Planning and Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

Well, good evening everyone. It is 6:30. I'd like to welcome everyone to the October 8th, 2025 meeting of the Brentwood Planning and Zoning Commission. Uh, if you could please join me in the Pledge of Allegiance. Algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the for it stands.

Thank you. Next item of business is to call the role. Uh Mr. Moran, could you please call the role? Yeah. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Markaza here. Paul Moran's here. Brian Nolen here. Jack Shelton here. Lisa Sharing here. Jerry Bilderbeck here. And do we have John Nerburgger on? Oh, we have Matt Foreman on Zoom there. Present. Thank you, Matt. And and Jeff Hunt on the Yep. Thank you. Yeah. So, we have a quorum, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Moran. Uh, the agenda has been distributed. It is very brief this evening, but has everyone had a chance to review it? Any objections to approving the agenda by acclamation? Seeing none, the agenda is approved. Next item of business. The minutes from the September 10th, 2025 planning and zoning have been uh distributed. Are there any corrections or changes that need to be made to the minutes? Seeing none, any objection to approval by acclamation? Those minutes stand approved. Are there any citizens uh requesting to speak to the planning and zoning commission on items not on the agenda this evening online? Anyone wishing to address the commission? Seeing none, we'll move on to new business. This is case 250012. This is a conditional use permit and site development plan for a Kinderare child daycare facility at 8109 through 811 Manchester Road. Is the applicant or their representative here this evening? You could please state your name and address for the record.

Hi, Joel Oliver. Uh Halo Real Estate Ventures, 900 North Rock Hill Road. Um, first of all, we could not be more thrilled to be here after the years we have as the the master developer for this corridor and the countless hours we have been, you know, having our first project to do this with you guys is really exciting. So, um, the process so far with staff has been phenomenal. Uh, we also have Mike here from Quattro who will speak. They will actually be the building owner and doing the on the ground development work for Kinderare. Um, so we're here for questions. I believe the design team is also on the phone. Um the only request that we made of staff uh from their report is this one plan that we'd like to call attention to. Uh in the staff report it references the original I believe PGAV uh plan for kind of the comprehensive area. Um Whitney and I had some dialogue just that it was we believe relevant to show this also as this is the official exhibit to the redevelopment agreement for kind of the conceptual site plan for the entire redevelopment corridor along uh Manchester. So um this specific site is actually it's an interesting one because of the topography on the hill up Porter is very challenging. So there is not a specific building shown on that corner. Um the north side in general uh was just shown as various commercial uses in the approved plan to the redevelopment agreement. So that's obviously pretty different than the very large multif family building that was shown in the PGA plan um that would have terminated Porter. So we just as a point of reference uh we ask that that be uh shown also but we're excited to go through this with you guys.

Thanks Mr. Oliver. Yep. And so we'd love to hear about the uh plan and and what we're looking at this evening.

Yeah. Thank you so much. My name is Mike Hey with Quattro Development. Uh we're representing uh KinderCare for this uh proposed development at uh I believe it's 8109 and 811 Manchester Road. Um we have uh worked with KinderCare on a on a similar project uh in neighboring Shrewsbury and we're excited to bring a new facility hopefully to uh Brentwood. Um Kinderare is very excited about this market. Uh, I think their um what they do and ch early childhood education is incredibly important for a lot of communities and uh I have two young kids and I know child care is really challenged and I think it'll be a great addition to the Manchester Road uh corridor redevelopment zone. um kind of planting a flag there and and redeveloping what is currently an automotive use with uh on a site with some significant topography challenges and some environmental concerns. And I think this project um satisfies both of those uh challenges. And um just speaking a little bit more broadly about this this project and what we're going to be talking about tonight. Um one of the the original plan that we showed showed some large retaining walls. So, we've been working with city staff the last couple weeks to try to refine that plan to bring it into what uh what you all envision as residents of this city. Uh what you all envision is really important to us as the developer and the owner of this project. So, um we started with uh on the far left with the original submission. Um all of these submissions uh show a 12,000 ft kindergare facility. um with their with with how Kinder Care works and how a lot of these childhood education uh companies work is is the footprint of the building is really challenging to change just because of a lot of the uh child safety and health uh licensing requirements with per square foot per uh student and also the student ratios and

teacher ratios have to be kind of fixed based on the economics of the site. So, we really have to do uh what we can work with is the playground and and we've shown from revised site plan one to revised site plan two is is moving the playgrounds around. That's that's pretty um flexible and obviously parking and and landscaping. So, we've worked with our team of engineers and architects to try to bring something that's a little bit closer um despite the challenges of I believe it's a 34 foot difference from Manchester Road to the north end of our property from south to north 34T. Um, so there are some challenges and and there are going to be some retaining walls, but we were able to move them from, you know, evenly balanced on the site, which was the original submission, to uh, I think a sloped gradient from Manchester up uh, that would just be landscaped nicely. Uh, and then and then have a much larger um, it's a different type of retaining wall. I think it's um, reinforced. Uh, but we would we would try to decorate that with some sort of stamped concrete look to make it less uh plain, but that would be I think up in the 22 feet range on the north end on the revised site plan option two. Um, there are some further revisions that we're looking at with regards to landscaping requirements that we've talked about this last week um uh with with consultation with the the landscape architect, etc. We've also had some revisions on the elevations to try to uh match what the community wants. So, we've included some architectural features on the south elevation, uh, which is going to match the front elevation, which would be their east side that faces Porter. Um, you know, the site layout is challenging, and I understand that, uh, you know, the the idea behind this district was to have everything face Manchester. Um, unfortunately, with the way the topography works and the site layout, that's just not possible. So, they're facing Porter Avenue as their front door. Um, specifically, uh, a few reasons is access off of Manchester is tough with the proximity to the

intersection. So, coming off Porter, uh, makes a lot more sense from, uh, a child care use. You want slower traffic coming into the site as opposed to somebody taking a right-hand turn quickly off of Manchester. And also the playgrounds, they prefer to have the playgrounds away from busy streets for obvious reasons. So, the layout of the site is is such that um we've we've tried to really enhance the south elevation to match the east elevation. We've included, I believe, a six-foot uh overhang bumpout with columns to uh um to to to match the east elevation around their front entrance. and uh and yeah, I'm happy to to answer any questions, but we're just really excited to be here to start the dialogue uh with you all and uh and to just continue the the fine work that our design team has with conjunction with with Joel and his team uh just to try to bring quality development to this community.

Great. Thank you, Mr. Hay. We appreciate it. We'll probably go to staff report now. You're welcome to take a seat, but if you could uh come back to the mic if we have any questions, I'd appreciate it. Thank you so much, Miss Kelly. Staff report, please. As the applicant has indicated, this is uh for a child daycare facility at 8109 through 8111 Manchester Road. And this is the first real significant project as part of the Manchester redevelopment. Um the original site was developed in 1950 and the remainder area is largely vacant. Um, as part of the Manchester corridor, there are some specific site requirements. Um, what was mislabeled as a 50-foot setback is along is actually 65 ft from Manchester Road. However, much of the Manchester Road Corridor zoning district does allow for your review um to wave any of those other requirements due to the special nature of what we want to see occur in this area. Um again, the Manchester corridor does specify or prefer that it be oriented along Manchester Road. They've up the design elements. um that's not currently showing on the site plan, but it will show it in the rear in the renderings. Um and again, here's the version that would have the retaining wall. There would be a number of fences for the retaining wall. So staff does prefer that it be the more sloped version.

So this is sorry just there was three options that were prevent uh presented. Let me just make sure I'm understanding. This was the first option then there was option one option two after that. Yes. All right. And Okay. Thank you. Um which yeah could you show that initial submission again? Yeah. So see so this was the first option uh where they did show the sixoot bumpout and that was playground in the back. Am I recalling correctly? Um the first option had the playground on the side but this is also showing it at the back. Okay.

Um, it's not showing the second page. So, I'm trying to find the second page where it's a most sloped one. I'll preview the fact that I think that the commission is going to be very interested in elevations.

Yes. Let's get to Okay. So, then we have the elevations. I'm trying to get to the rendering. So, the elevations are or materials is here on this board. Um there are a number the MC district does talk about materials which the proposal is largely consistent. Um you know they want natural stone a brick veneer use of three different materials. Um so it is largely consistent. It does use a split face um CMU which is at this water line down here below um and and as asphalt shingles the floor plan again the big issue that staff had a concern was was the number of retaining walls along the front. So, we do prefer this the landscaped version and moving the playgrounds to the rear. That does create a rear um retaining wall of 20 ft. So, that would have to be engineered. Um um Matt Foreman who is online and is part of our architectural design uh architectural review board um as well as P&Z provided a rendering as well to kind of better explain how that would look so So that may be a concern for the board.

Matt has his hand raised. So we can go to Hold on, Mr. Foreman. If you could, let's let staff report complete and then you're welcome to jump in and clarify if that's all right.

So we have engaged CBB um for the parking. Lowering the building and moving grading the site does shift the entrance into uh the site closer to Porter which there may be a stacking concern but and he has reached out to MDOT because that would be MDOT approval as well. We have not gotten responses from them at that time. We do anticipate having that by something by the next meeting. Um so that is one of the reasons why we're recommending continuing it to the site plan subcommittee or to the November meeting. Um they prefer the applicant has indicated they prefer 40 spaces but they are not showing the correct landscaping um which Andy can explain within the parking lot but they would live with 36. So the amount of interior parking is adjustable for them. The applicants have also indicated that um since this is a daycare and they do part-time as well as full-time students, their drop off in pickup can vary throughout the day versus at a school time when there is a set hour. So that should help in some of the parking issues. Um they are addressing the storm water. Uh and if Andy you would like to talk about your landscape review. Do we want to let Mr. Foreman weigh in since you talked about elevations? And then Mr. Frankie, my apologies.

Mr. Foreman, if you could please. I was only going to comment that I created a diagram based on the information. It was no, there was no interpretation or design changes at all. It was just a diagram representing the grade and the elevations with the landscape walls and the fencing illustrated. That was it. Thank you, Mr. Foreman. uh for the applicant's benefit, Mr. Foreman is an architect. That's what he does for his day job. He's also on ARB and he's also on PNZ, so we get some expertise there. Thank you. Uh Mr. Frankie, sorry for the head fake.

Good evening, Mr. Chairman. Uh my name is Andrew Frankie. I'm the city's on call landscape architect. Uh usually it's the Lee and Andy show. I will uh I won't try to do the Tennessee accent for you, so we'll just kind of roll. Um, Whitney summarized our review uh very well in in your report. Uh, and I'll go through it really quickly. Uh, the bullet points that she indicated were uh we need more street trees and additional planting along both Porter and Manchester. And that's going to be a little bit of a trick because of the way uh Porter is configured in the sidewalk. The planting area between the sidewalk and the parking edge kind of diminishes and we feel we need at least a 3ft wide width to do an adequate job. So there might be a portion of that buffer that we don't have that 3 foot. So we're just going to that that's probably going to be an issue that we'll just have to overcome or or just live with. Uh the petitioner's landscape plan, they did three options, but they only did one landscape plan uh for that. So they don't quite jive. We don't really know which option we're going with. So we reviewed the one they provided. Uh the one they provided did not have landscape islands within the parking lot. We reviewed that with them and they were uh willing to provide those. Uh there was no detail on the fences that are going to be provided whether they're on top of the retaining wall or in other locations. So, we'd like to see those. Related to that, um as Whitney has alluded to, there's a pretty significant retaining wall on the back edge that uh will probably be I think the petitioners design team described it as structural, which means it's going to be a concrete retaining wall. because of its visual presence, we requested that they provide some aesthetic enhancements to that formliners or things like that to make that wall look a little bit better because it is going to be rather imposing on the users of the property, especially the people when they're in the parking lot. Uh we wanted to know or see some screening for the HVAC units. We wanted to know where they were at and how they were going to be screened. Uh

again, more generous landscape planting for both trees and shrubs along Manchester Road. Whether we have the retaining wall situation or the the kind of the graded burm or slope up, uh we need to see more would like to see more plant material there. Um you may have noticed that on the north side of the property there's a lot of significant existing mature vegetation that provides a very nice buffer for the adjoining residential property. That's going to be almost all gone uh with this development. So, we asked the petitioner to provide a lot more landscaping on that edge that would provide a buffer in future years. Uh kind of a technicality, we need to have some note that they're going to provide an irrigation plan. We made a request to consider a few uh landscape plant changes for various kind of functional reasons. They're summarized in our memo. And we also indicated that on their phototric plan, they had some light spill over to the north that they needed to uh resolve. It wasn't major, but still we always seek to like the ordinance says have no spillover on adjacent property.

It is residential straight to the north. Yeah, it is residential. So, Mr. Frankie, question on the screening. Um, given the elevations that we're talking about here, we think about and we've had some conversations in this commission about what elevations really mean since they're often given um not necessarily with ground view um which is what I think we would we would consider. Are you talking about screening from Porter? Is that correct? I'm looking at the street to the east. Or are you talking about screening from Manchester? Are you talking about screening from both? Both. Both. Everywhere. All right. And those for the RTUs that we're talking about. That's the HVAC, the rooftop units.

I I don't know where they're at. I I had a hard time figuring that out. I don't know if they're on the ground or if they're on the roof somewhere with a kind of the gable roofs. Couldn't figure it out. We just need to know. We'll get some clarification. Good deal. Thank you, Mr. In the staff report. Can you see my arrow? right this square right north of what was the um playground along on the southwest corner of the building that's a substation so that would be need to be provide fencing around it yes uh and screening um they've got children on site they do not want them next to their substation so I have no doubt that will be included

that would be enclosed in a fence you see here too but we do prefer that that all of the playground and I think they were indicated Ed, they prefer it all of the playground to be on the north side. So, um, so this is the, let me make sure that the plan that we're looking at here, because that was a question, um, is the staff preferred option, I think. Is that a fair statement or is the This is showing the 8 to 9 foot retaining wall along Manchester. Uh, this one is actually showing the grading. Um, and then and

with the playground relocated uh further to the north. So the um staff prefers the natural graded land to provide additional landscaping instead of the retaining wall along Manchester. However, that does become that could become an issue with the traffic. Um so we're waiting to hear from CBB on that. One final note, um Whitney and I had some discussions about requesting that the petitioner provide SketchUp models or 3D models to help everybody understand what's going on here. It's it's it's kind of a simple site from a a size standpoint and shape, but it becomes very complicated when you look at the different grades. And when you look at things like this is a great example of that, you get an idea of what that retaining wall will look like along Manchester Road. And it's probably the staff's reason they prefer the green area because that's really not that what I think was envisioned in the original MC district as far as having buildings to the front.

I will point out that this is the perfect example of this is not a ground level elevation. This is an elevation. But if I'm standing on that sidewalk, this is not what I'm seeing. So, can you put the other elevation up? I'm just curious. I haven't seen it. Okay. Back to it. Uh, Mr. Foreman, have you properly trained me in making that statement?

Yes, but I'll get really nerdy and I do see that someone from ADA Architects is online. So, it's essentially the camera. You're commenting on the camera location that was used to create the rendering. So if the camera was actually at about 5 foot six off the ground, you would get a more realistic view of what that property will look like as you walk down the sidewalk or drive down the street. So there's a few liberties have been taken with the threedimensional renderings to probably display more more comprehensively what's on the site, but it may not be a true representation of what you get driving down the street.

Thank you. I've learned something in my time here. We'll take it. Uh we will get to questions from the commission here. Mr. Frankie, anything else for us though? Uh nothing. Any questions? Any questions for Mr. Frankie so he doesn't have to do the up and down. But I think that we have I can handle it up and down. But I would also add the land the slope of the landscaping does eliminate the fence on top of the Yep, I noticed that. Not the fence, but the safety barrier on top of the retaining wall, which adds Yeah, that's the one we wanted. Yeah, that's the one. This is actually a really good example. What it's sort of a trade-off. you get the less impact of the slope along Manchester Road, but when you go back, you can see that when you look in the background, that back wall gets pretty uh impressive.

And with the width of the building, exactly. You're not screening that from the street. You're not and and the folks coming up uh of the a porter. Um and we'll have some conversations about that. So, um but I understand. So, this is the staff preferred and uh I can see the significant difference. So, I appreciate that. Uh we will get to questions. Actually, one hold make sure traffic. We're going to get um actually a question, Miss Kelly. I assume notices were sent out about this. I can imagine that traffic would be a concern for residents in the neighborhood and those within certain distance. Um they were sent out and we we have not heard response. Interesting. All right. Uh Miss Builderback.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh so this is actually I guess kind of about the landscaping. Um I don't know if there's anything for you to answer yet or not, but I'm going to say something good. So, you might want to reply to it. Uh, I think all your comments are really spot on. I think those are all really important. I mean, when I looked at the landscape plan, I noticed it needed a lot more love. Just even at a quick glance, I could see that. So, the comments about the planning materials and all that. And for my personal opinion, I I am very sensitive to the giant wall, right? So, I think that to me the only option is to even look at is the one with the the slope that cuts down the size of the retaining wall. I'm also really concerned about having a 22 22 foot wall as well. And I understand that the site has incredible limitations with topography, but anything that we can do to like you were talking about judge that up a little bit uh would be appreciated. So, just a few things off the cuff, but I appreciated your comments.

Thank you. Thank you, Miss Builderback. Any other questions for members of the commission? I may have a few. I will also someone will kick me to look online. Mr. Foreman. So, there are a couple of differences. The rendering that's up on the television uh is a perfect example. Miss Bilderbach's points are very well noted. I echo them. I do see two significant changes from the original exhibit and staff report that were circulated in advance of the meeting. So one I want to confirm the original documents were calling for sight proof fencing and what's showing in the rendering now is more of a row iron fence we can see through so we can see the building. I think that is an improvement but I want to confirm that.

Hold on, Mr. Foreman. Give me one sec. Miss Kelly wants to respond. Um, the sight proof fencing would be along the rear where adjacent to residential which is required under the zoning code. I think around the school it was always uh rod iron style open slatted. So that is distinction. So thank you Miss Kelly. Mr. Foreman.

Wonderful. That's good because I I did see the in the sections and elevations, the sight proof fencing was the one type that I saw called out in the plans. So, I I do believe that the transparent I'll call it, but the the metal um the metal space is much improvement. We can see more of the building. I also want to note that on that south side, and the applicant noted it, they pulled out kind of a faux portico that engages past the fence. I think that adds a lot and helps us really break up that elevation and engage Manchester Road much more. Um, and then also the clarification from staff at the top. Then we've got the 20 to 23 foot retaining wall at the north edge of the site. That's also on the east and west. So we're going from zero or three feet on the east along quarter that slopes up to 23 feet. This is a horseshoe shaped cut into the side of the hill where we're we're against residential on the north. That one needs to be sight proof. What's the interpretation on the east along quarter? Can that be the row iron fence and then on the west we're partially adjacent to residential, partially adjacent to more commercial, but that retaining wall also needs a fence at the very least for code. We need a safety fence so people aren't getting close to the top of the wall. So I think some definition from the applicant and from staff of what's sight proof and what's transparent could help the explanation.

Well spoken Mr. Foreman I think yeah we'll need to take a look at that. I hadn't realized kind of the extent actually on the west side especially I had missed out on the plan.

So there would be the you can see in this rendering the safety barrier because they are providing a new sidewalk um along Porter. So, we definitely don't will need a safety barrier there. That would be the open slatted I believe. Um, I also want to point out that the zoning code does require or talk about providing cross access to adjacent properties, but because we are partially right with this site, that would be rather difficult as we are um adjacent to residential on the north and partial to the west. And given the use having and the site limitations that would be difficult but that is something specific that the planning and zoning commission would wave. Yeah.

And I think given the topography of the site may be something we would consider. Um and I think my eyes are seeing. So the portico Mr. Foreman you'd mentioned is uh continuing south past the fence. I missed that as well. That's what's being represented in the rendering. So initially that facade was flat. They've added that element. Okay. That comes past the fence and I think it does a much nicer job of engaging with Manchester. Mr. Oliver, Mr. Hay, is that is that your understanding of the actual Okay. Thank you. Sorry. Thanks, Mr. Foreman. That was good eyes and better reading of of the uh documents we were given than I had. Downloaded my own copy so I could zoom and pan on my computer. So, Mr. Hay, please.

Yeah. And the reason for that is specifically um those that fencing along the south those those doors uh that are shown go right into the classroom. So uh for immediate access to the uh playground areas around the uh the west side of the building and then up to the north. So uh they don't want the kids playing with the columns etc. Those would be on the outside of the fence. Understood. Um but but those fences are there for keeping kids from uh you know between toddler age and uh you know prek from teacher opens the door and they all just run outside keep them fenced in.

I do believe that there was a staff comment on a entrance to the south that that is preference for the zone. Um understanding it's facing Manchester. Um I do see that there is signage so at least we're recognizing it. it appears to be an entrance in in some ways, but recognizing that there may be some um interest in uh not having multiple entrances to a a daycare and a childcare facility, I think that that's something to consider as well. Other questions from Sorry, excuse me. Of course. Um Michelle,

thank you. So, Winnie, could I ask you a question? you had mentioned or I guess first of all so option two what we're calling is staff preferred option one I guess 1a the the other option one with the retaining wall in the front there's not anything statutoily wrong with that to be there I guess the parking is traffic is going to be a big component that we don't have the answer to I understand but if we find out that there's a concern with the traffic the option one is an option. Um, that is a something that PNZ can review. Um,

and I guess then to that point, can you go into you mentioned the setback issue. Is that play into that at all? That does not retaining wall does not um play into a setback. It's the building. Okay.

Um, which also this under the MC district does allow you to wave the setback. The building at the corner. Let's get to There we go. You can see right here the the building is slightly angled. The building is at at this corner at the souththeast is right at the 65 ft setback from the center line of Manchester Road. Um the projection is would be roughly in this area. Um and that would be six feet in front. But because of the angle it can fit within that. We do allow um not just in the Manchester corridor but anywhere as you know open porches and uh port cashes kind of things to or porches front entry elements to project up to five feet into a required front setback. So, this would still meet that, but under the MC district specifically, you can wave the 65 foot limitation. And if y'all would like to see the building moved closer, that is an option at the planning and zoning commission and board of alderman.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Shelton. I'd like to just follow up on that. I think there's a great design. I guess um is the building in the same location on all three options? Correct. The building is not moving. Correct. Okay. My concern is why did the entrance off of Porter move? Is that a function of the elevation site elevation? I'm concerned with it. I think it would should be further back. But I guess

I'm not a civil engineer, but what our civil team has told us uh is that they set the elevation of the the floor of the building is essentially set uh by where the due to the topography of the site by where the ingress and egress off of Porter is. and then talking with um the the traffic consultant on the call that we had I believe a week or two ago um he would you know it it's either preferable to have the adjacent property to the uh you know across Porter Avenue to either have them line up or to be completely off center they they shouldn't be slightly misaligned and so the options come option one had us further uh the the entrance off a porter further north but that set the elevation of the building higher which means we had a higher retaining wall in the front. Um whereas if you move the uh entrance and exit off of Porter Avenue u even with the uh property to the uh east then um then we can set the elevation lower for the floor of the building. Um so that way we can uh reach Manchester row with a burm as opposed to having uh having a a retaining wall of 9 to 10 feet. So, so really the, you know, because the the floor elevation of the the the 12,000 foot building has to be flat. So, you know, you're they're setting that elevation there. I probably butcher that. If someone's a civil engineer, I apologize, but that's

I think you did roughly what I did. I'll just add if you can see here, it does get steep. So, if we to lower the elevation, so we don't have the retaining wall along Manchester. If you move it back, then you get into the steepness of the property becoming an issue. So that's why it um shifted it to be in line with the uh entrance to the adjacent property. And I I'll guess I'll put forward, sorry, Mr. Nolan, uh you have no interest in having the building have some below grade rooms, I would imagine, with a daycare. And I don't think they can do that. Yeah, you most of it you can't because you need immediate access access outside. Um all right. Um, I have some

and I'll just add that I think this is where this use on this incredibly challenging topographically speaking site um is helpful as opposed to maybe a restaurant or other types of retail uses that have really big rush periods. Truly um Kinderare, you know, the the drop off and pickup times average a little bit less than 5 minutes. Um you have to you you there's the typically the the nearest eight spaces to the front door are reserved only for drop off and pickup. the parents drop their kids off, walk the or park, walk their kids into the vestibule, meet with the teacher, and then that's where the handoff occurs or vice versa. And uh and being open from 6:30 to 6:30 uh truly eliminates that rush period. So uh talking to the operation staff of Kinderare, um they even during the peak times, it's usually between 8 to 12 families that are doing it at any one time. So that really lessens the parking concerns, but also I believe this the stacking and queuing because if there was a restaurant or whatever and it's 5:00, there's going to be cars backing up on the Porter and and and making a mess of that intersection. There's just not that one rush period. Um there are busier times. Obviously 5:30 might be busier than 4, but it's not that rush periods.

Yeah, I guess I'd be a little concerned about making a left um onto Manchester out. It's could be some some stacking concerns there. Um, but no, I appreciate that. So, the building is in the same location except on this option that it's a little lower in in elevation. I I believe that's correct. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Exactly. Um, and then I guess the last comment I have is um I guess I wouldn't necessarily be married to being across from that other curb cut. I think that is generally a good thing, but I don't think there's anything on that site currently. No, there's building. So, is it is it in use? Yes. Okay.

Yeah. Okay. Fair enough. I can pull up. Thank you, Mr. Nolan. Sorry, I was just trying to think. I couldn't remember if there was a uh spacing or as I call it a chicken lane at that part of Manchester. There is not. Uh yeah, that left will be hard. Miss Bilderbeck.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Apologies. Um on the lighting, I have a question about the lighting. So, uh, our landscape architect talked about the lumens and I've got the the lighting plan in front of me and it shows, uh, the I don't really want to call it a pole light, but can you describe to me a little bit more about where the the lights are going to be, what the lighting plan looks like for the site, and I'm also kind of thinking about part of the thing that we had talked about in the MC district has to also do with the different types of lighting that we're doing on Manchester. And I don't know how that's going to come into play relative to this site, like what's going to be internal to the site, what's going to be external to the like on the edge of the site, you know what I mean? So, if you could maybe give us a better idea of that, I would appreciate it.

And and it also looks like the the light pole that you have in here, I mean, it's black on here. I don't know if it's black. It's hard to tell from the images, but it looks like it might kind of fit in a little bit with if there's a rod iron look fence on the property, but I don't know.

Whitney is Premier Design Group on the Doom because I I would defer to our civil engineer who did the um phototric plan um on that. I I do know with regards to lighting and and um you know, we've agreed in principle obviously to not have any spillover on the neighboring sites. That's that's pretty standard. Um, but I I I I defer to our civil on that. I I hope they're on the call. Um, but if not, we can certainly circle back with you and and and provide more detail on on So, I've pulled up the photometric here. So, they're showing a light pole here and here. Wait, do that again because I was looking at you.

Oh, sorry. The red dots are showing where the light poles would be and the little dots on the building are showing the downcast uh lighting on the building. Um, thank you for pointing it out. They are showing it to be 24 feet tall. Um, our code does limit that. Um, so lowering it would help with the overall um, spillage onto the adjacent property. It is though minor at 0.4 in this area. Um, but that is noted. And I also wanted to note that in the MC district, it talked about no more than 4,000 Kelvin. We have since revised that under a different section that it's no more than 3,000 Kelvin at night. Um for that was done later, forgot what for, but for migration of animals and

public benefit of that. So it will have to go down to 3,000 Kelvin uh to meet with that section. Um,

and what about what about the lighting style relative to the proximity like to Manchester Road? I mean, because if that's on if that's on Porter, then I'm just thinking about if this is part of the overall development area, right? And we have sort of this concept for the overall development area. I just want to make sure it's being consistent or like I mean we're here we're kind of segueing from commercial into residential. So I'm not saying oh it should be specifically this or that. What I'm saying is that we need to be cognizant and I know that man sitting back there is familiar with the discussions that we've had relative to the look

of the general area to make it cohesive and a part of it. Does that make sense? Absolutely. if staff has uh you know cut sheets that we can give our design team that if we can't match we can mimic or or tailor our design towards certain elements of that I think we'd be happy to.

Okay, great. And I think what what our planning director was getting at a a minute ago is going to help address also what I'm going to say next. But one of the other things, especially when we're next to residential that we like to be cognizant of is, or at least I do, and we have on some past plans as well as a commission, is that in addition to not having the spillage, which is the typical thing that you see, it's also looking at something and having it be like lit up. Do you know what I mean? Like just lit up like crazy. I'm I'm a safety girl, so I'm all for like the importance of that, but striking that balance so the neighbors aren't sitting there looking at it like a ball field is all lit up right next to them. That's an exaggeration, but you know what I mean.

Some gas stations can be that way where it's that really bright white light that can be really intense and and we are sensitive to the fact that we're neighboring uh residential. So in any way we can um work with the staff to ensure that that um I would I would also add I I would double check with your photometrics because I'm assuming like that's yeah I mean you got a retaining wall that's 20T and you've got a non-sight fence there's and a 20 I mean it won't be a 24 foot uh light pole at that point but once you lower it you're literally going to have retaining wall over your light at that point I'm unless you're using some interesting Yeah,

that was one of my comments is the way the light pole is shown on the plan at 23 feet tall, right? Light pole is actually shown outboard of the retaining wall. So you would be too high above the paving. So you need to do some coordination between the lighting position and the position of the retaining wall to keep that phototric as to what the head Looks like Whitney, if you zoom in and pan down lower right by the title block, they've actually got an image the one they've got in there and that's mostly down.

While I'm interpreting drawings, I did see six to seven condensing units on the west side of the building between the building and the retaining wall. Someone had previously asked about the mechanical system, so I assume that's where those are, but the applicant should confirm. Yeah, because if it's gabled, they're not doing RTUs likely. So, yeah, that's unless we're cutting into the roof and doing accesses and all that stuff, right? I I believe they're on the west side. Mr. Mr. Chairman, just kind of close that out at least for me. I'm not I'm going to be out of town. I'm not going to be able to be at the site plan meetings. So, um I just wanted to be sure to put that forward tonight even though it's kind of getting into the weeds a little bit. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Miss Builderback. That's a good point. Any other questions from Miss Kelly, please? Um, I just pulled up the aerial of the um, so y'all can see that it's a retail office, second floor office, ground floor retail that is a direct to the east. Yeah. So, yeah, less of a concern. It's mostly to the north and they're going to have a very large wall there. Um, other Mr. Milan, please. Yeah. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. So, uh, Whitney, you got any concerns about the it's a big load of grass right now, so porous surface being replaced by a very non-porous surface given that Manchester Road doesn't have a great history with storm water handling.

So, they are required to they are showing I'll pull it back up. They are showing um wrong one uh storm water and because it will connect to MSD I mean they'll have to get an MSD permit because they're over an acre they will also have to comply with the MS4 regulations with the uh fish and not fish and wild department of recla reclamation um and because it's also connecting into the system along Manchester that and mod is also looking at it. So, um see if I can find the right Yeah. So, my staff looked at it, looked at the storm water and they said it looked good. It will require storm water our on call storm water engineer to review it as part of the building permits for um the storm water infield development permit. So, we would get involved in that at that time, too.

All right. Thank you. Uh question for the kinderare people. Uh do you ever have this facility in use after hours or at weekends for functions or school or non-school related or you p purely my from everything that I've been told in in with Kinderare obviously I don't work for Kinderare as their developer. Um it is strictly a Monday through Friday uh work. They might have an open house on a weekend, but there is no um extracurriculars. They don't rent out their buildings. There there's none of that. It is strictly Monday through Friday. Uh typically 6:30 to 6:30. Okay. Thank you. Yep. Anything else, Miss Mark?

Yeah, I would just point out like Whoops. The uh I know there's concern about the traffic, but I think Ela Rosi Children Place right there by Shnooks. probably about a similar size, similar enrollment, similar distance from a big intersection and uh I've never seen any problems there with the traffic to be to be honest. Just want to point that out. All right. Thanks very much. I think CBB will be weighing in at some point on that same topic. I could charge you CBB rates for that information I just gave you. Not sure the city wants to bear that. Thank you, Mr. Morant. Any other questions from members of the commission? Looking online, Mr. Foreman, anything else? Sorry, Mr. Mors motion one way or the other shortly.

I believe we might. Sorry, Mr. Oliver. I just have one one nit comment in some other areas. We've recently had issues with Amron adding screening around their transformers. So, I would just ask that when we add that criteria to screen it, can you say in compliance with Amarind regulations or something because they obviously we have to do what they want to do. So, and that's been that's otherwise they don't give you power and that's a problem. Thank you. Yeah, sorry. Yeah, Whitney, there's there's already a building on the lot right at 8011. What is that? It's a trans shop or it's some kind of auto shop. It's a transmission shop, right? Are there any any environmental concerns about what may lay underneath that?

Yeah, so we did a phase one environmental pretty standard. Uh it pulled up some potential uh rec. Um we we did a a phase two and it pulled up that there is no concerns with any petroleum products or spills or anything like that. There was some concerns um with stained pavement in the the phase one. So the phase two we did some uh borings. There's no uh concerns with any um petroleum based products in the soil. There are some uh moderate soil um I believe it's arsenic in some of the soils. So, part of our plan is I think that there's in a few spots we need to take out two feet of soil. Um, to it's below the commercial levels, um, but it's, you know, for a child care use, it's different standards. Um, but that would just be hauled off site. It's just the top two feet of soil that we would likely be, you know, doing moving stuff around with grade change anyways. But otherwise, we got a full clean uh phase two environmental um with the caveat that there's just some I think leftover arsenic from probably years past. So,

thanks very much. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Moran. Any final questions from commission? I think let me try to recap some of the things that we raised this evening. And I will say it sounds to me like we are moving towards site plan subcommittee, which I believe is October 29th. So, phone folks can get their phones out now and take a look. Um, we have the retaining wall issue. The one thing I will note as well is with the orientation of the building. Obviously, if we're talking about the staff preferred, which I think I'm hearing is probably commission preferred. Uh, there will be very visible and I think we've talked about some things to soften that to make sure we break up the uh the structure there. It will be very visible and so we'd be interested in ideas on that. Traffic and parking, I know we're waiting on CBB for fencing has been raised and some about illumination. I know that Mr. Frankie Maised a number of of landscape issues, but I understand that those have been largely accepted and we'll we'll talk through that. Did I miss anything of significance that we'll talk about at site plan subcommittee if you're not familiar with those in other areas or Brentwood does it differently, I don't know. It is informal. We will all get around a table. We will talk through this and we will then carry it over. We do not vote at that meeting. We cannot vote at that meeting. So, it'll just be a conversation to prepare us for the next planning and zoning commission meeting. Miss Builderback.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Lighting. Illumination. Sorry, I said illumination. lighting is a better term. So, and um then also one the elevation discussions and things like that having pictures that would more that they talked about because that's something that'll take them a little bit of time. Yeah, I apologize. That's a good catch. And so, yeah, we're thinking of um ground level or person walking at ground level, what are they going to see? And I think that we've seen some of those uh closer to with but that's the sort of thing that we really care about. Mr. Vaza

um on the uh line of the elevations would it be possible to get an view facing uh what would it be northeast because I that's coming like from the building next to it cuz now like those parking lots are flat so there's going to be a retaining wall now next to that building right on Manchester so could we see what the that'll look at like we had our architect obviously do the the ones that we submitted um we can have them do additional ones and we also uh Joel saying maybe get a SketchUp model where we can you can pivot around the the perspective in a 3D modeling. Um but yeah, we we absolutely can get you additional views from hopefully all angles that are are required.

That would be outstanding. Yeah. Thank you, Mr. H. Yep. You're welcome. Anything else from staff, Miss Kelly? And I I don't want to revised landscape plan. Um, since you have indicated the preferred option, we need to see a revised landscape plan with that preferred option at this time. Yeah. Is there a motion from the commission? I make a motion to move this to the subcommittee meeting on October 29th. Second. We have a motion. We have a second. Any further discussion? Think we could do a voice vote on that. Uh, Miss Carr has left, but I'm pretty sure we can for a move to subcommittee. Uh, all those in favor say I. I. All oppose, same sign. We will have this on October 29th at 6:00 p.m. 6 p.m.

It's been years and I should know this by now. 6 pm. Uh, we will usually meet in the conference room in the back. Uh, and I believe that's it. Thank you very much for the presentation this evening. We look forward to having a conversation on the 29th and hopefully folks have checked their calendars and we will have a good turnout from PNZ. Next item of business is the alder manic report. Seeing no alderman but the mayor. Uh is there any mayoral report? Oh my goodness. I didn't think there was such a thing but we will get one. Mayor Dimmit.

Uh thank you. Uh you may have seen in the news uh that the city was successful in defending the lawsuit. Uh the uh yes welldeserved round of applause. The blight designation lawsuit that was pending over the redevelopment area. Uh the issue in that lawsuit simply was whether or not there was substantial evidence to support a finding of blight uh that the the board of alderman approved and found back in July of 2023 as well as the board had found 5 years earlier in 2018 and the court found and held that uh there was substantial evidence for that for that finding of blight. So that is very good news for what we're wanting to do down uh in this whole area where Kinderare is. Um secondly, and I can talk to you Whitney about this offline, but uh just procedurally speaking on the applicant about the uh storm water and the the plan that that is put together, the timing of it. I think it'd be helpful for the residents if they have some assurance that that's all going to be done. That's part of the cup process.

Yes. So I thank you for mentioning that. Oh, and I closed out. Oops. But the storm water is shown in the drawings that are were submitted. Um so those have been shared but yes we can clarify timing. Um but the storm our storm water and field development permit is required as part of any building permit. Um and then that would also require MSD approval. So they'd have to submit for that first too. Um and then they have to submit to the state for the MS4 permit. Okay. prior to the issuance of uh of the final building permits. Those all have to be approved

because we know we're very sensitive obviously about the water down there. Uh there's two sources of it. One is Deer Creek and we believe that we've addressed that through the flood mitigation portion of the Brentwood Bound project. The other source of flooding uh down in that area is from storm water runoff and which is one of the reasons we want redevelopment down there because when we redevelop those properties then we can deal with the storm water runoff and since we're taking a a a huge pvious surface and turn it into an imperous surface. I'm sure there are a lot of residents would want some assurance that all that runoff is going to be dealt with on site. Correct. Okay. and it will connect south into the Manchester Road sewer uh underneath the Manchester Road.

Wonder and and then the last thing, it's not so much a report as much as it is a thank you. Um Commissioner uh Bilderbach had resigned her position from the 353 Corporation and uh on Monday night I appointed a someone to fill that vacancy and it was sitting next to you. Jack Shelton was willing to do that. And um but as I said Monday night um you know the city owes you a debt of gratitude. You know you have been a true public servant. You have served on this commission not just years but decades. And you've also served on the 353. I think you were probably one of the first you you were the when it was formed back in whenever that was 2000 or 1919. I don't know when it was formed but it's

been like 25 years. 25 years. Yeah. And and so uh informally Sherry has been a huge part of what has taken place on the north side of the city and that transformation. So uh the city again on behalf of the city, I wanted to thank you. Since I didn't get a chance to do that at the 353 meeting. So again, thank you so much.

Thank you very much, mayor. Um it's been an honor and a privilege and I'm so excited to see this finally happen. And I mean, this whole area is part of why the 353 board was started to begin with because it's something the citizens have wanted for a very long time. And to see it actually happening uh with your leadership and the board of alderman and the staff, uh it's been incredible. So, it's been an honor and I'm looking forward to this project and all the ones to come. Thank you, Mayor David. Uh thank you, Miss Builderback, for your service. Mr. Sheldon, thank you for stepping up. Uh director's report, please. Um, well, I will note that Alderman Loch Mueller is on Zoom if he would like to provide an alderman report. Oh, his ears were burning.

Yeah. Alderman Lock Mueller, would you uh or would you like to give a alder manic report this evening? I'm not seeing a hand raise. So, I am not. We will move on. Director's report, please. Thank you for joining, though. At the November meeting, we will have this continuation. Um, we have three applications. Outstanding. Woohoo. Um, yes. So, we will have a busy night. Please mark your calendars. Um, actually the deadline is next week, so we could even get more. So, we're moving along.

Excellent. Is there any other items of business for the commission? With that, I'll remember my new power and we have completed our business. We stand adjourned. Thank you everyone.