Planning and Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

for the pledge of allegiance. All right. This is the November 12th, 2025 Planning and Zoning Commission. Um, I guess I'll take role since our secretary isn't here. Uh, Paul Moran, no. Jeff Moore, here. Lisa Shearing, yes. Ryan Nolan, here. Online. Okay. Jeff Hunt here. Jack Shelton

here. Matt Foreman here. Um I think that's it. So 1 2 3 4 5 is that and that makes quorum. Yes. Okay. Seven is quorum. Okay. Uh next order of business is to approve the agenda by acclamation. Anybody have any issues or uh all in favor? I I I

opposed. Seeing none. Okay. Uh approval of the minutes from the uh October 8th planning and zoning commission. Uh also by acclamation. Did anybody need to make any changes? So all in favor? I I [laughter] any opposed? Seeing none. And then approval of the minutes of the October 29th site plan committee. Um vote by proclamation. All in favor?

I opposed. All right. Seeing none. All right. Uh citizen comments. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to address the board uh on something that's not on the agenda? one online in the room. Okay. Bold business case 25-012 uh the conditional use permit uh for kindergarten child daycare facility at 8109 to 811 Manchester Road. Is the petitioner here? Please state your name and uh sorry, [clears throat] Brett Dolman with Quattro Development. I'm their director of construction and development.

Okay. Um yeah, we went over this in great de depth in the site plan committee. Um has there been any changes I guess from then or present any new information other than from your from your end? I think we just had some traffic stuff and I believe everything was accounted for that commented on. Yeah. And then uh Lee, was it did you have some traffic uh stuff that came up or that we finalized since the site plan meeting that you would like to address the commission about as far as Well, [laughter] yeah. Okay.

The entire uh planning zoning commission wasn't in attendance that evening,

right? Um, so for the record, Lee Cannon, uh, PE with CBB Traffic Engineers, um, 1400 Olive Boulevard, um, sweet 430 63146. Um, we [clears throat] are the traffic engineer for the city. So, this work was done on behalf of the city, uh, guided by Miss Kelly, um, through planning and development. We were asked to do two things. Uh look at parking and traffic. Short story on parking is that um 38 spaces as proposed on the site will be adequate. If you'd like more details, I can get into it. Um with respect to traffic, this site doesn't generally uh generate a whole lot of traffic. Um it's a daycare, not a school. So the pattern is a little less pronounced than you would see at a school with uh you know first bell, last bell, arrival, dismissal. So these are smaller children. Generally the the parent pulls into the lot and parks, walks their child in in the evening, walks into the school, gets their child, puts them in the car, and then leaves. [clears throat] However, it's very difficult to turn left onto Manchester Road, especially in the evening um in the afternoon. The level of service that we talk about, the operational capacity graded like your report card A through F where where engineers say that D is okay in the peak hour, even though a D on your report card at home probably wouldn't have been good. um existing traffic for just a handful of cars trying to turn left without looking at the daycare is already an F for Porter southbound. So [clears throat] the reasonable approach that we came up with and was talked through at PL uh the

site planer view was to post a restriction for no left turn traffic from Porter to Manchester in the afternoon evening time frame. So that could be 4 to 6. We could talk about what those hours need to be, but that could be a sign posted. So everybody that leaves the site would have to turn right in the evening. It works just fine in in the morning and throughout the rest of the day, but in the evening when that uh PM rush hour is happening on Manchester, everybody turn right. And the city's small enough to where, you know, people would use a different route to get where they're going if they have to go over to Brentwood and then, you know, ma make a route back if they live to the east. So that was the the one primary thing that we came up with. Um, another issue was a lot of discussion was had and he's not here this evening. A discussion about about the neighbors, you know, and the impact on the neighbors. One of the thoughts was, you know, no left turn out of the sight driveway on Porter and whether that was an um too much restriction on people that might have kids that go to the daycare and want to go back to their house uh versus, you know, they could turn right on a Manchester and then right into one of the other streets, come back up into that neighborhood. So, that's one thing I don't think that kind of got fully ironed out as to whether or not that was a the right thing to do or not. Um I think that's the primary issues that were talked about in site plan.

Um yes the the discussion largely on limiting the local traffic only to for left turn out of the site onto Porter. Um the developer would work with the city on providing that kind of traffic. um that would take a separate ordinance at a future date, but and limiting as part of the conditions within the staff report, it does include that um traffic sign for local traffic only northbound on Porter as well as limiting left turns onto Manchester Road during PM peak hours of 4 to 6 is what we discussed at the site plan subcommittee. Um, additionally, there was a discussion on needing to adjust the landscape plan that was submitted. Um, adding additional landscaping on the west side where adjacent to residential and then opening it up along Manchester for the visibility of the entrance element that was added to be consistent with the zoning code. Um, Lee is here. He provided a review of their revised landscape plan. Lee, Andy, [laughter]

I'm sorry. Wait, did you turn your mic on? Yes, my mic is on. Um [laughter] Um Andy is here and he reviewed that landscape plan and the report is in the packet. So if he could come up and I have questions for Lee still because I was in the Zoom meeting for the site plan. Unfortunately, my audio wasn't working so I was limited to messaging. So, I understand the left turn. Can you explain a little bit more where you said the developer had committed to something in the future about traffic? Was that only the sign or what was that discussion?

Uh, no, he didn't commit. It's just the city would have to do an ordinance restricting left um local traffic only on northbound Porter and that we could look at. So, that would be done. So, it's two different places,

right? So my my recommendations were at Porter and Manchester, no left in the PM peak. But the other recommendation or consideration if you will is because there's nowhere to go. You can't get to Hanley or Brentwood or other you can only get back to Manchester if you turn out left on Porter and go north. We probably shouldn't allow the non-local traffic. I think the discussion of the developer work with the city, we don't know if people are going to try that or not. Uh so if it's not a problem, we don't have to deal with it. If it is a problem, we do need to deal with it. I think that's the answer. No, no, only local traffic going up the hill to Porter. Honestly, I think the biggest deterrent is going to be how just that hill is so steep that's going to be the deterrent for people to go up there. My question I couldn't get asked in the last one. You actually raised the point Whitney in the meeting of people just popping across Porter into the uh retail development and then going to one of those curb cuts and then trying to turn left.

And it's still going to be just as difficult to turn left on a Manchester from those spots. I I think that they'll learn it's just best not to try in the PMP peak hour if it does become an issue. There's there's a lot of different ordinances you can try. It's hard to control the people that will just do wild things, but thing there's such a sign uh you know illegal to cut through private property to avoid the signal and how do we word what that says? And if it becomes a problem, I think we should address it. Um I don't think a whole lot of people will try it and once they try it, they'll realize it's probably not worth it. Um it so I'm a little skeptical of the wait and see approach, but I understand where you're going. I do think for staff and for the board that this is revealing a weakness in our urban plan for this stretch on the north side of Manchester Road that although this is the first one and this is probably the deepest lot that's existing by by far that it could be in the future people are buying up a couple of residential homes and doing a big a big development on Manchester on the north side and we should be figuring out some strategic ways to address the traffic onto either the side streets or Manchester Road a little more proactively in our future plan. And if you have a master development plan or a master development concept or idea, whatever level it's at, um, I would call that an access management plan for where you intend to allow major access points on the north and south side of the road. They should align and they should

provide connections in between them. Um, and so let's just say that there might be one or possibly two additional traffic signals at some point in the future along Manchester Road that are well thought out that land along existing public streets on the north side because those residential property is going to remain and then they also serve the south side, but they're spaced correctly so that they don't interfere with the Manchester, pardon me, the Brentwood handling. intersections, but thinking through that, which we did some of as part of the I'm not sure what we called it, the Manchester Road enhancements that was added on top of the MODOT,

right,

reconstruction. So, we kind of did some but that was geared towards existing properties. So we we looked at access management for that and the existing properties and developments they didn't really want to give away their access and share and combine but redevelopment opportunities allow for those things to be implemented over time. And this to your prior point being a daycare not a school a little skeptical that one two-lane driveway in those hours where there's pickup and drop off and typical parking. Still a little skeptical that they're going to get a little busy in that parking lot and they're turning in and out. But

I just want to clarify. So the there was some traffic review when we went through the RFP as well as selecting um Green Street Halo as the master red uh development redevelopment developer, sorry, master developer. Um those future traffic improvements would come at a future date when the larger area when we would get into the site plan review for the larger area. Um and once the we get those done there was never part of the redevelopment area never included taking any residential properties on the north side. I understand that and it's there's great challenges the south side we can do internal circulation between those access points. We don't have that luxury on the north side.

Correct.

Um where we tried to get cross access if you remember like the Bitcoin CUP we already had a driveway done we required cross access. Um however this site as we discussed at the last meeting is very difficult and can't really provide that cross access due to the adjacency to residential. Um I've included as a condition that the traffic sign for local traffic only will be added. My comment was that in a once we get this underway or once they receive approval and construction is banned, the city would still have to come back through with an ordinance for designating those streets as local traffic and providing for that sign because we can't enforce it if we don't have it as within the ordinance. So that's why I've included it here. And my comment was that we would have to come back at a later date to have that ordinance. But that's only once or if the board of alderman we get a positive recommendation from you and it moves on to the board of alderman and they also approve it.

I'm curious on the retail development. Does it have a no left turn restriction? Not that I'm aware of. Kind of thought so, but yeah. Um I did want to address you mentioned you that site seems sort of busy right u for you know at pickup or drop off time even though it's not a school um the current counts on Porter in two directions at that south driveway. No I meant internal to their parking lot. Yes sir. Yes sir. Like the people getting in trying to get a parking space while the other ones are coming out with their kids. I Porter is not that busy.

Yeah. Um Yep. and they could do some things, you know, with radiuses and such to make it smoother, you know, so that traffic can flow in a little easier. Um, that that'd be really up to them to, you know, to consider. Um, yeah, I'm not too concerned about their levels of traffic and and interactions in the parking lot. balance to this is clearly the Kinderare is a rollout design. You probably use this exact same footprint nationally in a bunch of different markets. You guys know your traffic. You guys know your parking lots. You've probably got exactly the same parking lot in 20 different locations. So deferring to that expertise, you also don't want to I'm [clears throat] assuming you don't want to design a parking lot that's a deterrent to your customers. [clears throat] Excuse me. So although I had my doubts, I'm sure the internal circulation you guys have as a welloiled machine as part of your

roll out packages. You know, another thing strategically as far as operations go that they can do is, you know, they could identify like for instance the parking um stalls closest to the driveway, you know, right where where it connects Porter. Um if you're pulling in and out of those, it may be more disruptive to entry and exit. Well, they could use those for staff parking and then they're not rolling over during peak arrivals. So there's a some of those types of things that they could implement to make inbound and outbound parent flow smoother. So but again I'll leave that on them that to operate their site right

think they want to say something Joel Oliver Halo uh 900 North Killer the master developer working with Quattro on this just [clears throat] one nit thing and one clarification. So, um, Mike Heg was who was at the previous two meetings from Quattro. Um, both us and Quattro are totally on board with what Whitney said as far as restricting the left. My only nit comment would be that that's Monday through Friday. I think you know there was some comment at the last meeting we want to restrict that on Saturdays and Sundays when they're not open. So, just make sure that clear when it goes to the board of aldermen and then they were completely on board with the local traffic only on Porter. We were under the understanding that was an uh going to be a condition of the approval. So uh and you're right as we're looking at the master plan and what's happening big picture here. This is a very unusual lot on the north side. It's the deepest. It's got the most issues with the grade change. So uh thankfully we're thankful that it's a one condition in this spot. So I think we're aligned with with staff and with Lee on those two recommendations. So cool. Thanks. Uh, Whitney, you said we had some landscaping changes or Yeah, go ahead Andy.

Good evening. My name is Andy Frankie. I'm a landscape architect with Planning Design Studio where the city's on call landscape architect. Uh, we've kind of been adding to the back the bottom of this memo as we've gone through with multiple uh kind of revisions or things that come up. The latest are from the site plan subcommittee meeting. There were four items uh that the petitioner has uh or three actually that the petitioner has agreed to and we're satisfied their solutions. The first one was shifting some plant some trees that were on Manchester Road. Uh they want to switch them around the corner uh to the west side of the property and the petitioner did that. The second one was to provide more planting along the western edge to buffer the property spec uh specifically along the northwest corner and they put a lot of uh plants along that buffer. So we were satisfied with that and they provided a color for the 6-ft sight proof fence along the residential properties that's going to be dark brown to blend with the landscape. So uh they they've satisfied all the conditions and uh so we're we're happy and uh looking forward to seeing them get rolling. Orman.

So the sight proof fence is the one that's required between commercial and residential property line. That's right. We have a 23 ft retaining wall. Is there an expectation for a safety barrier fence top of the wall? There is and they are showing that uh it' be a 4ft aluminum slatted fence aluminum open design fence. I think it's color black. It's black. Black. make it disappear. Yeah,

that's right. Yeah, that's along the sides like uh along Porter where that retaining wall starts to get tall and the as the lot goes back in to the north. The only other nitpicky bit on that would be maybe considering on at some point on the east west connecting the safety fence to the sight barrier fence just to keep landscapers are going to have to get in and out. But

yeah, let's hope not. Um the other comment that I had during the meeting that I wasn't able to articulate very well, there was a little bit of discussion bridging from the landscape. You know, you're the wall is kind of the gray area between the architectural improvements and the big landscape wall. Um there was some discussion of materiality, cast inplace concrete, engineered concrete block, form liners. Did that get settled?

It did. They selected a what's called the big block style wall uh that has a rust it's rusticated so it's kind of looks like natural rock in effect and a similar block was used on the tunnel on the Brentwood tunnel if you've walked through that. Uh it's kind of a similar material and style. Looks like the big Duplo blocks with the two cones on top and they stack. Yeah. But it the face of it looks like it's rough cut stone. So natural Portland or is there any color being added or

uh we didn't see any color that was being added. It was pretty much a gray uh material. I believe they have a number of different color patterns that you can choose. They all look the same, only a different shade of gray or brown, whatever it might be. [clears throat] So, it's on the in the staff report. I've included the image. It's called a limestone face block rather than the poured concrete.

Updated staff report. Thank you. Anybody else have any discussion? Anyone online? Just to clarify because the comment I think you addressed the comment I had where between the first round and the second round of the submitt you added the portico, you know, the roof element on the south. Correct. But then all the landscaping went in front of it. That's what we were trying to open up that view.

Yeah. on the I don't remember if it was the second or third submitt the the the landscape was actually kind of not right around that structure. We asked them to make it right. But your comment I think specifically there were some that some of the trees and stuff moved around from the front of Manchester Road uh to the side. It was it was all in front of that Yeah. that facade element and blocking signage. Yeah. Mhm. Yeah. That all got moved around. Yeah, that was the markup comp. The only the only landscape plan in front of that or plants in front of that portico are kind of low small shrubs just b like foundation plantings. Good. All right. Thank you.

Welcome. Else do you have anything to add? No, I don't think so. Anything on your end? Do we have a motion? recommend [clears throat] approval of the conditional use permit and site development plans for Kinderare Daycare facility at 8109 to 8111 Manchester Road subject to the conditions.

Um, do I have a second? Second. Jeff Hunt. Okay, we'll take a vote. Uh, Jeff Moore, yes. Lisa Shearing, yes. Brian Nolan, yes. Uh Jeff Hunt, yes. Jack Shelton, yes. Matt Foreman, yes. Believe the motion passes. Okay. Thank you. And would this will go before the board of alderman? Yes. On December 1st for a public hearing at the board of alderman.

Okay. Thank you. Uh, next order, new business. Case number 25-15, conditional use permit for a T-Mobile retail store at 1201 Strasner Drive with the within the Hanley Station development. Is the petitioner here? Can you please state your name and your address, please? My name is Zach Brown. I'm with Perspective Architecture out of Kansas City and I'm representing T-Mobile. Okay. Um, fresh my memory. He presents and then we do the staff report. Yeah. Okay. [laughter]

Uh, sure. So, we're taking the existing building, the tenant shell that's uh been um gutted for us to turn it into a T-Mobile. And uh we're taking the exterior. We're going to take off the awnings, the fabric awnings, and we're going to replace the front awning with a 8 in metal awning tied back to structure. And the knee walls on the back patio that were previously designed for restaurant seating are going to be removed along with the patio underneath it and cut within 6 in of the existing brick peers like a apron and sawed and graded down to the existing sidewalk to match the surrounding. And that's pretty much the only exterior work we're doing. questions.

Um, so th these are the walls that are okay long straner like on the corner there where the outdoor seating used to be for the restaurant. Those brick walls. So you would take down those walls and you were going to saw it then. So it's just you have the sidewalk inside and then the front of the building. Yep. Okay. as well as there.

And uh yeah, the existing patio just isn't going to be used by T-Mobile. And the uh also the egress for the inside of the building doesn't require four exits. So, we're planning on removing the two doors to the left and right sides of the image there and uh going back in with mullions and glazing to match the adjacent construction. And uh yeah. So would there be an entrance on the Straner side or is it going to be in the parking lot side? It would be on the parking lot side where people park to come into the building. Yes.

Those uh T-Mobile prefers one access point to their retail spaces. When there's multiple, it requires more attention. And uh the we we felt that the uh the front door was actually facing the parking lot, right? Um, oh yeah, staff report. Yeah, let's do the staff report.

Okay, [clears throat] so as the applicant has indicated, they're taking up the former Twin Oaks Woodfire restaurant space. Um, this the whole Hanley Station development was originally approved in 2004 that included sufficient parking. 126 spaces for available within the parking garage for the restaurant and retail uses. This building specifically was initially design shown as retail at that time. It then converted to a restaurant use. Um and so now they're taking it back to a retail use. Property is zoned urban development where under section for 4001400 retail sales is listed as a conditional use. So that's why we're here tonight. They are also making the changes to the exterior, proposing the changes to the exterior of the building. Um they are showing four signs on all sides of the building which under their current comprehensive sign plan would not allow. It also does not allow for box signs. So the T-Mobile's so they will have to come back through for a comprehensive sign for that. They are also showing approximately 326 square feet of window signage where the code limits window signage to no more than 20 total 25 square feet or 20% of the window space um unless they come back through for a comprehensive sign plan. Um staff finds that, you know, if the commission is interested in allowing for the removal of the brick wall that they should come back, they should provide landscaping along that frontage to match the existing development to the south, which um Andy and I discussed last week, and he could provide those comments once we get a but we would need a landscape

plan for that. Um while the proposed development is not within the MC district, it does provide some standards in which we should we look at for all developments which includes that the building should be oriented towards the main thoroughfare from which it is addressed. And this one is addressed along staff um Straner Road. And it also says that window signs should be limited or not not allowed at all. Um therefore I think these are discussion items that the commission should have. I also feel like the brick wall provides some pedestrian level detail that is also recommended under the MC district and the removal of that would be reducing the amount of interest along that facade. Um on a nice day some maybe customers want to sit outside while they're getting their phone serviced. Um so that is a discussion before the board. Um, therefore, I'm here to answer any questions. Yeah.

Yes. Commissioner Mor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Can you speak to in general the foot traffic that comes through one of these stores? I mean, I assume that there's a bill pay window and of course shopping, etc., But just give us an idea of what the frequency of the visitors are.

So all of the visitors are going to enter through the front door and then be led counterclockwise through the space. At least that's how T-Mobile has designed their fixtures to line up in a way that guides the customer through. And then there's four tables in the back where the uh retail personnel will walk customers through their options. And while they're doing that, there's seating on the inside. And um people can come and go as they please, but only through the one door where all the associates would be able to keep an eye on the products and sit down with them as their name is called after they actually check in at a check-in desk at the front. It's not like a full desk, though. It's more like a table. They're going for a more open retail concept on these new stores. Does that answer your question?

Um, if you don't mind me saying, not exactly. I was kind of probing it. So, the store opens at 10:00. Is there a line of people waiting to get in? No. It it No. When you

in my experience at least, you know, if someone has something that they need from T-Mobile, they're going to know exactly what it is. They're going to wake up. They're going to look at their phone and they're going to look at they're going to go to Google Maps and see that there's a T-Mobile and they're going to drive up and they're going to enter. They're going to get what they need and they're going to leave. They're not going to be waiting in line for an hour. And this will be actually one of the larger stores where uh there will be less people convened at any one point.

I think that gets me partially there. Uh question for staff. Are any of those parking spaces that are in the center of the the hotel, the new Mexican restaurant, and then this proposed retail store? Are any of those restricted or reserved or designated? Um, not that I'm aware of. So, they they would be available for the retail and the restaurant uses. There's additional parking for both within the structured garage um just to the northwest of of the this area.

Part of the comprehensive sign plan that uh T-Mobile's consultant Stratus is going to present. We'll have uh four designated uh parking spaces in that [snorts] lot for T-Mobile. And that's all they expect to need is four. So you're saying that that's already been arranged with the the owner of the property, the management to the property? Yeah. Okay. Do we know whether that knee wall was part of the original construction of the site or whether it was added for It's not. It was added in 2013, I believe. Yeah. I I did not look that up, so I don't know.

Okay. But it was it was added after the fact. It was added it was originally designed as a retail space and then converted into a restaurant and that's when they added the smoking patio and the uh outdoor seating. Yeah. Did they change the elevations of the the building before the existing building when they built that new wall out? I do not know. Okay. um didn't look like from the street view images didn't look like the brick wall actually tied all the way back to the facade. It does not.

But but my question was trying to get at like they didn't remove any elements from the wall when they bumped out the and created the patio, right? I mean, why why would they It looked like it was just additive. Yeah, I believe it was just added. If they changed anything, it was the the mullions of the storefront to add two single doors. They added the awning

and they started the interior demolition. But you can see that the brick wall it Yeah. was here. And if I'm not mistaken, there's a existing T-Mobile store like literally across the street. Is this replacing that store? I do not know. Okay. Yeah. Sorry. I would assume so. Okay. Low center. Cuz wasn't there one up by Chipotle and that one's gone? It was It was the the Lowe's center that was Maplewood. I have some elevation questions if I may.

Um, in your graphics you've got the pink, the blue, and the black.

Yeah. Okay. So, those were our original in uh signage intent drawings where the blue is no wrap. The black would be blacked out wrap where you don't see anything and the the magenta color would be their signage. and uh the I know that it's much more than 25% of the individual window. So that is not compliant with the current signage package. But uh T-Mobile has a separate signage consultant stratus that will be providing a compliance or varianced submission with uh more appropriate graphics than those. So looking at the floor plan and the interior exterior relationships, you've got the two doors that are being replaced. So you're taking out the doors, the jam mullions, that whole piece is going to be new glazing. Each one of those entries at the east and west end of the facade have steps that currently go up to those from the public sidewalk to a landing. Are those coming out as well?

Yes. That and the wall. Yes. So that whole side. So then back to staff's accurate point of just pedestrians on the east end of the building, you've got your inventory room, privacy pod, and a district manager office. [cough] [clears throat]

All of those you're building inside the glass. Obviously, you need that for the inventory room. We could question if you could put the long axis against the demising wall on the inside between public and back of house. But so you're you're creating a condition where there's no possibility for vision glass except maybe that last little chunk of the corner. Um and actually I think that's not if it's spandrel I'd have to go look at the pictures. The back of house is uh secure and T-Mobile doesn't want anyone to see inside of it. Okay.

So whether or not those build those rooms are up against the glass or not, those windows are still going to be blacked out.

That's where question for staff. If we're essentially making those into spandrel or glazed blacked out or something, how does that interact with the sign ordinance? Um, fine code doesn't really address if it's just all blacked out. Um, it does address if the graphic is more than 25 square feet. Um, so they would have to where they're showing the pink is what he was indicating that they would have 100% of the window signs windows was would be opaque and have graphics advertising. That was the original intent. Yeah. [clears throat]

I'm sure you're going to address the concerns of having south facing glass with a partition built on the inside with limited air flow and mold, but that's a whole different architectural conversation. So, um, at the west end where the seating area is being built, you showed that as black. Is there a reason that can't be vision glass? It's on the public floor.

So, uh, T-Mobile has standards for their interior retail uh, fixtures that they use where they require these things that they call portals that are buted up against walls. And because of the original design of the building and it's pretty much 360 windows. It's very difficult to fit all of the fixtures that they require of us into this space. So, some at least some of those windows had to be sacrificed as an area to place those fixtures. Um, where the that area currently is also is a bathroom. The so they're already kind of blacked out, but that's the past. We're talking about the future.

So, no poss like you've got in the center two bays, you've got the store fixtures pulled in to maintain the vision glass. Yeah. So, there's no possibility of taking that FH200. It says above, but um that pod, that back vertical piece, there's no potential to pull that forward and leave the same distance off the glass that you have in the center two bays to be able to allow that to be vision glass. No, they they need that to be up against a wall. It's part of the wiring and the u the television screen that they put up against it and it has to be braced in a certain in a certain way. Now, we're in a seismic zone, but that can be done.

Where where would the television the television screen would be facing out or facing interior? Facing interior. Yeah. It's it's it's just a nice area for people to sit. My concern is we've got big, beautiful windows facing south. We're blocking them off, right? Could we pull that in a couple of feet, leave some breathing room into the building? We we could we could uh submit a a different test fit to T-Mobile and get their approval on that. It it's possible

if you held that 1 foot6 line with the other store fixtures where you've got cash drawer etc drawn in and pulled that forward that would give us more opportunity for the vision glass in lie of more spandrel glass. Sure. Um, I think that would benefit that corner of the showroom, but I'm actually more interested in the the impact on the street and just having that facade, at least that portion of the facade more active being I understand the the back of house stuff being secure.

Yeah. No, I I think that's a that's a fine design change that I can propose to T-Mobile. I think I should be able to move the uh the portal as it is now to the to the wall on the west and uh yeah, move those other two fixtures. it it wouldn't be exactly how T-Mobile wants their fixture layout and the order of them, but if that's something that we have to do to accommodate the pedestrian viewage and maintain this the glass, then we're for it. Curious, I didn't open this in blue beam. So, I

don't need a second means of egress from that retail floor. Uh no, the the uh maximum egress distance from the back corner of the furthest area to the front door is 65 ft. Don't have to run people through the back of house for a second egress. No, not unless it's over 75 ft. Thinking more about the occupancy load and the Remoteness of exit is where you're getting to. So, I'm good with that. All right. I'm not sealing them. You are.

Yeah. Yeah. No, we we've checked. It's it's compliant with code to remove the two exits. I'm curious what's T-Mobile's typical footprint like 2200. Yeah. This is much bigger than a normal T-Mobile, but it's a prime space. What else? Anyone online have any comments? Oh, um, when all of the canopies and signage are removed, Mhm. how are you going to patch the ephus? Uh, it's just going to match the surrounding construction. So,

patched or you going to paint or redo the whole thing? It's never going to get the patch to match. Well, that's for the construction manager to figure out, but design intent is a consistent finish on the EU. Yes, that's the intent. This is important. Mhm. Yeah. We don't we don't want it to look like it was all patched and bandaged. We'll make it as seamless as possible.

Acrylic stucco is the finish you're seeing. It will pull the anchors out. There's going to be pock marks in the styrofoam and the acrylic stucco. If they just patch it, it's going to look terrible. You're gonna have mismatched little pucks. So, either they need to skim coat the whole thing or paint the whole thing, whatever the manufacturer patching instructions will be, to get a consistent finish for the ephest along the upper part of the building.

Our note says, "Repair and patch and paint. repair patch and paint affected surfaces of building as necessary. So, yeah, we'll we'll make sure that happens. Okay. Well, it sounds like we have some design things that need to be worked out as well as some landscaping on the outside. Um, I guess we would need a landscaping plan to see that. So, um, I don't think we're going to be able to have a vote on this tonight. Um, so our next meeting is what day? December 10th. December 10th. Yes.

Okay. I heard there was a site committee subcommittee that meets before then. Could it go on that agenda? Generally, there is a site plan subcommittee that meets on the last Wednesday of the month. However, that is the day before Thanksgiving. Um, I will be out of town. Um staff will also be out of town. It is the night before Thanksgiving. So, right. [laughter] So, that would allow us to work internally. Um if you want us to get it, if you can get us a landscape plan, we can coordinate with um Andy on that review. Do should we work with Andy or would

No, [laughter] I'm working for the city. Yeah, Andy's our on call landscape arch. That's what I mean. Okay. So, okay. Got it. Yeah. I was wondering he provides the review on behalf of staff on behalf of the city. Got it. Okay. Didn't know. Okay. Um, so there's So, if we if we do agree to get a landscape plan and make the design change that we just discussed, there's no way we can vote for approval as noted. Have to see the landscape plan first. Yeah. Okay. Do you sure you Yeah. I mean, if you think it's Yeah.

Uh just uh Whitney and I met out on site and we were kind of talking about that and our thought about what that planting might look like is probably worth having a discussion about because you guys might not agree with that. But what we were thinking about is maybe low foundation plants and some columner trees. the the goal is when you're out there kind of looking at that streetscape is there's no trees there and to try and get sort of trees on the side of the road to create a streetscape uh to fill that in. If you look farther west, um there's trees in that space. They'd have to be columner though. They can't be the the real deal.

Uh and and I don't know if the petitioner sensitive to how much of their sign uh because we didn't really look at the sign and coordinate that. we just met on site. There might we might need to do smaller trees, too. It's kind of up to them, but that's what we were visualizing when we were out there is to maybe put some some some trees in there that were were more columner. So, they should probably have a landscape architect look at that. Um to just it it's it's a little bit tricky. It's very it's narrow, so you're going to have to get the right tree in there uh to do it. Not you just can't put any tree in there and certainly not any Bradford pairs. So

I would and [clears throat] I don't know if that works with what you're trying to do either. I don't want to block your spandrol glass. You know,

that's actually kind of the point. If we're by looking at the south facade, if you look at the part that's black at the west, if that's going to become vision glass and be changed to the blue color right there. So the one that's on the far left is black. If [clears throat] that becomes vision glass, now we've got interest going in those last three bays, the two bays that are pink. Those would be the opportunities for landscaping that wouldn't be compromising a view in or out of the building. In fact, you'd be camouflaging the the blank windows. And if you did the second bay for a more

that'll be the widest spot that could have the tallest tree that wouldn't obscure signage in the second bay. You want to keep the blue glass open then and no plants in front of it. I mean they they are going to have store fixtures on the inside so the low plantings probably are very appropriate. Okay. Uh the other thing that whoever designs it could do is try and line it up on the brick columns the trees. But I think again it has to be narrow and if it's a narrow narrower tree it would and it's aligned on those brick columns it might not block the glass. So, I think that's that's why you kind of get making notes. It's all good.

Okay, that's fine. And then I think removal of the removal of the paving and steps and then just the groundscaping there should be fine. Yeah. And then turf to the edge of the planting bed. It's probably

want the narrow column trees on each brick peers or just the three peers in front of the pink areas. Ideally, we'd like to have some rhythm established through the whole streetscape so it doesn't look like somebody took a few trees out, you know, like you lost a tooth. if you could do that. Um, again, it's it's a little bit of a balancing act, but the idea is to when you're driving down that street um heading west that you see kind of a streetscape uh in there if if possible just to soften that building because that building is like right on that street and and it need needs a little bit of softening. So,

can I ask a question of the petitioner, please? So I guess do you anticipate the signage to be part of next middle? Because I guess isn't that kind of what we're talking about too in tying with the landscaping if that port because as it is now those pink are signage. So that I guess my request would be that that all be together because that's going to determine maybe the landscaping portion of it. Yeah, I think by next month we should definitely be able to have that together in the same package. Know when they might submit for the comprehensive sign plan because we haven't gotten anything but we could still try to

I think they were kind of waiting until tonight's if we we have to renotice it. So, uh we would need it submitted soon so we can notice it for the December 10th. Okay. Yeah, we'll we'll we'll get it submitted as soon as possible. And uh would the would would that comprehensive sign plan you're requesting that it just gets tacked on to this submitt as well? Well, yeah. I mean, and I know you're not speaking for them, but it sounded like you were maybe referencing that they're going to request the variance to have that signage. So, I think that is probably a larger discussion within How is that? I would think that's otherwise you'll be back, right?

Yeah. Right. Yeah. Right. Yeah. Okay. Yep. We'll include it. Okay. Anything else on this subject while we're here? Okay. Well, it looks like we do we need a motion to Okay. Um, so can we do we have a motion to not to continue it continue to I move to recommend to continue the discussion on the December 10th planning and zoning commission meeting for additional review and recommendation. Do I have a second? Second.

Second. Okay. Um, let's take a vote. Uh, Jeff Moore and move to continue the motion. Yes. Yes. Yes. Uh, Lisa Sharing. Yes. Ryan Nolan. Yes. Uh, Jeff Hunt. Yes. Jack Shelton. Yes. And Matt Foreman. Yes. Okay. Motion passes. We will see you back uh on December the We say the 8th. 10th. 10th. 10th. Okay. Pardon me. December 10th. Thank you. Thank you.

All right. Uh, next order of business, automatic report. I don't see any alderman here. Um, and how about our planning and development report?

So, I've included the draft 2026 schedule for your for you um within that packet. The only date really to note is um the planning and zoning commission for the November meeting is actually on um Veterans Day. So, we would either cancel that need to cancel that meeting or look for an alternate date. But if you could go ahead and mark your schedules so that we don't forum issues for any of the other meetings, that would be nice. Uh and if you know that you'll be missing any, letting us know in advance is also good so that we can work around those times. Yeah.

Okay. Thank you. Uh and that we've kind of changed this. Do we need a motion to adjurnn? So moved. All right.