got our notice to proceed on this just over two weeks ago. So we are working on it. I hope to be done next week in plenty of time before we sit down for the site plan review committee. But as some of you may or may not know, CBB looked at this site in May of 2016 for an apartment development. I don't recall if it got pulled or approved or it didn't go to construction. I think it was approved. I was on the commission. Okay. And then in October of 2020, I'm almost positive that it was approved for a FOSS swim school. Correct. That didn't get built either. And you know, that was right during the middle of COVID. No idea why that didn't happen, but it didn't. And now we have this facility that's been proposed. One thing that I would like input from the commission would be, do you have specific questions about traffic issues and or parking that you'd like us to incorporate? So I'm here to listen. But I also, I believe in access management is important, and I don't have with me the drawings from FOSS Swim School, but as part of that development, we had recommended a different access plan than what FOSS came forward with And that was primarily going to share the existing driveway. Whitney, do you have an aerial photo or a site plan? With the adjacent property, the existing office building that's on the east side of Porter Avenue, immediately west of this site. For their primary access point, those two access points are very, very close together. And based on the location of the signal at Hanley, there's really no point in pushing the subject property's driveway further east where it would interfere more with the big intersection. And so with FOSS, what we ultimately decided to do was to share the driveway with 8077, which is already straddles a property line. an existing issue where those two properties both have rights to it and eliminate the driveway shown in 8071 and then go to some sort of like maybe a right in, right out, a limited access driveway Maybe about where that truck is the the pointer shown that we can provide those details But it might line up nicer with kind of the front so the retail buildings that are on their site plan as well We haven't brought this up to the developer yet, but from How much traffic this thing is expected to generate, which is not much. We believe that convenient access can be provided in an alternative way so that the site can be fully accessible from all directions, but still not create any additional congestion along Manchester Road. So I was hoping that I could get permission from the city to kind of maybe have conversations back and forth with the developer. We can include staff as well to see what might work for them also. Before site plan development,

I would also just build on .. If you remember, in 2023, we did do a text amendment to have a maximum parking. Currently, warehousing is, in our code, is one space for every two employees. However, and we don't have anything specific for self-storage. So they're showing a total of 61 parking spaces where, per our code, it would only require Less than that, and we did a text amendment that the maximum number can only exceed by 120%, which would be 42 parking spaces. So we do need from Lee a better idea of if the extra space storage as a self-storage facility needs different traffic than general warehousing. As they've indicated in their application, the self-storage would only have two to three employees. That is something we need clarification on.

You have, and the commission, I'm sorry. Hold on a sec, because we want to make sure we record this. This is being recorded, so if you could just give us a second, we'll actually bring you back up. We'll be able to answer those. Any questions, though, for Mr. Cannon? I do have one, but just any questions from the commission? Mr. Nolan?

Thank you. I had two questions. I think you answered one about the driveways. So it sounds like you're looking into that. Does MoDOT need to approve any change in that access there?

Yes.

Okay. And then my second question was related to the parking. Are you considering the retail spaces then for the number of required spaces? Yes.

Yes, we are. So the issue is that the city has a parking requirement specifically listed for warehouse. That's really not what this is. So it's a different animal. You know, warehouse is, you know, stacked high with stuff in it. Maybe, you know, you make stuff next door and store it in. But this is self-storage. And so that's the problem. You don't already have a code defined parking requirement. We are going to look into that and recommend one based on what industry standard resources tell us and also what local adjacent municipalities and agencies are doing. For instance, St. Louis County requires, and I don't have that right in front of me, but the requirement for self-storage for 100,000 square feet would be like six spaces. for the self-storage. Now they have an office function where they sell the self-storage and they interact with their customers like a front desk, if you will. And then also there is a retail component to this facility that will be retail bays that are rented out to different tenants. Don't exactly know how that works. So some conversation with the developer will help on that as well. But I believe that those retail tenants could be anything that's allowable under the retail tenant codes in the zoning district.

So on page 15 of the staff report, I did provide that calculation. The retail use is at four per thousand square feet, so that would require 34 parking spaces. The warehousing, as defined in our current code, which we've already said is insufficient, only adds one more parking spaces, so it would be a total of 35 parking spaces, and they're providing 61. At 120% over the required parking, as currently understood, that would be a maximum number of 42 parking spaces, and that includes both the retail and warehousing under what our current code states. So that, yeah.

Anything else, Mr. Nolan? Mr. Shelton, did you have a question?

My question might be more for Mr. Reinberg. It sounds like he was maybe going to answer this, because the 30% retail has to be not related to self-storage, right?

We did have this discussion at that when we did the text amendment. It can include the office space for the use, because they do sell packing equipment and stuff. It is the non-storage area. It's the storage area versus the retail area. that could include this office space.

So I guess my question when Mr. Einberg has a chance to come back up is what do they envision composes that retail? What is that kind of makeup?

Maybe I'm missing it in here, but just to get that up, Mr. And so I take that as a good question. I had that as well. Mr. Ken, I do have a question for you though, which is he's asked for considerations. Uh, this is self storage. I understand it's not industrial, it's not commercial, but as our large vehicles, are we talking trailers and thinking about trailers in that space and that traffic movement? Again, whether it's just pull trailers on a pickup or we're talking larger vehicles, that's something I think we should consider as well, busy intersection, and then thinking about the turnarounds and things like that.

One of the things that we will mention in our... traffic study as recommendations number one will be that they need to demonstrate adequate sight distance which is how you can see when you come up to the roadway in both directions for safe passage as well as vehicle turning templates which will illustrate how these vehicles might move and we probably will also want to get some information, some feedback from the developer as to what is the typical vehicle that comes. You know, is it a straight-frame, three-axle U-Haul truck, or do they see a handful of WB67, 75-foot-long tractor-trailers? And I don't really know the answer to that question, but they should design the site to accommodate the regularly anticipated design vehicle.

Any other questions for Mr. Cannon? All right, thank you very much.

Mr. Reinberg, we'll get you back up here, but rather than have you come back and forth all the time, we'll finish staff report, and then we'll go from there.

All right, Ms. Kelly, on with staff report.

Oh, it was? Okay. The other... thing I did want to point out that I've include, I believe that I've had discussions with the applicant and they made the change, but I don't believe they were correctly changed in the recent submittal or the last submittal was that they in the elevations they were showing some false storefronts here. And here, well, this is the entry for this retail tenant on this end, but they were showing several false storefronts. I asked that those be removed. We don't want to create like the appearance of vacant space when it's not even designed for that. Also, they on this tower element here, would be displays, which would include the windows. And as you know, window signage is limited to the ground floor at no more than 20% of the window space unless they come through for a comprehensive sign plan. So I've asked that that display area be adjusted as well. They did, you know, initially their application had the retaining wall as CMU. So I think that sample is over there. They did agree to change that to brick to match the building. So that did point out. Andy Frankie with Planning Design Studio could not be here tonight, but he did provide a letter. It was provided late after most of the staff report had already been written, so I just included it. But he did have some comments that there should be a five foot landscape buffer along the West property line where adjacent to any other property that is a requirement of the code. Again, I think that is something that could be waived by the Planning and Zoning Commission should you wish to not provide that. He also provided a number of suggestions. In large part, where the applicant is showing the city's monument sign would be within the 25-foot stream buffer. We are requesting that that be moved outside of that stream buffer, but they are seeking a variance for that. It needs to be outside the 50-foot stream buffer to allow for the visibility. So there are a number of things for your consideration. He should be available either at the site plan subcommittee or the next meeting. But he had sent the letter to ask for some revisions, including site distance, especially with the trucks, because you have to pull in and immediately turn left or right. We also had a concern that the parking for the office is not ADA compliant. And It needs to have an ADA parking space, but in one of these areas, because each location has to be near an ADA space. But you're on top of a seven-foot retaining wall, so that's a concern. I think he raised that as well. So those are the key issues that we have raised with this staff report. The ground floor display area here, and that goes out on the upper floors as well. They did submit a lighting plan that is showing some spillage.

Spillage in the residential, is that right?

Yes. So if you look on page 17 of the staff report, you're seeing some minor spillage of 0.4 to 0.5. to 0.6 along where adjacent to residential where additional landscape buffering to the south below the existing retaining wall would help shield a lot of that. But the lighting does meet with the city's code of less than 3,000 kelvins. And here's the graphic of They're showing some grading within the 25 foot natural vegetation where the 50 foot is in this area, which is prompting the the difference which is prompting the need for a variance.

And is that additional parking is why that grade is extending in there? Or is that turnaround travel? What exactly is the purpose of that?

That is for parking.

OK. So if we reduce the number of spots, that may be looking OK.

Correct. And the trash enclosure is within that area, too.

In the current version. Yeah. OK. Questions for Ms. Kelly? Sorry, if you could, just so we're not doing back and forth, give me one sec, we'll do that. Just questions for Ms. Kelly, and then we will ask you to come back up, and we'd be happy to take your responses, and then we'll have questions as well. Mr. Moore.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Reflecting back on the approval of the apartment complex, I recall that the residents behind the facility were concerned about the air conditioning units that were going to be on the roof of the building. Did that come up with staff? And if not, perhaps the developer could address that.

That has not come up. They have not shown the location of those AC units, but they are assumed to be on the roof as well.

So it is a climate control facility. Yeah.

I would also add, I forgot to mention, they are not showing a fence where the code requires that a fence be provided where adjacent to residential. Again, that is something that can be waived by the Planning and Zoning Commission. The fence is to be within two feet of the property line. They feel that the existing retaining wall and the existing landscaping is sufficient. However, in the letter from Planning Design Studio, they did discuss that some of that is invasive and should be removed anyway and replanted.

No, thank you. Other questions? Mr. Moran?

Yeah, Whitney, do the residents of Fallen Court, do they know about this meeting and the agenda item?

Yes, public notice was sent out for this item to every property within 300 feet, and public notice for the Board of Adjustment was also sent out.

Great, thank you.

I do notice we have more than our usual number of participants online, so I'll see if anyone does have questions once we Other questions from the Commission? All right, yeah, Mr. Reinberg, if you could, or anyone would like to come up, I think we'll have some more questions for you about the plan, and just again, we don't like to have folks have to come up, sit down, come up and sit down all the time. It becomes uncomfortable for you. So please, go ahead, you're coming.

Yeah, we wear an interesting hat in this one, kind of acting in the master developer capacity, working at Bose, really the on-the-ground developer interacting with extra space, so kind of different levels here. On the retail piece, there's a lot of coordination had to happen with this concept between bow and extra space in response to some of the comments. So we have discussed with them reorienting the retail instead of the one block and what would be the southeast corner of the building to be more of the frontage of the building. So I think that is if that just seemed like something the city was was more desiring to happen. So that is something that is being evaluated. We believe that is doable so that ADDRESSES A LOT OF THE CONCERNS THAT THE CITY HAD RAISED WITH SOME OF THE DOORFRONTS AND SOMEWHERE THOSE ELEMENTS ARE. SO THAT IS IN PROCESS.

CAN I ASK, IS THE INTENT OF THAT RETAIL, BECAUSE WE HAVE HAD THAT DISCUSSION AND I RECALL IT, WHETHER IT'S GOING TO JUST BASICALLY BE THE EQUIVALENT OF A UPS STORE, RIGHT? YOU'RE GOING TO BE SELLING BOXES, YOU'RE GOING TO BE SELLING THINGS THAT YOU'RE USING WITHIN THE FACILITY, OR IS THE INTENT TO ACTUALLY LEASE OUT THAT SPACE FOR DIFFERENT RETAIL USERS? IT'S A GREAT QUESTION.

SO THAT IS NUMBER TWO AS TO WHAT'S GOING TO GO IN THIS SPACE, RIGHT? That has evolved over time. The kind of overarching idea for the last three and a half years has been that that is one opportunity to relocate some of the existing retail kind of commercial tenants in the corridor that may have to move somewhere for redevelopment of their property. So the city has interacted quite a bit with a person that works with Halo. His name is Ted Martin. He's a commercial broker. So we are actually working in the brokerage capacity for that retail space. partly for efficiency of if we're able to relocate some of the existing tenants in the district, there we will. But not having tenants locked in or not having one really big tenant taking all of the space, our recommendation is that the kind of standard in St. Louis County now is really five spots per thousand for general retail. So if you knew XYZ Company was coming in and signing a 20 year lease, maybe you would design to that. But not knowing exactly what that'll be, our guidance for them is five per thousand. To answer your question, the actual office space for extra space, they sell kind of boxes and packing goods and things like that. So those are some of the attempts we've made. The one other idea that we've internally spitballed a little bit, we have not talked to the city at all about this, would be with the stream buffer the way it is on the one side, that obviously makes some difficulties with that sign there and the elevations with the bridge. Maybe there's a totally different way to envision that where it's something more akin to like what's in the grove. where it's a large sign over Manchester, like they did there. It's kind of like what Maplewood did on their train trestle there. And then you just have a footing to deal with there, and you have really a pop of visibility. So, you know, I think that's an ongoing conversation with them. But I think the memo was right on some of the line sites to what that sign looks like and how it plays with the stream. So that was what I had to add. So I can defer to Bo if you have anything else to add.

Please. A couple questions and I'll open it up, unless you had some comments you wanted to make based on that. Nope. One question I've got right away is how much larger is this facility going to be from the existing storage that you have?

Uh, square footage wise, it's pretty similar, but that's all ground level individual ground.

Yeah.

I mean, so it's spread out over, you know, I don't know, four acre. What is that for?

But it's about a hundred thousand square feet. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. All right. Um, The parking, do you plan on storing any vehicles on the lot? Is that something? Okay, so you don't do any vehicle storage. I think that was my question of why do we need the extra spots? And it may not be what we're calculating because it may not be the same purpose, but it's not there for storage. One more question, then I'll open up. But if I can't find it, I will. Any questions from the commission? Mr. Moran.

Mr. Chair, how does this building compare with your location at 9717 Manchester in Rock Hill? There's an extra storage place there as well.

I mean, it's, how does it compare from what, I mean, that's a drive-through facility. I think if you're talking about the right, is there a Jimmy John's in front?

It's got like three parking spaces, right?

Yeah, but you drive through the middle of it.

Okay, and that's not the plan for this one?

That's not the plan for this one.

Right, so it's not really, can't really compare them then in terms of the parking need?

No, I mean, they're similar, I would say somewhat similar size, but that facility has a drive-through right through the middle of it. Okay. And then you pull out in the back and so.

All right. Thank you, and is there a plan to, the residents on Fawn Court who overlook this, right, there's a few mature trees there. Are those going to remain in place?

Well, with the, I mean, part of this is it gets down to that landscape buffer and things in the path, in the rear. We would We've found that it's much better to leave the mature trees in place than to remove them and start new. And so that's what our current plan, our current plan is to leave it as is and then have the five foot landscape buffer so that we've got adequate room in the rear there.

Okay. Whitney, maybe you can send out Andy's report to the committee after the meeting. Can we have a look at that? Thank you. Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Other questions?

I will add, looking at the information of the existing extra space storage, that is indicated at 53,000 square feet of storage area.

Sorry, the one existing in Brentwood at this point, not the one we're talking about in Rock Hill? Right. So that's double the size. Okay.

53,000. Where are you getting the input?

That was on the business license.

I mean, it's a lot of ground, but four stories also gives a lot of room as well. I mean, I built a 100,000-square-foot building. I know it's big. So, okay. And then I think, sorry, other questions from members of the commission? Mr. Moore?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just repeat my question about the heating and cooling system. I don't know if it's going to be a central chiller unit or individual.

No, we usually do either three individual kind of rooftop units. Sometimes they're on the roof. Sometimes we don't put them on the roof, depending on, we're not always fans of having them on the roof. They're easier to maintenance on the ground. Sometimes we do a system that has, kind of smaller three-ton units. Those are 99% of the time, well, 90% of the time on the ground. I'm not exactly sure where we're laying the HVAC units out at this time, but certainly be respectful of... Yeah, I mean, we'd be respectful of screening and we understand that component of it.

Just be aware that the objection for the apartment complex that didn't go through. I mean, I remember that being one of the major points of contention with the neighbors behind to the north. So whether it's screening or relocation or however it's addressed, I would recommend being prepared for that. And while I have your attention, the area that's marked as display, I know this is conveniently colored different in the color rendering, but on the corner of the building, I want to make sure that that's not a display area also. Can you pull it up?

I will just say, I believe your architect, is Studio North your architect?

Studio North.

They are online if they want to be able to answer a question, and we do have a hand raised from Mr. Foreman.

Thank you for calling that attention. We'll get that answer real quick, and then we'll go to Mr. Foreman.

I can simply point to Figure 7 on page 4. A beautiful corner glass window. And I just want to clarify that that's not a display area. Rather, that's reflective glass and we can't see inside.

It's not a display area.

Okay. I'm just like seeing myself drive down highway 40 downtown in that big beautiful storage facility and it's all glass windows and you see inside and you see the doors it would be very tempting to do the same there yeah we would want if we could we would want to put the doors there well that's why I brought it up I want to make sure that you don't put the doors there we understand what's going in the corner no I mean if it's one of those that like listen the the door is our arches

That's our brand. Our brand is people recognize the green doors, the orange doors, the red doors. We don't have red doors in St. Louis because CubeSmart isn't there. So the doors are our brand. And so we like to have them visible in certain areas. But that being said, we're not gonna sacrifice this whole project to put doors where you don't want doors. So I just want to explain kind of where our perspective is on that. Like I know it's an important branding element for our facility, but in the end, if we can either do it or we can't do it, then we'd rather do it without the doors than with the doors.

Heal the floor. Thank you, Mr. Moore. Mr. Foreman, although it is Matt Foreman too, which makes me believe there's another Matt Foreman out there. The floor is yours.

I'm in an airport, so there's one laptop and there's one phone going. And I don't need to see myself up on the screen, Whitney, but I don't know if you can control that. So first of all, I think in order of priority, definitely supportive of taking this, the site plan review. So that said, because I don't know if I'm going to lose connection, starting with the master developer, not a question, just a comment. I really appreciate that you've spent years working with this tenant to get them relocated, keeping that Brentwood presence for this business, hoping that'll extend to other tenants within the area. It sounds like you're already talking about that for the retail. So moving on to the building and I know the other architects are online. I do think the design has definitely respected the spirit of the text amendment that we made and to the other board members comment, absolutely the windows filling the doors was discussed as part of that and mitigating that as much as possible. We make sure that this at the gateway of Brentwood filling westbound on Brentwood Boulevard skinny. One of the first things you see after you get past the billboard that we unfortunately don't controls. So for the building design. I think you've done a wonderful job of interpreting the text amendment and creating something that honestly looks more like a hotel or an office building than a storage unit. So That's very much appreciated. In site plan review, to give you a little move forward, I think some of the things we've just talked about with the location of retail, the location of the office for this facility, if you go to the north side, that entry at the north is actually at grade. So If we're talking about any flexibility between flipping the larger retail to the west at Braid and maybe centering up, possibly connecting to the north, we could get accessible personnel from the north through the buildings to that retail. But I think it sounds like there's some studies going on there. The concern right now, you've got two stairways, east and west. You've got a nice curved corridor. length on the south. I'm assuming that's to get everything up out of the floodplain, completely understandable. It does create challenges. It also creates opportunities. I think looking at that as you're driving into that entry, that's going to be a natural place for some wayfinding signage. But it also, if we can do something to mitigate that, just driving and looking at a flat wall at that point, slightly curved, if we can articulate that a bit, I understand why you didn't put a stairway there because there's not actually much parking that's going to feed up into anything within the building to put a stairway there. But if we can break that up a little bit and make that more welcoming rather than just a curved blank wall, I think there's some opportunities for design at that point. Other random comments with me for the light study and concerned that the light spillage we've taken at a flat plane doesn't consider the grade going up to those homes that are actually significantly higher. So that may work in our favor in lighting. That may work against us in acoustics because putting rooftop units is going to actually put them closer to the reception point for any audio study. The east end of the site where we're in the creek, I would be fully supportive of a variance at that point. Editorial comment, I tried to put a building on this site over 20 years ago. It's a very hard site. Access is difficult, grating, flood, a tower hanging above it, all those things. What I'm seeing looks like a very appropriate, well-designed use for this very challenging parcel. I will stand down from my soapbox.

Thank you, Mr. Foreman. We appreciate it. And yeah, we will have some more discussion at site plan, it sounds like. But I appreciate those comments. Obviously, that was our resident, one of our two resident architects, if you couldn't tell. Any other questions from the commission? Any members of the public wishing to address the commission on this application? Hearing none. Is there a motion on the floor? I guess we don't have a floor here, but is there a motion?

Mr. Favazza. I make a motion to send to subcommittee, which would be what date would that be?

July 29th.

29th, yes. July 29th. Actually, a quick look around since it is holiday season. Do we have enough? We don't need a quorum necessarily, but do we have enough participation? Are folks able to make that? I am, all right, looks like we do. We have a motion, is there a second?

Second.

Second, I think a voice vote is fine for this, since we're moving into sub-clinical. All in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed, same sign. All right, so this will go to site plan subcommittee, which is a little more informal. We don't have to set up this table. We'll talk through it in a little more detail by that time. We will have the full traffic study. We will have the full landscaping study and report, and we can talk through some of the things we'd like to see and get a couple of other folks. Thank you very much. We appreciate the time spent on this, and yes, I was there. That's terrifying to realize it was 10 years ago that that apartment complex was here.

I think I'd been on the commission for a while then, so damn.

Anyway, but thank you all, appreciate it. Next item of business, we actually do need an official motion, I think, to move that. So this is case 26020, which is a cup for Titanium Fitness. Is there a motion to postpone it or to move it to our next August meeting? So moved. There's a motion by Mr. Moore. Is there a second?

Second.

Second by Mr. Favazza. All in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed, same sign. That is moved. Aldermanic report, seeing no aldermen. We move on to the director's report, please, Ms. Kelly.

The deadline for the August 12th is actually July 13th, so we haven't gotten an application in yet except for this item, and the titanium fitness will be continued. And if anything else comes in, that will also be for that agenda.

Ms. Kelly, with that, we have completed our business. Is there any items from the commission? If not, we stand adjourned. Thank you, everyone.