Planning and Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

to the December 10th, 2025 meeting of the Brentwood Planning and Zoning Commission. If I if you would please join me in the Pledge of Allegiance. All All right.

Okay. That's no sustainable. me.

Test test test. All right, we're back in business. Good deal. All right, if we could please call the role. Mr. Moran. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, Mark Favaza here. Matt Foreman here. Jeff Hunt here. Jeff Moore here. Paul here. Hart Nelson here. Brian Nolan here. Lisa Sharing here. Jack Shelton here. We have a quorum. Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Moran. Next item of business is approval of the agenda. If I could make one suggestion, I believe we would like to combine uh item 6.01 01 and 7.04 in the interest of uh time as well as fact it's the same applicant. Uh any objections or any other changes to the agenda? Actually, I believe we need a motion to do that, but I would be a recommendation.

You're just to clarify, you're um moving 7.4 four up at the same time under old business um or moving old business down to 7.4. I believe it would be best to move them up to 6.01. Okay. But I will leave that to whoever makes a motion. [snorts] [sighs] Mr. Faza, motion to combine old business 601 with new business 704. We have a motion. Is there a second? Second. All in favor say I. I.

I. All oppose. same sign. All right, we will adjust the event agenda. Excuse me. Uh as that any other object uh excuse me, any other adjustments or changes the agenda? With that in mind, um I think we did vote or do we need to revote on the agenda since we've made that change? All right. Any objection to approval of the modified agenda then by acclamation? [snorts] Seeing none, the agenda stands approved. Next item of business, the minutes for the November 12th, 2025 PNZ meeting have been distributed. Thanks again to Mr. Favaza for chairing that meeting in my absence. I think that he's doing just fine and perhaps you know permanent role is in his future. Uh any changes or adjustments that need to be made to the minutes? Seeing none, any objection to approval of the minutes by acclamation? The minutes of the November 12th meeting stand approved. Uh next item business. Do we have any citizens wishing to address the commission on items not on the agenda this evening? Anyone online? All right, seeing none. Next item of business is old business combined with some new business. This will be 6.01 case 2515. This is a conditional use permit and site development plan for T-Mobile retail store at 1201 Straner Drive uh within the Hanley station development. And then we will be including 2518. That's an amendment to the comprehensive sign plan uh for the same store, same addresses listed. Is the applicant or their representative here? Please, if you could state your name and address for the record and tell us a little bit about I know that there was some discussion last time. It's old business, but a little bit about the uh the development.

Yeah, I'm Zach Brown. Uh nice to meet you. Good evening, everybody. Yeah, some faces here weren't here last time. So, uh just a quick overview, we're taking the building at that address. It's currently sitting empty and we're uh removing the back patio, the knee wall, the awnings, and the front awning. And we're replacing the front awning with the black awning. We're putting signage on hopefully four sides of the building and uh renovating the interior to a T-Mobile. And we'll go over to staff report, please, Miss Kelly. Um

it was noted last time that we should be adding landscaping in lie of the patio. So

since um the large discussion at the last meeting was since they are eliminating the patio, it's reducing the pedestrian interest along Strazner at the Hanley intersection. Um, so the suggestion was to include landscaping. They are asking for significant um larger wall window signage. Um, I forgot the little motion, so I'm going to do a share screen instead. Um, um, this is the interior. So this would be the north elevation with the main entrance interior to the site. This is the west elevation, the east elevation and the south sorry the south elevation which is along um Strasner. Um the black spaces would be completely covered. Um and that is further discuss shown in the U staff report for 25-018 landscaping was submitted. So we had um planning design studio Andy Frankie the city's on call landscape architect to review that. Um he is here to answer those questions and provide a summary of his review. One of the recommendations was to include additional street trees between the lawn. The applicant has indicated they are not interested in doing that because they want don't want to block visibility into the um windows and of the signage does include trimming a s a tree um off the on in the common ground area so that there's greater visibility on the sign

on this end of the building. I let me back and pull up those. So, a large part of the discussion is they needed to see the changes along with this proposed signage that is under this staff report. The current comprehensive sign plan for the Hamley station allowed for four signs on all sides of the building uh for single tenant restaurants for the hoola hands. This was originally developed as a multi-tenant retail center and as such it was only allowed signage on the north and south sides not on the east or west. Under the current regulations of signage, um they would be allowed one sign to the parking and along any street. So that would be on the Hanley side and on the Strazner side and interior to the site, but not on the west side. They would also be limited to 20 1/4 the lineal footage of frontage which for this location would be 23 uh square feet for the north and south approximately and 20 square ft for the east and west. They are proposing signage at on the north main entrance would be 49 square feet and then the east, south and west would be 39 square feet approximately. So that does give them a significantly larger signs. um the window signs that they're being proposed in the previous application in our previous review there was only um three windows that would be completely

covered. They have now moved that up to five that are highlighted here um along the Strazner side completely covered on the east the two between the buildings where the uh former hoola hands where the Tonis Mexican restaurant is um on these window spaces and they would be completely covered. The text on the signs does seem to be less than 20% of the window space, but they are using a branded color and covering 100% of the windows. The some of the remaining window signage in the previous application said they would just be blacked out. Um, instead just have a black

discussion. Sorry, I think we're getting a little ahead of ourselves here. Uh, can we go back to old business before we talk about the signage and the the windows and everything or do we're seeing these is are we just combining them? We're reviewing them together. I think that that was a piece I'll say this of and I wasn't at the last meeting but to comment on some of this was discussed at the last meeting and I'll turn it to Mr. Favasa for that but I think the big piece that was wanting to be discussed still was the landscaping which I understand there's been a proposal presented but there's not interest from the applicant in doing that. and then the signage to make a determination whether the cup was appropriate as well. So they are being considered together. Okay. And that's that's what the commission is looking. Just wanted to make sure

we can go back in each of those and deal with each of those individually, but I think that was the the intent of why we Great.

moved it to this next meeting. So all right. Um sorry, Miss Miss Kelly, please. Anything? So, um, so in addition to the window signage, um, they have designated parking, um, spaces within the lot in the center of the development for four. So, they they include four parking spaces. All right. Interior to the site. Two over here and then two in the center in adjacent to where the restaurant and the hotel have designated parking. There's available parking um within the parking structure as well.

And is that consistent, Miss Kelly, if I'm understanding, with the other tenants in this development that there is designated parking for each of those? Yes. And is it branded? Um, I don't remember if it's particularly branded. It would be limited. If so, it's limited to just the amount that you see here. Okay. So, it's a similar on those similar those sides. Yeah.

Okay. Anything else from staff? Um the idea for review of the landscaping in addition to the needed discussion on the windows was to ensure that the landscaping would be consistent with the visibility of into the space and all of that. So um Andy has provided that review if you would like to hear from him. We'll do that I think. Uh first just in order so people aren't having to step up and down. Mr. Fos, anything that is important to the discussion from last meeting? I read the minutes obviously but just

uh other than that extra blacked out window I think we said we would have liked think like this seen at all. So the part of the discussion was that the canopy and the knee wall were not original the building. They were added for the restaurant. So when we take those away, we're right very approximate to the street, not a lot of room, but some of the original proposal with the number of windows that were blacked out. We've now removed an exterior feature needed landscaping, but we're now taking a street facing facade and putting a lot of blacked out windows on it. We're not activating a facade that is a pedestrian and and vehicular main circulation route. So part of the conversation last time was how much we're blocking out, especially the far west window in the showroom. There's actually a discrepancy in your drawing set between the current elevations where blue representing vision glass, black representing the the film or the spandrel. You're showing the entire west window in the showroom as the scrim or the the film in the comprehensive sign plan document.

Yeah, that that should not be blacked out. Okay. Because in the elevations, only the last of the three glass panels is blacked out in the architectural elevations, not the sign plan up. So, we're Are you talking about the west facade? Uh, elevation B4, the east facade, south elevation B4, far west panel. So, the balance here isn't isn't necessarily just how much of the window film accounts for signage. It's how much of the facade are we making into an opaque surface that doesn't give life to our streets and activation on the facade.

I mean, let's be very Yeah, the conversation of you don't get what you don't ask for. But I think that there is some conversation also being had of um at what point does this become more signage understanding the size of the text. So that was it. The discussion last time the the five major windows that are filmed are their back of house storage where they want security. They don't want people to be seeing in. [clears throat] So that last one on the south face on the west end was blacked out simply because they had a store element

that looked like it could be relocated to allow for better visibility, better activation into that space. So So real quick, I just want to elaborate on that. Um the previous plane we showed you that that far west window the all three of those panes were blacked out because we were going to like you said add some fixtures along that uh the one that I'm showing now the the only blacked out pane on the far left. That one's already blacked out. It's existing blacked out by the bathrooms that are currently built there. So, you're putting in fixed glass where the old exit door was, and it's going to remain vision glass, which seems like a reasonable compromise.

Yeah.

And the uh we did take your suggestion. We we if you look on the fixture plan, uh we took those two fixtures that you said were on the wall and could be moved up against the storefront. And we did that to open up the storefront where it was previously blacked out. And we just used the existing uh wall where the bathrooms were to put some seating area in the top right corner of the plan. So, we'll have to make some corrections on the um 03 sheet for the because there's six shown. So, we need the one on the south far right south far left where the T-Mobile and the first 56 inch panel.

Mhm. That would stay and then the 63 and this 57 in would both become vision glass. Is that what I just heard? How the south elevation looks right now is correct. No, I correct. But I switched over to the signage plan. Oh, so on the last page of that PDF, the far I'm sorry, lower left corner is the south elevation far left. Right. So, two of those need to be removed. You're correct. So, that would technically change our calculation if you're calling this branded film. That would reduce the square footage.

Thank you for catching that discrepancy. Anything else, Mr. Foreman? Other questions from commissioners? I'm interested in the reasoning. Again, understand that the previous single occupancy restaurant had signage on four sides. Um, I'm concerned about both why that is needed when there's going to be three sides allowed by code and then the additional size, especially given the amount of I guess I will say blacked out windows that will be providing brand recognition. Um, I think that that um in combination with a uh an uninterest in putting in the landscaping to provide some softening creates a billboard effects Uh my understanding was the recommendations were rejected. Is that

well um maybe we could hear from Mr. Frankie then in that case. So give us a second. Mr. Frankie if you could please. Thank you Mr. Brown. Good evening Mr. Chairman, members of the commission. My name is Andrew Frank. I'm a landscape architect with Plane Design Studio and we're the on call landscape architects for the city of Brentwood. Uh we reviewed the plan, didn't have any trouble with the plan. Our only comment was we asked a petitioner if they could uh consider adding maybe one to two or a few street trees along that edge because we're just trying to put some street trees along the edge. They responded and said they thought the space was too tight and didn't want to do it.

I agree the space is too tight, but you might be able to fit one or two column or trees in there to soften that up. That was our only request. And any questions about that? It's less extensive consideration than what I think I had understood. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And and they when we first heard this petition, there was no landscape in the project at all. They were just removing the canopy and putting turf on. So, they've made a a pretty significant effort to put landscape against the building, soften it up. Thank you, Mr. Frankie, my misunderstanding. I appreciate that. Any other questions? Any any other questions from commissioners on site or on the landscaping? [clears throat] Last meeting we've talked about possibly coordinating the columner trees with the blacked out windows.

Was that I haven't pulled the plan up. What they did with the plan is they actually used um they align trees with like I think the pilasters of the window or something like that. So it's I think what they did works certainly works with the facade. It's not in conflict with it at all. these trees would be kind of in the space in front of that, but I don't I mean I it sounds like there's going to be a lot of signage on the building and I don't think these trees are going to put them out of business per se because they're going to be tall and narrow, but we haven't seen a layout to know where they these [snorts] street trees might fit relative to those windows.

Anything else for me? it that just it seems like that's our opportunity where we either have the building is already masonry and opaque or if we're concerned about the amount of windows being blacked out slashbranded using the landscape to complement that would be a mitigating strategy

and I I think that the point of this development has a particular aesthetic and it has changed a few times for the usage and obviously will change again for this usage. It's not a restaurant. Um, but I think that that is the balance that we're trying to achieve here. So, I'm interested in thoughts and again realize I'm playing catch-up. So, I appreciate the efforts done on the landscaping already and thank you for the clarification, Mr. Frankie. Any other questions for Mr. Frankie, so we don't have to have folks popping up and down. Any other questions or comments from the commission either for staff or for the petitioner? So if I'm understanding correctly and Miss Kelly keep me honest um normal allowance under code would be or for excuse me for the comp sign plan not just code that exists not what's being requested would be three signs rather than four street facing and then

under the comprehensive sign plan it would be two north and south okay um instead of the four being proposed where would I did where did I understand three because I thought I would be under current standard regulations um where you're allowed one sign per street frontage for Henley and for Strazner and then one for the parking lot. So options for two, three or four, but then the size of the signage is also um the size of the signs do appear to be consistent with the comprehensive sign plan.

Okay. um and that they could um or the size of the north and the south um under the city's standard regulations they are almost double um they where they would be limited to 20 square feet on the east and I think 23 square feet um north and south and the prior tenants um signage was also under 20 square feet for each one of those. Mr. Fazo,

um I mean I completely understand having the sign on Hanley on the east facade and also on the south facade along Strazner. I don't feel there needs to be a sign on the west facade since it's only facing the little driveway and that residential condo development there and I don't think much of your traffic is going to be coming from that direction anyway. And then the sign over the door once you're in that little parking lot. I don't know if you need such I mean I understand having a sign showing this is the entrance but I think just the normal Well, you said that that it meets the current the

Well, it's code not comp sign but not the

I apologize. Let me clarify. Under the comprehensive sign, there is a number of different standards that it does not meet in that they can only have individual letters, no cabinet or fascia signs. So adding the pink background, it makes it a fascia cabinet sign. Um it says that they cannot be more than 7.5% of the square footage of the elevation. Each of the proposed signs appear are under that. However, it also then said the individual letters can be no um larger than 24 inches and now they're at 27. So they're larger than that. Um so there there's a number. Yes. So that's why they are being brought into uh for a comprehensive sign plan amendment.

But I think just trying to make sure that I again recognizing I'm playing catch-up. I think from landscaping and site what I'm hearing is that we have um we have at least some understanding and agreement for the signage it's a difference of four versus three or even two and then the size although I will say it sounds like the overall signage signage size is reasonable can given the other developments it's the lettering you know if you have fewer letters then I don't think that's a particular concern but the three versus four and then it is the blacked out windows because we have a situation again Does that meet the aesthetic? Because it is opaque. That's the term reason we're blacked out, but it is a very visible branding.

I would also say that on the um staff report um on the east elevation, they have it kind of low. Um there's shared screen the west elevation that's facing the driveway. Is that right? So they haven't shared. They're talking about trimming the tree. It it appeared I had noted in the staff report I appeared it could be shifted upwards so they wouldn't be blocked in the tree if they wanted to. Um there any particular reason why Mr. Brown would be at that height if you wanted better visibility? It's centered between the top of the

aesthetic. All right. Yeah, it's an aesthetic thing just from an elevation perspective. Mr. Mr. Frankie, do we have any particular concerns about trimming that tree? Is that part of landscape plans? Sorry. A little bit actually because in a sense what they're going to have to do is top it and that's a big no no in the tree world generally. Um, which might make it look kind of weird. They'll cut the central leader out of it. Um, so yeah, I'd be concerned about that. Mr. Brown, is there any particular objection to raising your sign so it provides visibility and we can not top the tree? No. Thank you. We'll figure that out.

All right. Um, so we have those three issues. I think one, two, I think I'm hearing at least a proposal that may come with a motion. We'll get to that. And then the last one is on the the blacking out of the windows. Is there anything else that I missed? Sorry, I'm miss sharing. I was just going to offer that I agree with Mr. Faza's comments that if they have signage on three sides of the building and they have this bright pink film over all the windows, there is no way someone is not going to know what building they're going into from the parking lot. Feel that sign over the door just seems excessive. It's like once you're in that parking lot, you know where you're going already that but you're saying it's within

the comprehensive sign plan allowed for inline retail tenants a front and rear elevation. Um it's the east and west that is the deviation. Um as well as the the other design elements of that sign of those signs, the cabinet and the overall letter heights kind of thing. Yeah.

Okay. And you said the the previous sign was only 20 square feet. Um, the previous sign for the restaurant on the south elevation was 18.75 square feet, 15.1 square ft on the west elevation. Um, 23.6 square ft on the east elevation facing Hanley. Um, and there was not one pro uh the dimensions were not provided for the north elevation interior to the site. I don't remember the sign being that large over the door going in a restaurant and and it's facing the res and once again that's like the residents are looking out their back windows at that building.

M anything else, Mr. Favaza? No, that's Mr. Hunt.

Yeah, I I don't necessarily have an issue with the north door sign for wayfinding purposes even though it's arguably a little unnecessary. I would I would like to see them get down to the 24 in that the comp sign plan allows. Um although 3 in probably isn't all that material, but I do I I don't think the window film is necessary or particularly reasonable. I'd be curious what the total square footage of that is if we call it signage. uh in the previous discussion that was uh indicated in the staff report was approximately 356 square feet

and I I guess I would question if Mr. Hunt is right is that the aesthetic that the comprehensive plan is seeing in a retail space like this. So a lot of discussion sorry Mr. I would just echo that that would be my comment that we should consider the window film signage as well, right? And so then we're really elaborating on the magnitude of the overages. Um is there any alternative to that branded signing? Could we do maybe the T logo versus the entire is is the concern that it's magenta colored? I just think the

if it was black, would it be a concern? I'm not a designer myself, but I mean potentially, but I guess it's more so for me. What are we four or five of them? What did we end up with the number of windows? Five. The number of it. And then certainly compounded with the magenta. It seems like a lot. Let me make sure if I could understand, Mr. Shelton, too. My understanding is the reason for blacking out these is because they will be used for storage. It's a security so that people can't see in which makes a reasonable business sense. They need to be blacked out. Flip side of Yeah. I mean, would black be more fitting with the aesthetic since it just would simply not be as visible from.

Yeah. I mean, I think so just on first analysis because it currently is, right? That's what they've currently done. So, just my comments there. And then I would I would sorry just add on that like I'm not opposed to the additional building signage if that is refined more kind of give and take. Thank you Mr. F. Mr. Provisa. Yeah I would agree that blacked out I think it'll blend in but the magenta really it's a little too much I think for the project.

Do we have It sounds like we're circling around a motion. Is there a motion that a member of the commission is willing to put forward? Actually, let me go back to the applicants. We do like to do this. It sounds like there is reasonable that the you are willing to consider blacking out the windows. I think that what we're going to hear is a motion of numbers of signs um and size. But if if the if the biggest issue is the magenta color, uh I think we could switch it to black. Thank you, Mr. Brown. Is there a motion, Mr. Favos? Well, do we need two motions since it's the landscape? And then

we do we need the cup. We need approval of the cup and we need approval of a comprehensive or a motion for the cup and we have a motion for the comprehensive sign plan. Um I believe we can approve the cup, approve recommendation of the cup and then take up the comprehensive sign plan. Is that correct? All right. Thank you. Uh so do I have the first of two motions? Can I ask one more before that came to mind? The parking spaces, are you taking those over or those new ones that are being assigned that have been approved? They're already existing that come with this space. Yeah. Okay.

Mr. Sorry, any other questions or discussion? And actually, I did forget and I usually have Miss Builderback here to kick me in the shin. Is anyone online or any members of the public here have questions for this uh for this applicant? All right. Is there a motion? M. Sharing. Chairman, I move to recommend approval of the conditional use permit and site development plans for the T-Mobile retail store at 1201 Ster Drive subject to the conditions and discussion of tonight's meeting. We have a motion. Is there a second? Second. Second by Mr. Favaza. Mr. Foreman. And

need to note the reconciliation between the architectural plan and the and the signed plan. dropping the screening off of the two panels on the south facade at the west end. Miss Sharing, do you agree to those stipulations? Mr. Favaza, second. All right. Roll call vote, please. Mr. Moran, uh, Mavaza, yes. M Foreman, yes. Jeff Hunt, yes. Jeff Moore, yes. Moran, yes. Uh, Brian Nolan, yes. Lisa Sharing, yes. Jack Shelton, yes. Unanimous, Mr. Sure. Thank you, Mr. Moran. Excellent. Next. Do we have a motion for a comprehensive sign plan for the property mentioned?

Never mind, Mr. Favaza. I'll try. [laughter] Um, I propose approval of the comprehensive sign plan with blacked out windows versus magenta signs on three sides excluding the west side facade and reconciliation of those two panels and the reconciliation of the two panels on the west or I guess the west side of the facade. We have a motion. Is there a second? Second. Roll call vote, please. Mr. Moran Fazer, yes. M Foreman,

yes. Jeff HS, yes. Jeff Moore, yes. Boran, yes. Brian Nolan, yes. Lisa Sharing, yes. Jack Shelton, yes. Again, unanimous. Thank you, Mr. Moran. Thank you, Mr. Brown. Appreciate it. This will go to the board of aldermen um in January. I will keep you posted in January. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Thank you. All right. Thank you to the commission for work on this, especially over multiple meetings. Uh next item of business is new business. This is 7.01 case 2514. Uh there is a request to propo postpone this site development plan to our January 14th meeting. Um, Miss Kelly, any comments on this or

um they did, this is for the Carbalign building where this board approved a um site development plan for modification to the existing structure. They have determined that the existing structure cannot handle the structural modifications that are required. That's too bad. Yeah. So, they are looking at a tear down rebuild. They did get a variance. um they are reducing the non-conformity along the front where the building will be 50 feet from the front yard setback. However, there is the non-conformity in the rear um that they did receive a variance um but they are looking to modify the design of the the structure before proceeding to the planning and zoning commission. So

appreciate uh is there a motion to carry this over? So moved. Is there a second? Second. Uh sorry was second by Mr. or by Mr. Shelton, excuse me. All in favor signify by saying I. I. I. All oppose. Same sign. All right, we'll carry that over. Uh, next item of business is case 2516. This is a conditional use permit for Jets Pizza carry out and delivery at 8824 Manchester Road within the Shnook Shopping Center. Is the applicant or their representative here this evening?

Oh, apparently not. Apparently not. I think they're Are they online? Oh, there we go. I'm here. Sorry, I didn't know how to work this. Hello. Not a problem. And Mr. Heather Heatherly, is that correct? Yes, sir. All right. We'll get the volume adjusted here, I think, because it's a little loud. And then we'll ask you to introduce your uh your your submission tonight. [snorts] Okay.

All right. If you could please go ahead. Uh yeah, I believe um we put everything in our paperwork. It's just about changing it over from office space to restaurant and how that affects the neighbors. It's an existing space. The parking was uh in there. There's ample parking. We're carry out and delivery. Um we maximum have 12 employees inside including drivers at any given time. And I think we have well over 150. I don't remember the exact numbers. I don't have it right down cuz it's also on my phone. Um, but we have ample parking and parking in the back for our staff. Um, and it's the at the end of the Shnooks Plaza, so we won't be encroaching on anybody. Um, and I think that's it.

Thank you. That's all right. We'll go to staff report, please. Miss Kelly.

So, as the applicant has indicated, this is for a conditional use permit for Jets Pizza. This is only carry out and delivery. Um they are taking up the end space of the Shnooks Brentwood Plaza Shopping Center at 8824 um Manchester Road. The property is zoned GC where carry out restaurants and carry out and delivery are a conditional use which brings us tonight. They are not making any changes to the exterior of the building or the site. Um therefore we the use the review was limited to the use and the parking available on the site. Uh in a recent application um CBB provided a parking study that at that time showed that there was a 285 parking spaces available on the site. with the change in use from at that time was vacant and estimated at retail um to now a restaurant facility that does make the required parking 290. However, under section 41590D that does allow for a standard 20% reduction that would then lower the parking to 232 park spaces required. Staff did discuss the use with both um Mr. Frankie and with uh the city's on call engineer and they did not have a concern with the tenant at this location. I have included a condition of the approval that the employees should shall park in the rear of the building behind the lot to free up the spaces in the front for customers of the shopping center.

Miss Kelly, just quick question. Is that 290 uh spots does that include behind the building or is that Yes. Oh, okay. Thank you. That's the 290 spaces. um is the required parking straight review of the uses of the code. Gotcha. Um the available parking on the site was at the time 285 with a recent application earlier this year. I remember. Okay. Thank you.

Um therefore, due to the limited nature of the impact of this use, um we did not foresee any concerns um at this location. So, Thank you, Miss Kelly. Questions for members of the commission. Seems fairly straightforward. Mr. Moore, uh, briefly, do we have a sign planned for this space? Uh, they did not show any signs. Um, so they would have to follow the straight use of the code or the center would need to come in for a comprehensive sign plan. I am not a aware of one already approved for this location. So pretty straightforward to me. Anything else, Mr. Moore?

Sir, any members of the public or here online or here wishing to address the commission on this petition, this application? Is there a motion? Mr. Faza, I move to recommend the approval of the conditional use permit at 8824 Manchester Road. Uh, subject to the conditions proposed. There's a motion. Do I have a second? Second. Second by Miss Sharing. Uh, roll call vote, please. Mr. Moranza, yes. Orman, yes. Jeff Holmes, yes. Jeff Moore, yes. Paul Moran, yes. Brian Nolan, yes. Lisa Sharing, yes. Jack Shelton, yes. It's unanimous again.

Thank you, Mr. Moran. Uh, then again, this will go to is our recommendation will go to the board of aldermen in January. Thank you, Mr. Heather. Appreciate it. Thank you all so much. Next item of business is 250017. This is the amendment to the site development plans and landscaping for the Brentwood Public Library at 2201 South Brentwood Boulevard. As the applicant or their representative here. All right. If you could please state your name again for the record and tell us a little bit about what amendment we're looking for.

Uh yeah, my name is Steven Kessle. I am a project architect uh with Brandwood Public Library. All right, Mr. Kessle. [sighs] Uh, let me see.

Okay, sorry about that. accessing. Okay.

Yeah. Okay. That's um I think it was uh it was last year uh that we came up and uh just uh talked about the project. Um so this was a public bid project. Uh it was a hard bid uh using public dollars. Um around uh March um there was a lot of uncertainty within the markets specifically the construction market tariffs and and things like that. So, uh, as a strategy, uh, to meet that hard bid, um, the team decided to try to hit, uh, a number of alternates, um, within the project budget, uh, that would be around a 10% reduction for the for the site. So, here's the original site, um, that we talked about. And then, uh,

we're not seeing anything coming up here. It's just blank screen.

Uh, sorry about that. Here's the original site. Um, I think when I try to share full screen, it uh kicks me out of the window. So, um, if you guys need me to zoom in on anything, I'm I'm happy to do that. Um, the updates uh to that site since the last since last year that we talked um was about three different updates. Uh, one was a landscape update to accommodate uh the fire protection irrigation utilities along the north side of Morris Avenue. Um, the second was a client request uh to add in bike racks um to the building. Uh we had talked about couple a couple of different spots for those bike racks. Um uh the idea was to try to keep them as close proximity along uh the library so that they weren't any nobody who rode bikes were crossing any of the uh the vehicle traffic. And then the the final was the VE tree reduction uh that we see in the courtyard um that uh I think they'll talk about in the site uh development plan uh from the planning and zoning department. Um, one of the items, uh, just to talk about to the north, uh, there's a recommendation to add in, uh, some of the planting that was removed for the bike racks to the north of the building. Um, one thing that our landscape architect did, and hopefully this doesn't come up too pixelated, was they did um, try to uh, maximize the amount of landscaping that was around those site utilities. So right now we do have uh pretty substantial plantings. Um 23 feather reed grasses, 17 shamrock ink berries and 14 boulder blue fescues. Um I think the I the intent uh the design intent was to maximize the the landscaping

around that. Um so if we could add more landscaping, I think we certainly would. Um the second was the bike racks. Uh, another of the recommendations uh that you guys seen the report was to to move the blue fescue uh over to these landscape islands. Um, speaking with my landscape architect, uh, he misunderstood the recommendation and thought they were talking about the south uh, landscape islands. So, I think with the west landscape islands, we're we're happy to go ahead and accommodate um, and and add that blue fescue into those uh, existing planters. And then finally, the last is the the VE tree reduction that um uh we the the library took uh about trying to relocate those three trees uh that are in the courtyard space which um also comes up in the recommendation. Those trees are are you know essentially um they create their own kind of pots. So they need their own drainage uh because the water in those land in the courtyard doesn't necessarily uh drain out. So basically what we would need to be doing is creating uh drain pipes. Um because of those drain pipes, it basically uh you know doubles the amount of dollars um that those trees would cost. Um and again with with kind of the cost reductions that we were trying to take across the board um that was a a ve item that um we needed to to propose to get into budget. Um the total planting package not including you know hardscape or anything like that but just pure plants is still you know $60,000. So we are you know as a library feel like we are uh trying to accommodate um substantial amount of landscaping planting around this uh library but uh within the courtyard space it was uh

kind of a high a high dollar amount. So, um I know visually this was an item that had come up in the report and so I just wanted to make sure um everybody was kind of aware of the visual impact. Um so here we see the original renderings of you can see the three trees in the courtyard right there. Um with that VE reduction, those trees would be removed and instead uh basically uh furniture pieces with um umbrellas kind of something a little bit more flexible in that courtyard would would be there in in instead again from uh the southwest. Um, you see the courtyard over there and then the updated renderings. Yeah, might mean sorry. Here it is. Um, we can see the bike racks uh close to kind of that pedestrian access way and then uh the updated courtyard scheme that we'd be proposing. Um, again, none of the perimeter plantings were removed from the courtyard. Those are all still in play. It's primarily just uh the trees and those tree wells that we are uh we would be relocating. And then here's the south facade with the updated once it once it loads uh where you can see the furniture. Um the recommendation report uh suggested that we relocate those three trees to the north side of the site. um we feel like that's kind of a reasonable uh request and we're we're kind of happy to move those. I think for us it's the dollar amounts that are associated with providing the sub uh the subsurface infrastructure that would be required for those for those trees within the

courtyard. I think um talking with the librarian and the librarian staff when we were discussing be um there's some benefits that they saw about the flexibility of the courtyard possibly being used for different functions as the you know the furniture could be uh relocated and you could have um outdoor events in that courtyard uh that perhaps the trees wouldn't allow. So uh a little bit about making you know lemonade out of lemons um with with that ve reduction. So, uh, thank you, Mr. Kessle. I think we'll get to staff report and then we may have some questions for you. Sure, Miss Kelly.

So, as the applicant has indicated, they came in last year for the site development plan. Um, this site was already oversight coverage and had received a a site coverage bonus up to 71%. um with the prior tenant they were adding additional coverage to go up to 73 um.4%. So therefore the overall landscaping was a significant part of the um bonus for this development. The original development, as you can see here, was the court yard with the trees. Um, landscaping here and here. Um, as well as adding landscaping and filling in where there were missing landscaping throughout the site. We do feel like the trees would were to soften the elevation and provide shade. It would be very hot on that side. And soften the the elevation with the large library signage. um and therefore we do recommend that they be added back in um to meet with the site coverage bonus. However, the commission Oh, I'm sorry, Andy Frankie is here. He did a thorough review of the site and uh we'll let him um provide his report.

Just one quick question, Miss Kelly, if I could and and I absolutely like to hear from Mr. Frankie. My understanding is that there have been proposals to relocate the landscaping. Would that not provide the same site coverage bonus? Um, that was to me it it would not. Okay. Particularly with the three trees. I think the courtyard can be used for various outdoor amenities with those nice trees, especially in the summer when it be hot. But I will let Andy Frankie uh expand on that. All right, Mr. Frankie, please. Here, I'll take the mic off.

Yeah.

Hi again. Um, yeah, I think Whitney kind of summarized everything. Uh, the petitioner said they'd be willing to locate uh the Blue Frescue into those narrow parking lot islands. We're good with that. Three trees. We're moving them around probably. I'm thinking um I don't know this. We'd have to ask the landscape architect or the or the architect. I don't know if it's necessarily sub drainage. What are you guys putting silver cells in there too for that trees? Which silver cells are um they're like a plastic tray that you put underneath to help plants grow. They're that's expensive without a doubt. So, if that was included in the proposal besides the drainage cuz the site plan shows drainage through, you know, a drain line through there with some inlets. So, uh, I don't know if they were putting silver cells in or if there was sub drainage system to help them drain. Probably I I I don't doubt that there was money involved in that. They they agreed to move them. The one item though that I would like to talk a little bit more about two actually. One were Let's start with the planting of the utilities on the north side of the building. When we compared the original plan to the plan that's shown on the screen, it looked like there were gaps and they didn't provide all the plants that were originally there. Our suggestion was is to just hold those plants out, let those utility structures go in and then see if you can backfill some of those extra plants back in so that you could provide more screen of those utilities. That was our comment on that. But the other item I wanted to discuss on the courtyard, if you wouldn't mind zooming in on the courtyard. Uh there, sorry, there were some shrubs associated with that courtyard that are being removed too behind I think the sign wall. If we were to go through the renderings, we'd like to see those shrubs put back in because we feel like they help buffer the occupants of the courtyard uh from

the parking lot. We'd like to see those go in. I we we do agree that the trees added a lot to that courtyard um visually. They provided a sense of enclosure. They helped soften the edge of that facade with the sign on it, which if you remember, a lot of people had comments about. And with the tree softening that, we felt that was an adequate compromise to make that not so uh stark. Uh and and additionally, when you look at the rendering, which I really appreciate you guys having, the renderings are a big help. to us it looks like in the summer in the middle of August that's going to be a hot bright space and the trees might help to soften that. So that's kind of where we were coming from. But they did agree to move them. They're providing a benefit up there too. But I think the benefit might be uh to help that space seem a little bit cooler and tolerable in the summer. Um I don't I mean I we also understand the ability to have an open space that you could program a lot of different things. So, is there a right answer here? I don't know. But those are kind of the facts of the matter.

Thank you, Mr. Frankie. Um, think get a couple questions and then uh obviously open up to the commission. Um, questions actually for Mr. Castle. Um, what's the total cost of construction of the project or cost of the renovation? Uh, I can't give you the I mean the exact dollar amount is slipping me, but it's around six million. Okay. Um, and do you know what the V, you said the V was looking at a 10%, so you're looking at a $600,000 VE. Is that what Yeah, we took that. I mean, there was multiple different uh alternatives that we provided. Um, mechanical. Yeah. All of that.

Okay. So, it was interior mechanical as well as as that. All right. So, $6 million. Again, just trying to take a look at that with $60,000 of plannings. Understand again hard bids, understand public money. I deal with that every day. So, um, all right. Give me one more second. Sorry, I have one more question here. No, I'd asked a question about coverage bonus. All right. Thank you. Uh, any questions for members of the commission? Mr. Foreman. All right. [clears throat] So, I wasn't here for the original meetings. I'm seeing decomposed granite. Is that still the surface? Yeah. So, it's not grass or your point to shading, but the storm line runs right through the middle. Looks like you had the three trees root balls to the south of that. Correct.

I didn't see Silva cells or anything noted. No, we didn't either. But yeah, it [clears throat] was wondering what caused uh it was just the drain tiles. Yeah. With the connections in the storm. Oh, so you're connecting to the invert at 4T down. Yeah. Yep. Okay. So, technically there's nothing precluding you from if there were budget or a donut later, you could always add these back. Yeah. Okay. Just kind of optimistic for the [laughter] future. Sure.

Um, how accurate is your drawing on the north? Because it, you know, the little bit of a discrepancy between a couple of the plans. I'm looking at the construction documents versus Yeah, that's why I tried to kind of superimpose. Right here, you can see the civil drawings with the landscape drawings, right? the overarching ones that are in the staff report make the utilities look like they're a lot closer to the curb. So I think these actually are more representative. Um just curious if we did were there any ballards or anything included just being paranoid?

No, no ballards are included. Um but you know the intent was to mask those as as much as possible. So it's not not like we're trying to, you know, highlight them. Yeah, the construction documents look more accurate than the landscape. So it which would support your see what we actually get and see what's left to plant in. Yeah. We're We're happy to We're happy to do that.

That's it.

Thank you, Mr. Foreman. I do want to I know another thing I wanted to note, which isn't really a question, but a bit of a concern is I know there was a lot of discussion among the commission and the board of alderman about the sign um and the library sign and that these trees would soften that a little bit. I do want to express a little concern that we're having this amendment in front of us because a change was made and it wasn't proactive by the the construction team to come in front of us. It was because an inspection found that you weren't following the site plan we had approved. uh that bothers me a little bit and so I wanted to share that that um you know again understanding that this is public money and understanding how bids work. Um that that is something that I think that this commission expects would be done proactively since we approved one thing and now only now are we getting an amendment after the inspector said you didn't do what you were supposed to do. I think that that's something that we need to to consider. Uh other questions for members of the commission.

Sorry, Mr. Nolan. Thank you and I appreciate that comment. I was not aware of that. Um, I want to go back to the uh courtyard for a minute. You're showing there's still two trees next to the ADA spots. Is that correct? Correct. And how do those drain? Are they in a landscaped area? Yes. Yeah, they have the the mulch around the landscape. Okay. So, they're not encapsulated basically from Are those the those same size as the other three that were removed?

Uh, yes, I believe so. Uh they're they're different species. Um but as far as the caliper um intent was yeah similar size. Okay. And then that island to the south that has two additional trees. Correct. And are those also the same size as Yes, it would be the same species. Okay. I think you know one, two, three, four, five. There's Yeah, five trees. Where's the fifth one? I'm sorry. There's

uh two right here. There's one over right here. Uh one right here, one right here. And then there's kind of two existing trees uh along right there.

Mr. Castle, actually one one question. I apologize for not asking this. I was asking total cost and I think you had this in there. I just want to make sure I'm seeing it. Is the total ve savings from this removal the No, the the reduction is $6,300. Correct. Okay. Um I think that would be that would be $6,300 added to to the budget uh if we had to put these trees in back in. Yes. Okay. Um then let me make sure I'm understanding another thing which is I thought I heard in the presentation that with the trees not there in order to provide shade what was then going to be provided was outdoor furniture that had is that not going to be more than $6,300 or similar to it.

Outdoor furniture was always planned for the space. So that was kind of and but it's also from a separate kind of pot of money. Well, it's all the same construction budget but yes. All right. Um, okay. Umbrell outdoor furniture including umbrellas were supposed to were always provided for that. Okay. Um, that's not cheap either. So, I think that's that's interesting. Uh, all right. Any other questions, please? Yes, please, Mr. Mor. Thank you. [clears throat]

So, it's it's all a bit disappointing, isn't it? I'm not going to try and second guess all the decisions that were made to get here when you have to make up for a budget shortfall and everything. But this was supposed to be a community gem and it's starting to going to look start to me to look like a shipping container with not much in front of it and that is really disappointing. And what's going to happen? I wonder if there's any more surprises that are found because we know how projects can go. They seldom go down in price. They typically go up. Are we going to be doing away with everything in in terms of landscaping? because I hope that was a difficult decision for people to make.

It was it was it's a hard bid. So, what's bought is bought and the contractors, you know, obligated to provide all of that. So, I you know, I don't want any changes to the site plan as much as anybody else does on the project.

Okay. And are we expecting an increase in operating costs as a result of increased AC required because the shade will be lost from the trees that have been going to be removed? Um, I mean, uh, I guess I could make the argument about the increased um, uh, uh, increased uh, leaf blowing costs and and things like that on the outside. I think, you know, I'll come and brush them up for you, you know, to save the trees. Trust me. So, I'm retired. I can do that. Okay. But, okay. So, no, it was the answer. And then I have a question for Mr. Frankie, if you don't mind, please, Andrew. Yes, sir.

Uh moving a tree, not exactly pushing soap around the tub, right? If you're moving three trees from a south southern aspect to a northerly, what how convinced how many of those will still be alive in two years? They should make it. It's I don't think it's it's really a big deal to change their location like that. Okay. All right. If I move a small shrub at my house around my house, it dies. Something about your horiculture. It could be it could be my plants hostry. Yes.

I think probably Mr. Moran, you're moving it really twice because you're moving it from like the side to the front or by So it's got two moves in it. These they'll just have one. They'll be put in the on the north side. They're not going to be planted twice. Okay. So they might have a irregardless of your plant husbandry skills, they might have a better chance. All right. Thank you very much. Sure. Thank you, Mr. Moran. Thank you. [snorts] Any other questions? Just one more quick question. Are we are we looking at

either saying you have to do the three trees or no trees and there's no there's nothing in the middle? Like there's no savings to doing one tree or two trees because you still have to do the tile. I'd imagine one tree would be um $2,100. You know, I'm assuming it's a unit price. I just asked the contractor for kind of the overall Sure. I was just making sure there was no other alternative that you guys were proposing. It was this was eliminated basically. Sorry, actually make sure I'm not misunderstanding thing. I thought that the alternative was the trees were going to be moved to the north side where tile wouldn't be needed. Correct. I just meant removed from the courtyard.

From the court tracking. Thank you. Parking lot, not north side of the building. Thank you. Yeah, roughly there. Yeah, Mr. Shelton. Yeah, I mean, kind of going along with that, so I guess more just a comment that I am not supportive of this for the standpoint that I had concerns about the signage and to your point, this kind of elaborates the signage in a sense. So, um, is there any consideration to keeping one, two that would soften it or is it just kind of I personally would not support going away with all of them? That's my comment.

Thank you, Mr. Shelton. Uh, actually, I'll let you respond to that if there's I I mean, I know that the be is ve

I think I mean the the intent's not to be like this antagonistic kind of relationship with the planning and zoning department. we really have tried to present and you know go forward and I I do apologize about you know uh the ve list happening after the uh site development plan was approved. So um it really was the purpose of trying to get this project built. Um we are kind of have hard costs that that and realities that we need to do and it it is kind of a zero sum game. So the money that's spent towards this does not get spent towards something else that the library could provide. Um so you know we're happy to work uh this was a be that was taken uh on the on the contract. So um that's kind of the reality and where we are here. Um, if if you guys determine that we need the trees back in, I I don't, you know, I'm not here to say I'm against it necessarily, right? It's just about me trying to advocate for on behalf of the library and and the realities of the budget that we were presented to get the project built, especially in, you know, a very uh volatile market. Mr. foreman. I

think I need [clears throat] I need help on the math and I need help on the coverage. We're talking about taking out three trees from the courtyard at a savings of $6,300, but we're saying they're going to be moved to the north side of the site. The recommendation if how are we saving money? Is it simply on the drainage connections to the storm? Yeah. So, there still be an addition of about uh $2,300 uh for the trees themselves. Um

they're being planted on the north without drainage accommodation. They're just being put in the planting in the areaway for the gap between the street and the curb. [clears throat] Help me with the tree coverage. I heard over what if instead of relocating three trees, we only paid money for one tree, didn't put in the other two. Where does the math come out if we put one tree in the middle of the courtyard and we didn't even install the other two? looking for balance because if we're then cutting scope but including 21 $2,200 in the middle of the courtyard but we've cut two trees. How's the math?

I think part of the site reduction also though was with the addition of the bike racks which I think was factoring into that. Is that right Whitney? Um so the site coverage when it receives is limited to um 65% by the zoning code. You are allowed to go seek an additional coverage of an additional 15% due to the outstanding features on the site, landscaping, outdoor plaza space, those type of things. So the retina institute which was the prior tenant received a site coverage bonus for the landscaping up to 71%. 0.5%. Um when we reviewed this application in last year in December um they were because of the addition they were adding an additional coverage up to 73.4%. So it was looking at the overall site and the landscaping and the features in which it was provided for the overall site

where I got the coverage trees within the courtyard provided an amenity space and that would be year round um or or the feature of the amenity space would be year round but with the trees um and it was the entire project that received the site coverage bonus. So just eliminating that landscaping um changed the requirements of the ordinance that said that they had to meet with submit a plan that was consistent with the approval at the planning and zoning commission and board of alderman.

And I think that was my question earlier about if the trees move from the plaza or the courtyard to north side of the parking lot, does that not provide the same coverage bonus? And I think the answer was no in staff's opinion because the the coverage is based on permeable area. Correct. Yes. Permeable area is not changing regardless of where these trees are located. Correct. Yeah. However, it was the overall design of this courtyard and the south elevation and the amenity space with the welldesigned landscape plan that brought the added to the site coverage to create the allowed for the bonus.

The courtyard being decomposed granite is that counting as permeable? Yes. We still haven't nothing we've discussed tonight with location of trees has actually changed the site coverage from prior. We're talking about the amount of amenity we're providing by basing the number of trees. Correct.

And the the other landscaping that throughout the site. Yes. It's potential to be discussing two less trees where there's already four at the north end of the parking lot and possibly in my own brain a single feature tree in the middle of the courtyard. But then we're back to the math problem in your ve. I think if we were were to I would prefer and you can jump in. I would prefer that instead of a single, we would do two to provide balance in the courtyard.

Um, dozens of fans. We also felt that the kind of total package at that courtyard was something really nice to help it. it becomes a judgment call when we're talking about the site bonus and is it are you really making an honest attempt that's going to be worthwhile and we felt that courtyard was really cool and it did a lot of different things and we talked about those things made it cooler helped soften the facade and things like that. So when we start degrading that, it's it's kind of like, okay, well then now you're sort of taking away our site bonus coverage in a in a sense. There's still a lot of landscape out here, but that's it sounds like um yeah, I would no offense. I one tree I don't I mean they're they're they're honeyloust. So

one thing if it was a hundred-y old oak in the middle of the you know, it's not going to be that. I mean these no and and the trees that they selected are called honeyloust and and um they have really small leaves and so they're creating kind of dappled mix shade rather than just deep shade in that courtyard but it still tends to soften it. So um one of those isn't going to have the effect that three or four does because their leaves are so small. The idea is it creates kind of a whole canopy inside there. So, um, uh, and and again to your comment about can they come back and put them in later, yeah, they can, but it's not just putting a tree in the ground because you'd have to put the drainage system in that that they're going to require.

And unfortunately, one of the things I'll comment is, you know, site plans are now and they're not in the future, right? Unless there's going to be a change. Absolutely. the the bones of the infrastructure still exist because the sanitary sewer or the storm sewer is actually still located through there because they've got area drains. So,

any other questions or comments? I think again there's m Oh, Mr. Moore, we never mind. No, I want to speak for you. Again, I think that there are some concerns about eliminating them entirely that I think have been expressed by staff. I think I've heard it here. Um, understanding that you are trying to do cost reduction, you have a budget. Um, I understand contingency budgets on public projects are limited, but that's what contingency budgets are there for. Budgets are there for as well. Um, I think that, you know, perhaps a can we find some way of reduction two rather than three? Does that save the $2,000 if it's linear? That's not what you're looking for, but it is not zero uh in savings. uh or is there something else that is the will of the commission uh to make a recommendation of

and sorry m do we have a consensus I guess is the other part I just want to point out I mean I'm sorry if we seemed antagonistic that was not our purpose but we're stewards for the community of Brentwood and u we were sold a very big vision you I realize that you didn't take the money away you know that you're the messenger and we're certainly not not in the business of shooting the messenger so I'm sorry if we came across a bit harsh but I think there's a great deal of disappointment especially as ultimately out of a $6 million project, the amount we'll talk about here is trivial. I mean, I always wonder if we get somebody to sponsor the flipping trees or Andy Frankie sponsor sponsored tree. [laughter] You I hope you pay your taxes, Mr. Moran. So, I assume you are also sponsoring this project. So,

good point. All right. Thank you. But anyway, no uh no no direct personal antagonism was intended. Any other questions or questions from members of the public? Honestly, I'm sorry, Mr. Foreman, please. [clears throat] On the border between the parking lot and the residential immediately to the west. So, if you pan down, so in that north south plant strip, there's a fence required by code, I assume. Am I correct? Mhm.

And we have 12 trees plus bushes. Can we cut six of those and save the three in the courtyard? [laughter] Mr. Frankie, um you're talking about the ones that are running kind of on that long. Those those are actually part of the old retina uh institute plan and so they're sort of part of the base. So we can't they're there. So they already exist. Yeah, they already exist. Yeah, we can't. We're not saving any money by I think if we do that then we're in a Mr. Moran scheme where we're moving them twice and they don't do quite as well. So I don't think we kind of want to do that. Trying.

I mean the only It might be kind of a silly suggestion and I don't know if it's appropriate, but why not memorial trees from a library standpoint raising money for the trees, but that's a whole different discussion. Yeah, that is a beyond the scope I will say of the commission. But um you really what I'm looking for here is do we have a will of is there someone interested in making a motion and we can discuss it from there. Well from a technical standpoint do we have to either approve it or reject it?

We can approve it. Well in the I will say this is something that I I need builder back again and Miss Kelly you can keep me honest. The practice of this commission has been that we only vote in the affirmative. So if a motion and is a second and there is no second for it um then it will or that people voted down it will fail then at that case we don't vote something down. Did that make sense or did I confuse everyone? Yeah Miss Carr that is correct. All of your motions are in the affirmative but I think what you were asking is can you modify the proposal as part of your um motion was asking whether I don't want to approve it. Could I do we still make a motion to approve and then vote yes or no?

Yes, you do. Y we don't have to vote unanimously. We haven't in many cases. So, no. Absolutely. But we Yeah, we do need a motion or um or it will basically it's the equivalent of a pocket veto. Yeah. Please members of the public, please come forward. Yeah.

I live at 8821 Bridgeport. Uh I receive water on a daily basis from the parking lot because of the uh incorrectly uh designed retaining wall there. The uh under drain pipe is about 18 to 20 in above the base of the wall creating a groundwater recharge zone. I'm quite low to the retaining wall like 12 14 ft. I've got had to put in a rain garden. Um, my neighbor just cut down two pine trees that drowned at 8820 Meritz. Um, and I just I guess my main concern is along that west side of the Meritz block, Meritz lot there. Are you changing any water watering frequency there?

We'll ask that question. Appreciate you raising that, Miss Kelly. I assume that this has been reviewed by MSD as well for runoff and is that something we could at least take a look at and see? The site was um all pre-existing and was reviewed for the retina institute. They are not incre they were not excavating more than an acre. So it did not require going to the MSD. Okay. But it sounds like we may have water issues there. Sorry.

You're adding more landscaping on the west parking lot there. Is that correct? And what what type of frequency of watering you going to be doing there? So uh what we're doing is we are basically bringing the existing site into compliance with the previous retina site development. So that means what is uh contracted is that the landscapers will go out and they will re do a review of the plants uh during you know summertime to see which ones are healthy and which ones aren't and compare that to what was the previous site development plan uh planting schedule and basically bring kind of the existing non-conforming site that the library purchased into into compliance. Um, as far as kind of the storm water, um, I mean, I do believe that we've gone through uh, MSD. Um, so, um, approvals. Uh,

I think we need to have a conversation though, Miss Kelly, if we could to see if what issues may be there. I I'm retired now, but I was a licensed geologist in four states, including Missouri, for 30 years doing environmental work. And, uh, I took pictures. I I live caddy corner to that corner on the uh lower left there. And um I took pictures daily. I I have I issued a a report with my RG number on it. Uh January 18th of 2023. I think Kelly has a copy of it. I don't I don't think I can provide that if you need it, but

Yep. If you could provide that. with I'm concerned with more water being placed into a system where we're getting all the water because of the incorrect retaining wall design. Understood. Look at one picture and understand it because you see two 8 in cinder blocks and the under drain is on top of them gravel beneath and it's 5t wide as per CEDC who designed the wall. So you got a reservoir of rock taking all the water underneath the wall and then recharging groundwater into my yard. So understood. I appreciate you bringing that to our attention, Miss Kelly, if we can take a look at that. That's an existing retaining wall. Is that correct? That wasn't part of the project. So

just to appreciate if you can connect. Um, all right. Where we were at is language for a motion. Mr. Nolan. So yeah, I do believe again a motion can be made with the uh application is submitted with recommended changes. Um I believe staff have recommended some changes or whatever the commission decides and if we have a second we can discuss or modify it at that point. But there a motion Mr. Fazo. I move to recommend the approval of the amendment of ordinance 5171 for the revised landscape plan that

and with uh let me make sure as submitted or as recommended by staff or what is the I'm going to say as submitted as submitted. Is there a second? All right. No second. Therefore, the motion fails. There is there another motion. As for Mr. Foreman, can I ask for a clarification between as submitted and as recommended by staff? My understanding is the recommendation [clears throat] by and could be me honest. The recommendation by staff is to restore the three trees in the courtyard space. Got it. Okay.

Is that correct, Miss Kelly? It's the staff recommendation. Correct. And then there are other changes being made because of the bike racks and other movements there, but that's the specific differences to the restoration of the trees in the courtyard space. Sorry, Mr. Sheldon. So that [clears throat] takes care of the other additions, but then the recommendation is to go back to the previous proposal of keeping those trees. Correct. Okay. Just in my head. Yes. Did you approve everything else? That was the only thing that you want to change. Yes. I'm sorry. it. We are fine with everything else as submitted, but we do want the trees back in the courtyard, right? Just by going with the vague as staff recommended. It approves the new movement of the north side,

right? Information or plantings, but then it allows for the, you know, the bike rack um and those plantings to be moved to the north, but just have the trees remain in the the courtyard. Okay. So, it is different than what was previously approved because that stuff's been added. All right. Thank you.

I ask for please clarification on that staff recommendation. There was the um you mentioned the 10 fescue uh along Sorry. No, along this edge. Oh, uh in the courtyard. Yes. Yeah. So, I think that wasn't mentioned in the Yeah, I think the intent was for this to be a bench so people could sit on it and look into the courtyard. Um, I think with the plants with the plants there, it would be difficult. Where my knees? Sorry. No, that's okay.

Uh, that's okay. I mean, that's trivial at this point. I mean, and you're right. People could sit either way. They can sit on the wall and wait to be picked up or they could face a courtyard. Don't need to have plants there. That's not a big deal. There's plants on the other side that kind of help soften it, too. I think really what we're talking about is those trees in the courtyard. This seems to be the the focus of where we're at on this. Another motion, Mr. Fos, if you want. Sorry, I need clarification. So, if we they can't move all the other stuff minus the trees, they're still allowed to do the bike rack and all that if we don't get another motion or do we need to

at least approve that portion of it through a motion? Oh, you will need to do a motion. Okay. Yeah. And so, if you do as submitted but with the staff's recommendation that the three trees in the courtyard be restored. Okay. Then I think that that's what we're talking about. Okay. Yeah, if we again if there is no motion, which I would hope that we don't get to that point at all, then the initial site plan as approved is what we're going back to, which I think has some concerns. Um, and then they're just out of compliance, which becomes an enforcement issue, which also I don't believe is the ideal goal. Right. So, okay. I will make a new motion. Mr. Faza.

Uh, I move we recommend the approval as submitted with the staff recommendation to restore the trees to the courtyard. We have a motion. Is there a second? Second. Second by Mr. Moran. Roll call vote. Markaza. Yes. Moreman? Yes. Jeff Hunt? Yes. Jeff Moore? Yes. Former? Yes. Brian Brian Nolan? Yes. Uh, Jack Shelton? Yes. We have unanimous. Thank you, Mr. Moran. Mr. Castle, thank you for the presentation. I appreciate it. Understand the challenges that you're dealing with. Um, and I appreciate uh your willingness to work with both staff and the commission. Um, and we're looking forward to seeing this open. So, thank you. Absolutely. We're looking forward to it, too.

Appreciate it. Thank you. Next order of business is the presentation of the draft commercial architectural design guidelines. We will take a five minute break. Do I get to use this? Wait, hold on. Do I have a motion to take? [laughter] We can.

Uh everyone. So um what what we're going to present tonight, this is this is essentially the the third part of a of a three-part and I I apologize I should introduce myself. Tim Bryan with H3 Studio uh Brentwood's consultant for the architectural design guidelines uh process. Um, as you all recall, the residential guidelines were completed, uh, I believe adopted in in August. We've been working now through, um, the commercial design guidelines. So, tonight, um, there's a lot of information here. I'm going to try to go through a quick summary and then get input and questions. This is uh, the third of essentially a three-part set of meetings. We had a public meeting um, at the end of October. Unfortunately, a public openhouse rather. Unfortunately, it was not really well attended, but we did have um we did get a lot of uh input from uh one of the older persons. Then, uh we presented this to the board um in uh in November. Got some feedback. This is the third piece presenting it to you all. So, um, what we want to do is what I'm going to do is in the PowerPoint is sort of go through an overview of some of the the highlights from what is on the boards which represents the current draft of the commercial guidelines and then we can talk about details based upon your feedback. So fundamentally when we're looking at applicability for these um these guidelines are intended to apply to the five highlighted zoning classifications. So general commercial, retail, service commercial, RSC, urban development, plan development, overlay, and light industrial district. So basically all of the commercial districts except for MC which already has guidelines as part of

the zoning uh code.

Ask that question. All right. Um, one of the things that we did when we started and and I should I should just highlight as well that um that these would apply to any uh any project that requires a building permit within within those districts. So one of the things that we started with because the al although this is a design guideline architectural design guideline process um the the interface with the zoning code is critical because um one of the big uh issues in terms of uh built character in these commercial districts is actually the the location of the building on the sites particularly the front setbacks we went through and I'm not going go through this in detail, but we we we did a very detailed sort of step-by-step process of analyzing um commercial lots and really looked at the feasibility what could be built when taking into account setbacks and parking requirements. And this these are the general assumptions that we that we took in that which I'll highlight. Um, so number one, we basically standardized for the purposes of the analysis, we standardized the sideyard and rear yard minimum setbacks at 12 feet. Um, and we we assumed that the maximum building height could exceed 2 and a half stories or 35 ft based on an increased rear yard setback as is currently permitted in the uh PD plan development overlay. We also assumed for the purposes of analysis a minimum 25- ft front setback uh on Brentwood and Manchester um because that is stated in the code to provide appropriate site guidelines. That is something we would like to

discuss tonight though. And then we also assumed a required uh consistent 10- foot wide or 10 foot deep landscape zone at the street frontage. So, as we went through, and this is not going to be information that you don't all already intuitively know, obviously on the small properties, um, particularly less than about 115 feet in depth, which there are a number along, particularly along Brentwood, um, we we we get into issues where the ability to develop sites is really limited by the size and the parking requirements. ments. Um that is true of lots again basically at 115 ft and 90 ft. Those are two of kind of the common small or shallow lot depth sites. Um and and really those require front parking and so they require that 50 foot minimum setback. um at that depth when you get into um well and actually I I I should clarify that with 115 ft you can also do rear uh rear parking but then obviously you get into sight access issues as well because you have to provide for a driveway or or a side a side street access. Um, in the deeper lots, 165 ft and deeper, obviously, you have a lot more flexibility, um, for either front or rear, uh, or front and rear parking. Um, and and at this point, you're you're starting to actually limit what what becomes a limiting factor is either the number of parking spaces, but more commonly, it's the site coverage limits that are that are beginning uh to be the limiting factor. And then on the large

sites um of which there are really only a few you know 300 plus uh feet deep um you have a lot of flexibility but your your your development is going to be typically limited by your site coverage limits. So again, a kind of a a point is summary points from this analysis. Um lots with depths of less than 115 ft will not support parking in the rear in combination with a 25 foot front setback. Um so we we believe that there will be some lots are continued will have continue to be developed with the 50ft front setback and parking in the front. others can have that 25- foot setback. Um, for small lots, um, the main limitation is the setback requirements and for large lots, it's the site coverage limits. Um, and then, um, kind of skipping ahead, the site coverage is going to be the most likely limitation to taller development. And under the current zoning code, um that's really what's going to prohibit development taller than two stories, even if even in cases where um a a greater rear setback could allow for additional height. However, a lot of the existing developments exceed all of those requirements. So there's a lot of development along in the commercial districts that is completely non-conforming with the zoning code as it is today. So, this will play into recommendations for zoning amendments that we'll get to um in a little bit. But these are just some examples. These are three properties um that basically all fall within that within that those issues. Um these are basically existing lots today that cannot support the minimum parking

requirements and are um you know in in the case of two of them uh vacant. So, one of the things that we want to try to address with this is actually making these lots developable and occupiable. So, um, now what I'll do is I'll kind of run through the the contents and organization of the design guidelines. Again, we won't go through this in a great level of detail, but we start with uh purpose and administration, which it includes um the applicability uh statement and uh for the guidelines. Um we also as with the commercial guidelines have specified some projects that could be administratively approved assuming that they meet the requirements. Um we get into then building design. Uh so you'll probably notice if you are familiar with the organization of the design guidelines in the GC district that this these largely follow that organization. So we have permitted major materials and prohibited major materials, permitted minor materials and prohibited uh minor materials. Then we get into building details um design features and structures and building entrances. Um so there are um there are some minimum specified uh essentially combinations of these things as well as guidance uh uh for those features. Um some examples of of that uh of those building details and features and structures. Um you know the here you've got storefronts, awnings, um variations in roof height. Uh so these would be good examples of buildings that would conform to those guidelines. um facade articulation and building roof line. Again, this is um intended to ensure that you don't just have long

flat facades and and kind of monotonous roof lines. Um although uh the light industrial district is exempted from some of these uh these guidelines. Um, but again, here are some examples of um, you know, maybe not the greatest design, but certainly buildings that that conform to those guidelines in terms of the requirements, visual interest. Exactly. Um, and then, uh, bike and pet access for buildings, um, requirements for windows, requirements for doors. Um, again, these are, you know, some again examples of of newer projects that would uh, fulfill those from kind of a commercial storefront uh, standpoint. um design guidelines for signage um and some examples of various projects that uh do a good job of incorporating signage into the overall design of the of the building or of the facade. And then uh we move into check. Okay,

there you go.

Great. Thank you. Um so uh statement that encourages the use of these were applicable and then provides uh guidelines for how those uh outdoor seating plazas wayfinding science and public art um would be utilized and again some examples of those. Um I I I I do want to draw your attention to the photo on the right because I'm going to come back to that. um that as you probably know is a series of storefronts along Clayton Road in uh in Clayton uh between Hanley and Brentwood Boulevard. Take note of the setback of the building because that is a 20 foot setback along Clayton. So that's 5t shallower than what is required. We'll come back to that in a minute. Um and then uh guidelines around building placement, location of utility services, um screening of service areas and mechanical equipment. Um here are some examples uh dealing with building placement and as it pertains to um corner features on buildings. These are both good examples. Although I will point out that the uh the project that's illustrated on the right uh is um is an example of uh a prohibited major material, but otherwise shows good corner articulation. Um and then requirements for landscaping uh and the front landscape zone of a minimum depth of 10 ft. And then we do get into um within the within the landscape um guidelines, we do get into uh tree species and things like that as well. Um but again, this is sort of an example of um a more problematic condition on the left versus a desirable condition on the right with

a with a good front landscape zone. Um and then lighting. Uh we also talk about that. Um, one one issue that was mentioned at our meeting with the with the uh board of alderman was that um to there was a uh currently an allowance to go up to 4,800 Kelvin for a light uh color temperature, but it was recommended that that that be restricted to 3,000 only because of the uh undesirability of the the higher color temperature, bluer colored light. Um and then parking and access. So a couple things to keep in note here. Uh limitations on the width of um driveways provided from uh Brentwood, Manchester or Hanley. Um and a a preference for having access driveways from side streets. Also requirement for um uh cross access for both vehicles and then separate cross access for pedestrians which is designed to limit the need for curb cuts on the major on the on the main roads. that obviously has the effect of um uh limiting uh turning movements off the main roads but also providing for more consistent uh pedestrian uh and and sidewalk area. Um and then again that uh pedestrian cross access um so that when buildings are set back you can have a a consistent pedestrian access between them so it's easier to walk between sites. Um some comments that I'll just mention that were that we did receive at the at the public openhouse. Um there was there was a lot of there were comments back and forth about should

street trees be required in Hanley Industrial Court. Um currently uh we have um we've left that in but it was um the really this question about how proactively from a design standpoint do we want to facilitate the change over that from strictly industrial uses to more mixed use and if it's more mixed use requiring street trees is good. Um there was a question about permitting uh bioailes within that front landscape zone uh for storm water management. Um and let's see what are some other uh just key ones. Um obviously the the whole issue of traffic studies relative to commercial projects and relative to parking um was mentioned not not really any specific recommendations but just to make sure that that's kept in mind and then again this idea of that that there is a general desire to see the Hanley Industrial Court begin to accommodate a greater mix of uses as opposed to being just strictly an industrial court in the future. Um and then finally I want to go through what we're recommending for the commercial uh for for the uh commercial zoning code amendments. So, um what we what we are currently recommending for these different lot uh sizes is that they're basically be along along Manchester Road the Manchester Road frontages only either a 25- foot setback with no parking in front or a 50-oot setback with parking in front is permitted. in all other uh along all other streets,

commercial corridors, the only thing that would be permitted would be the 25- ft front setback. So essentially this would prohibit parking in front of buildings along Brentwood and along Hanley Road. Um and then the question is should that 25 foot front yard uh build to line which is currently uh codified because of sight lines could that be reduced to 20 feet or even 15 ft um to promote a closer relationship of the building fronts to the street and um you know greater level of walkability. Now, we do understand that on um the 90 ft sites that 25 ft is go or less is going to require a side parking or shared parking um situation. Um then obviously when we get into the deeper sites, you're looking at rear parking um and only front parking. Front parking would only be permitted along Manchester Road. The other thing that we are showing where we have that 50- foot front uh front setback, there would be a required 8-ft minimum pedestrian zone that would be located right in front of that. So essentially you have a secondary pedestrian uh sidewalk essentially at the building fronts that would have to be maintained from parcel to parcel and you'd have to have cross access where grade doesn't uh prohibit it. So again the goal is that we're trying to improve the walkability of of these commercial districts. And then again, you know, you get that additional flexibility um as you go into deeper lots. And with that additional flexibility um you you get the potential to do uh deeper rear setbacks which

would then permit um additional building height as is currently permitted um in the plan development district. So I think one question that we would want to get input from you all on is um number one does it make sense to uh by default prohibit parking between the front of the building and the street in all cases except for Manchester Road. And then second um where we do have that shallow front setback does it stay at 25 feet or can it be reduced? Um so the so the general requirements or or the general recommendations we want to standardize front side and rear setbacks across all commercial zoning districts. Whether that's done by updating all of them or essentially making them all one district is a is a question to work out. Um again, I just explained the um the the front setback approach. The 50-foot uh front build to line would only be permitted along Manchester in conjunction with that uh 8-ft pedestrian zone, but parking [snorts] in front of the building would be permitted along all other streets. it's either 25 foot or less uh without parking in between the uh street and the building. [snorts] Um and then for the building bulk requirements, we would essentially take the approach that is currently used in the PD and we would apply that to all commercial lots. So you're you have um two and a half stories with a minimum 12t rear yard setback. If that rear yard setback is increased to 50 feet, the maximum height can go up to four stories. It's increased to 100 feet, the maximum height can go up to six stories.

And then, um, finally, we're recommending that on all lots that have a depth of less than 165 ft, um, minimum parking requirements could be waved, um, subject to a parking and access study and parking plan approved by the planning and zoning commission. And so that could then um obviously eliminate the uh the the pro the prohibition on improving some of these lots that are too small to support the minimum parking requirements. And you know that that could be done in conjunction with some sort of a shared parking agreement or something like that because there is a fair amount of parking along these corridors. it's just not able necessarily to be provided uh on on every on every site.

If I can ask a question just on that last one to make sure I'm understanding on parking. Currently, we have code requirements. We also have almost like what I would say an alternative minimum that we can approve, but this would basically allow us to wave it entirely. Yes. Thank you. So, uh, that that concludes the overview presentation, and I'm happy to, uh, hear any feedback that you have and answer any questions about any details. I'm going to grab a marker out of my bag just to make notes on the board. I'm going to avoid Mr. Foreman's eyesight for just a second, but uh, any questions from members of the commission while we absorb a little bit. Mr. more.

My question goes back to a couple of slides where the title of the slide was recommended residential code and I just want to make sure that that's a typo. That is it's there in a few slides and yes, very good to note for the record, Mr. Moore. Thank you. That is totally a typo and I apologize for that. Yes. Just to make sure it wouldn't affecting my neighborhood. No, no, no. These are the residential design guidelines are done. This is only for commercial. So if you've got a 300T lot, I'm impressed. Anything else, Mr. Moore? All right, I'll hold until [laughter] Mr. Null. [snorts]

Yeah, thanks a lot for the presentation. Uh, great job. I agree with kind of removing the parking uh requirements. Um, what I wanted to talk about was the 25 foot front yard setback. Yeah. And and and reducing it. And I guess I I understand why you would have a consistent sort of 25, but maybe could you talk a little bit about how many non-conforming sites there already are now and how that would gonna play into that?

Yeah. So um so I I I apologize that I don't have a I don't have a um a quantification percentage-wise of the number of non-conforming sites but for example I mean there many of these illustrations show sites that are non-conforming today. So the Verlo mattress club plotties strip um this this particular strip uh of buildings um you can see these here. Um, so yeah, a a number of the smaller um the the existing smaller developments that of buildings that were probably originally built in the 1940s or 50s um are, you know, anywhere from 8 to 12 feet, maybe a little bit further set back from uh from the from the property line. So significantly closer than that than the the current minimum 25 feet. Um again this this example from uh Clayton Road in the city of Clayton um that that is a 20 foot uh setback. So from back of sidewalk to front of building facade that's 20 ft. Um and as you can see there from that from that example, you know, some of the properties have a small sidewalk right at the storefront with landscaping in front. Others have it paved and use it for outdoor seating. Um that to us, especially on a busy street, seems like a like a good balance um of, you know, providing um some usable program space in front of the building, but also having it, you know, close enough to the street that it feels consistent and it feels like a commercial district. um as

opposed to the more autooriented feel that you get for a lot of the projects along Brentwood Boulevard today. Yeah. And that has a nice buffer there with the landscaping. You said that's 20 That's 20 ft. Correct. Yes. Not including the sidewalk though. Not including the sidewalk. Not including the sidewalk right by the road. Correct. Yes. So 20 ft from there to there. I like that because I think sometimes the buildings are too close to the road and we have a little bit of a freeway mentality on the roads. But

I would also point out that does include portion probably portions of the public rideway when you have the sidewalk at the street that's generally assumed. So yeah. Yeah. But I agree. I think that that that proportion looks really is great and you can I do know that there are some outdoor seats along there. I've been there recently. Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Nolan. Other questions, other comments? I had that same question of what percentage I mean, actually, it's probably easier to count conforming uh buildings than it would be to count non-conforming at this point. Um,

Mr. Hunt. So, what would that look for something like a gas station?

Um, so that's a good question. Um, and I think that would be and Whitney, I would be interested to hear your take on this as well, but I think it's I think it's probably from a from a design guideline standpoint. Um, I think you would almost want to treat gas stations as I don't want to necessarily say a conditional use, uh, from a legal standpoint, but they would have to be reviewed on sort of a case-byase basis to ensure that they're fitting in well. Um, I think we would, you know, you would, you would want to, uh, sort of get them to have provide as many, uh, many provide them as many kind of public benefits and and public infrastructure improvements as possible to maintain walkability in front of them. um while still obviously having the function of of a gas station. But I I I I I would I would sort of argue that that that's a that's a special condition that you want to hold them to as high a standard as possible while permitting that use to occur.

Um just [clears throat] to clarify for those members that weren't present a few years ago, we did take out some autooriented uses in the PD warehousing, gas station, car washes because of the comprehensive plan and that recommended a more walkable. Um,

so which is to say that gas stations are not currently permitted along Brentwood as a as a permitted use. Is that correct? So if we did have an application that wanted to renovate an existing facility, we could work closely with them at that time in developing the standards for allowing for such uses again within the districts. Um

I I mean I will say I've seen and thinking of Clayton and Leoo um some of that walkability. I've seen some stations there that do have some of those landscape design features there on a gas station. It actually looks a little jarring because you're not used to seeing it, but it flows a little bit with the community. Any other comments? All right. Oh, yeah. I'm looking. All right, Mr. Foreman.

All right. So, I I deeply appreciate all the zoning pieces, but at at the core, I feel like those are really good principles that we're going to have to apply as things come in. And mainly our development on Manchester Road, your point, if somebody wanted to put a gas station in a new development with a deeper lot, we'd have the flexibility to get it further back and do something. I'm thinking more like Lenberg in Leoo. That's literally the one I was thinking of. Yes. Yeah.

So, but I was just zooming around on Google Earth. There actually is a a small planning strip in front of the Quick Trip on Hanley Road and our Shell that just closed had a little itty bitty planning strip after the state came through. Um, so that I think is such a granular topic that almost applies to individual applications that I'm glad we've got the guidelines. I think they're a good place to start, but also as a guy who's designed multiple city blocksiz buildings with a building facade and a curb in urban centers, I have a different mindset, but I think that's an excellent start going back over here because and just to speak to some of the criticism we've had earlier on the architectural guidelines. If you really squint hard and look at all this, we're actually never dictating style.

Correct. Just to say that out loud. We're not saying we're doing all colonial. We're doing all whatever. We're not Williamsburg. We're not We're never dictating style, right? So, we're talking about materials, massing, context, which is all the same principles the residential architectural review board gets into. main comments really are under the building design, the major materials, minor materials, and then where you were into roof lines. [clears throat] So,

I don't want to stifle future development. There are building code, new building code changes for commercial requirements for continuous exterior insulation. which means you don't put the insulation in the stud wall, you put it outside the stud wall behind the cladding. One of the exterior materials that is prohibited is Aphus exterior finish insulation system, which is 90% of the exterior of the Galleria. those big cream colored stucco walls on the outside of the big box retails. Um, so Ephis fits the insulation requirements of the building code, but it's not a very noble material. We're excluding it completely, which makes me a little nervous in places like it. It's allowed in the industrial court, but now we're saying that we're requiring people to clad multiple sides of the building in more noble materials. Should we would should we consider Ephus as a minor material controlling location and orientation? And I'm thinking from a development and budgetary standpoint that that might be something that could be accommodated if we're careful about it. I fully agree with prohibited major materials being vinyl sighting. If you pay attention over in Hanley Industrial Court, it used to be [sighs] the industrial supply company. Now it's an auto parts store. Um it actually does have fiber cement lap siding, which I would contend is probably not one of our I'd

almost move that to minor materials. You all remember which one that is? I know I've seen it. Um I would note Mr. Foreman one thing though because I think you said will we allow it in uh LI. This would apply to LI. So just want to make sure. I agree. But he's got Ephus he's got LI exception specifically called out. Yeah, understand. Thank you. Um, I think there's some thought to be put in there just on some of those materials and from a cost-effective standpoint. Sure.

I mean, if we're looking at three trees for six grand, somebody's going to say, "Hey, do I have to put brick on the back of my building? Can I make it ephus on the back?" Sure.

It's going to be a real world thing. Um, roof lines was my other comment. Where'd that go? Um uh down here under yeah bu building roof line odds were 50 ft incorporating wall projections recesses. So part of this and then windows and the other things actually goes back to our earlier T-Mobile because we're talking about having windows and activation on the facade. So it's not just a big blank wall where our where our people are going back and forth. I'm a little concerned about the language of the roof line of a building not running continuous plane more than 50 ft because part of me wants to say like the both of those images on that page

I would argue have a parapit or a coping that are roof line. Sure. Okay. being a little I'm being a little picky with language. Okay. But I think some of those that one behind you on on the corner that one has a roof line because it's got that mansard roof. So I get it. That one's got a roof line, but I would actually say the bank right above it, which is not my favorite project, but that one's actually got a parapit or a coping, not necessarily a roof line.

Okay. No, that's a good point. you have a concern with the with the dimensional limitation or is it just more the language of making sure that it's that things aren't being unintentionally accepted? It's it's more about the language because I think when we're starting to talk about dimensional concerns then [clears throat] we're get then we're starting to touch over here. Sure. Because if you're getting into, you know,

if you're getting into a building that's got a 20 or 30,000 square foot floor plate and it's multi-story, then we're talking about how do I break that up every 50 feet. Yeah, that might be a little challenging. It might fall to this board to start talking about design intent and the intent of meeting the code and activating the facade, how does the building meet the sky, etc. But for the vast majority, I think of what we're probably talking about in the scale of the lots that we have in Brentwood, with the exception of the developer lots on Manchester Road, that's probably where we want to start. Okay, I think Yeah, that makes sense.

Whitney, were we planning on any more granular feedback or where do we go from here? Well, we wanted to get your input um and then we can come back at a later meeting um at the next one for either further discussion and input. If you wouldn't like to email me some comments, we can take those in between. I think that's um and either at the January or the February meeting, we would look to have a resolution adopting the design guidelines as a final. But yeah, I think I would say from from our standpoint any written any written feedback that you want to provide would be great where the holidays a site a site plan breakout would be ownorous.

Yes,

it would be it would be poorly attended other than perhaps by one individual. So I I will say that um yeah, I think that it's a great idea. Let's do uh written comments if any and I appreciate the opportunity to provide that. And then how about we take a look and see where we are. If it looks like comments have come in and we're ready to have a a conversation about recommendation in January and if it looks like we need to move it to February, we can. So, um I like this. I also note that they're guidelines. So, we can bend our guidelines if uh and talk through that. But I I think it's great to see it. I also make the point of it doesn't mention anything about style. I think if we tried to do a single style on Brentwood, it would look un Brentwood given the organic growth that we've had in our community over time. So,

same thing would discourage development as well. So, we're not trying to be um anyway Disneyland. Uh thank you very much. Really appreciate it. All right. Look at this. I have to go to the back of page. Uh next item is the alder manic report. And I'm not sure if there's any alderman here. So, we will move on to the director's report. Miss Kelly. Um, so our next meeting is January 14th. We do have the item that was continued from tonight, 350 Hanley Industrial Court. And we if they're ready to proceed at that point, if they're ready to proceed at that point and um we will bring back a a second round of revisions for the design guidelines for

Sounds good. Any other items for the good of the order? Appreciate everyone's work this evening. Uh, and thank you very much. Is there a motion to adjurnn? Actually, I don't need one. We've finished our agenda. I learned that new thing.