Planning and Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

Thank you for joining us here for the July 9th, 2025 Planning and Zoning Commission in the city of Brentwood. We are living up to our motto this evening as a city of warmth. I apologize for the air conditioner being out. We'll do our best to keep this moving as quickly as possible. Uh if we could please join me in the pledge of allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice. All right. Next door business call the roll. Mr. Favaza here. Mr. Nolan here. Mr. Foreman here. Mr. Shelton here, Mr. Moore here, Mr. Hunt here, Miss Sharing here, Mr. Ritter here, and Chair Nelson is here. I think I'll turn that back over to Mr. Moran next month. So, all right. Next item business is the approval of the agenda. Are there any objections or changes that need to be made to the agenda? If not, any objection to approval by acclamation? Seeing none, the agenda is approved. Next item of business is approval of the minutes. We have two sets of minutes. Those have been distributed. First is the uh June 11th, 2025. That is our full planning and zoning commission meeting minutes. Are there any changes or adjustments that need to be made? Seeing none, any objection to approval by acclamation? All right. The June 11th, 2025 minutes are approved. Next item of business is approval of our June 25th, 2025 site plan subcommittee minutes. Are there any changes or alterations that need to be made to those? I appreciate all attendance. There was a lot of folks there, probably the most I've seen at a subcommittee meeting. Uh again, any objection to approval by acclamation? Seeing none, those minutes stand approved. Next item of business is citizen comments. This is for any members of the public wishing to address the commission on something not on the

agenda this evening. Any citizen wishing to address the commission? All right, moving on. Old business. Next up is case 25003. This is a text amendment to allow for educational services as a conditional use for class C properties of less than 1 acre in MC Manchester corridor commercial district under section 400.1375E2 and review of the conditional use permit for Bitcoin Benz Crypto Club Technology Education Center at 8513 Manchester Road. Is the applicant or their representative here this evening? if you could come up just again state your name, address for the record. And while he comes up, I wanted to acknowledge that John Nerburgger is on Zoom. Excellent. Thank you, Mr. Nerburgger. We see that you've joined via Zoom. Sorry. Please go ahead. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Can I do this? Um, I'm not going to take a lot of your time out of respect for the commission. Uh, as you know, this is our third appearance uh before the commission. Um I have been deferring generally to uh my our managing partner Ben Ceni. This is to be our seventh club uh in the country. Opened up the first one just two and a half years ago. In fact, I had the pleasure of listening to our radio ad on the way down here and uh it just it just really hit the mark. Uh rather than me represent what Ben's talked about at the previous meetings, uh I think I it probably best served by answering any questions that you may have. We're also here with the owners of the building, Phil and Theresa Russo. So, they're here as well for appreciate it. All right, we'll do a quick recap, I think, of a site plan subcommittee for those who weren't there. Uh, it was also in the minutes and we'll do staff report, but we can move pretty quickly since this is the third time that we've heard this. Um, couple things that we had were taking a look at the landscape, uh, which had been submitted a full the full plan and the concerns had been corrected. Um, we did have one small change I think about

was a tree size and actually it was ended up staying a smaller size. Um, couple other items some had been already done such as power washing I believe and we talked about hours of operation which we understand will be 10:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Uh, so a number of the things that we asked about and we had questioned in our previous full meeting had been covered in the uh, site plan subcommittee meeting. Any member of the commission who was at the site plan subcommittee wish to add anything to what we covered there? All right, Miss Kelly, anything that you wish to add from staff since our last meeting? No, sir. Uh the conditions listed in the staff report were carried over from the prior staff report and slightly modified. We still have the conditions um that the improperly pa place will stops blocking cross access shall be removed and the storage of equipment and trailers is prohibited. Um they I did visit the site today and they were gone, but we just want to make sure that's in there for any future. as well as we do want to continue to require that a cross access agreement be provided since the properties are all under the same ownership. It's easier now to get it done. Um and then for any future concerns or issues that arise that would be addressed already. Thank you, Miss Kelly. Any questions from members of the commission on what's been presented? Any member of the public wishing to address the commission on this? Sir, please. My name is Phil Russo. I'm the owner of the property. Um, as far as the ingress egress, we are not uh able to give any kind of variance for that. For one, it

was deemed that it was going to be for um multiple um people, you know, for grand openings, and there's not going to be any. We cannot do anything with that parking lot because of the fact of it's actually deemed parking for 865. So, we cannot do anything with that parking lot. It doesn't pertain to 8513. 8513 does have enough parking spots for that building. We do not for 8605. Okay. Understand, Mr. Russo, but I think that's something that this commission has been pretty consistent about is that we require cross access as part of conditional use permits. That's been something that we've done. It allows for basically ease of traffic between those spots on that road. Um, Miss Kelly, any other comment that you've got on that? It's been something I think we've asked for in almost every case. Correct. That is um and it's pretty pretty standard practice. It was also pointed out by CBB as a that we should ask for that as that is a long-standing um issue with the city. What would be the consequences to it though? I mean, I do not want to have a conflict of parking spaces for 865. We we had to purchase that property for parking for 865, not for 8513. And I Okay. And I think that I guess my point there and it'll be corrected here is a cross access. It doesn't mean that there has to be unlimited parking for anyone who chooses to do that. You can restrict the parking for you know you say preference for the people who are going to this retail establishment versus that retail establishment. I believe that's it. It is allowing access across the lots. So people are pulling into one they can get through to the other. Okay. Am I stating that correctly? Any corrections need to be made to that? Okay. So, if I'm hearing you correctly, then there will not be a conflict when we come in front of you for 8605 as far as a tenant because we have to have that parking spots for 865,

right? And the spots don't count towards this establishment. It is a cross access. They can use the lots to get to the other spots. That's basically what it what's being used for. Okay. As long as there's not a conflict with the other building, that's the only thing I'm in. Miss Kelly, you think there'll be any conflict based on what's been provided? Um well it would be based upon the review of that building and the facility of parking and the particular use for that building and that's it right we wouldn't know the answer to that until you have a tenant that is and tell me what their kind of business is and you come in front of us to have that conversation but just having a cross access agreement allows the cars to come on a lot to go to another lot to park there. Okay. Well like I say we had to purchase that property 48605 Manchester for parking. So, I just don't want to have a conflict when it comes in front of the board. And we were here in front of the board with this problem years ago and that's why we had to purchase that that property. So, we would be in compliance with the Brentwood for parking for the number of parking spots. I understand. And this is separate from the number of parking as long as that's the case. I I just don't want to, you know, be u having a conflict here in months, you know, when we come in front of the board for 8605. And I can't guarantee that. I can just tell you that it's going to depend on the kind of business that goes in there and the traffic or excuse me, the parking requirements of that particular business, which is something that's determined by the city ordinances. Right. Any other questions from members of commission? If not, is there a motion? M Sharon. Mr. Chairman, I move to recommend approval of the text amendment to include computer training facilities as a conditional use for class C properties in the MC district and for the conditional use permit for Bitcoin Benz Crypto Club at 8513 Manchester Road subject to the conditions discussed on the June 11th meeting and today's meeting July 9th planning and zoning commission. I motion miss sharing

actually do I ask is there a hours of use restriction or that you wish to put in there that isn't I believe in the staff recommendations it is something we discussed in site plan subcommittee is the only reason I raise it the hours of use to include the hours of use up to I believe it was 8:00 p.m. Yep. 10 a.m. to 8 p.m. I believe is what they said. All right, we have a motion. Is there a second? Second. Second by Mr. Moore. Roll call vote please. Jessica, do you mind doing the vote just because you can track that or I can do it as well. What would you prefer? I think it has to go in the minutes so it might be easier. Thank you. Mr. Favaza? Yes. Mr. Nolan? No. Mr. Foreman? Yes. Mr. Shelton? Yes. Mr. Moore? Yes. Mr. Hunt? Yes. Miss Schwaring? Yes. Mr. Ritter? Yes. Motion passes. Mr. Mr. Nerburgger. Oh, sorry, Mr. Nerburgger. We need John, we can't hear you. You got to be unmuted. Can't hear you. Yeah, we actually have to hear his voice. We can see him. There you go. Yeah, we got it. Thank you. Yes, thank you. Hear me now? Yes, we've got you. Thank you. All right. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Uh this will then go to the July July 21st um board of alderman meeting. July 21st board of alderman meeting. Thank you very much. Next item of business is case is old business 25004. This is a conditional use permit and site development plan for 7 Brew Coffee Drive-Thru at 8828 Manchester Road within the Shnooks parking center. Uh we did have a lot of discussion about this in site plan subcommittee as well with I believe another uh configuration but I also believe we got additional information uh specifically a traffic study and traffic count. Uh so if the

applicant or their representative is here we'd appreciate if you can come and introduce it quickly but we'll probably go to staff report and get some of that new information. Good evening. My name is Joe Rafferty. I oversee operations for our franchise in Seven Brew. Thank you, Mr. Rafferty. Staff report will go to Miss Kelly. Thank you. You can go ahead and sit down, Mr. Rafferty, but we'll call you back up if we do have any questions. Appreciate if you can come back to the podium. Um so during the site plan subcommittee they did agree look at reorienting the um the drive-thru to a um east west orientation to provide up to 23 stacking lanes uh stacking of the vehicles. Um this was the preferred option for MDOT. did get that. Um, and they have, it was not in the staff report, but it is in your packet. They submitted on Monday the revised elevations for the buildings now being com next to each other, more combined as you can see in the site plan. Um, but the materials it's consistent with the prior review. Um, CBB is here to present the traffic impact. They have also submitted information regarding the other um uses in the area with a Fallon, Kirkwood, Chipua. Um he has a hard copy. Did you hand that out? hard copy of the other three areas in the region that provide that their total orders averaging between like 130 or I'm sorry,

1300 orders for Kirkwood um near a thousand for Chipua and Ofallon has in the five to 600 range. So, um, so if Lee could Yeah. Wendy, can you can you scroll down to the actual layout? And I'll just for those who weren't at site plan subcommittee, uh, number of the things that we reviewed, uh, were specifically thinking about queuing. We know that we've have at least another establishment where there is a queueing onto a main feeder road issue. Um, and so with this alternate configuration, again, I believe, and Mr. Canon will probably talk about this in greater detail and with more expertise, but we have 23 vehicles that can get there. And we're also getting further away in terms of the exit when they get done with their order. They'll be further away from Manchester and uh only able to do a ride out basically unless they go around to to Collier. So, that was one of the big changes. The other thing that was a change from what was presented previously was segregation of the parking lots. So you can see that the retail stores given the combination of landscaping and hardcaping they're putting in there uh that there is segregation to those parking spots over closer into the retail stores. Uh and some additional separation between the main Shnooks parking. So those were the big changes made since last time. Uh we asked about counts which is why you have this to try to get an understanding of how much would queueing provide. Um and it was mentioned that they do have free giveaway days. I believe Miss Sharing mentioned that where there is a significant volume of traffic. Mr. Rafferty I would imagine this these are normal days and not just the free giveaway days. Is that what you provided us? Yes. The averages. Thank you.

Did I miss anything? Sorry. Miss miss um I'm making sure it's in here. They did send um an email um yesterday showing that should they need it, they would have additional they would have staff direct traffic to for additional stacking uh in this area. So they'd not be on Manchester Road. Yeah. And that was mentioned. I believe we talked about that for those giveaway days when we expect high volume. Okay. Thank you. That was important. PDS is also here. They did a review of the landscape plan um and they have a few comments mostly changing of some of the material adding more between the trees along Manchester where necessary but I can have him address those. I think we'll uh sorry first any member of the commission from site plan subcommittee did I miss anything? Anything to add on what we discussed? Uh Mr. Cannon, why don't you come up and talk to us about what you got and then we'll have Mr. Frankie talk about the changes he's recommending. Yeah. Good evening, chairman and members of the planning and zoning commission. My name is Lee Cannon. I'm a principal with CBB offices at 12400 Olive Sweet 430 out in the county. Um, and just for the record again, um, I am a on call traffic engineer for the city. So, I'm working for you through staff. Um, and I wanted to take the time to go over a handful of things that are important. And, uh, Whitney, can you go to the page, it would be six of the report. Um, one thing we were asked to do in

subcommittee is, you know, how many people are turning when, where, and how. Um, so we set up counters at Collier, Manchester, right in, right out at Manchester, and Brentwood at um at the signalized access to this facility. And one thing that uh I went through and looked at all the different data across the board, about half of all the cars that come in and out use the Brentwood signal. A lot of people thought, yeah, may maybe there's more people using Manchester. So about half use Manchester, but it's on the order of 20 or 25% of the traffic uses either the right, right out, or the or the caller access to get to this plaza. I I was very surprised by that. Also, it shows as some uh individuals asked about specifically um the turning movements at um at the right in right out and then also the left turns on Collier. I just realized I don't have to look up there because I have it right in front of me. Um so what we found was um there's somewhere around 60 to 80 vehicles in the peak hours in the morning and commuter hour afternoon commuter hour turning right out uh onto Manchester at at the right in right out and about 40 cars per hour turning right in at that driveway in those two peak hours. And then for Collier, there's about 26 cars turning right in and about 20 cars turning in in in the in the afternoon. So very very lightly used. Um with then about 25 turning left from Manchester to Collie around the end of that median island and 50ish uh in the afternoon. So those numbers aren't huge. you know, uh, 60 cars an

hour is one car every minute on average. 30 cars would be, you know, one minute one car every two minutes on average. So, those are really heavy volumes. But there was some concern about that movement, specifically those lefts at Collier. And so, um, we looked into the crash data. We added a whole new section to the report and, uh, there's not a whole lot to see back here. Uh but uh Whitney, can you go to the crash evaluation which is under the existing conditions? I moved it. Yeah, it's on page five. Starts on page five. So normally traffic engineers look at five years worth of crash history. MDOT had 10 years available. So I looked at all 10. Um, we had 36 total crashes at that caller intersection around it. I don't know who that is. Give me one sec. Um, can we Mr. Nburger, can you mute your mic? Thank you. So, 36 crashes in 10 years, all kinds of different crashes. Uh, and we'll talk about that in a little bit of detail. So, um, the 36 crashes were all the crashes that happened between Anna Lee and, um, Brentwood Boulevard, but not including the intersection, the signal with Brentwood Boulevard. And then focused closer down to right at Collier, about half of those, 18 crashes in 10 years. So, a little under two crashes per year on average. Uh, severity is important when we think about those kind of things. were worried about, you know, is this going to be safe? 10 years, zero fatalities, one disabling injury, uh, which was put down as a passing type of a action, like somebody was going around somebody else.

It wasn't a left turn or a or a crossing movement. I don't know how you get hurt in a passing crash. That's it's kind of odd. Um there were two other minor injuries, but the rest of the 18, 15 were property damage only crashes. Um the 10 of those 18 though were left turn crashes. And that's either a westbound left turn from Manchester going on to Collier or a northbound left turn from Collier to Manchester. So about one crash a year for that. Now, you know, it'd be great if nobody ever crashed, but you know, driving is a dangerous subject and crashes do happen. We just don't like to see too many injuries and we don't like to see any fatalities. You have a question, sir? Sorry. With the revisions to Manchester Road that were done in the last several years from your looking at 10 years, was there any noticeable change in those metrics over the last couple of years since the revisions were made to Manchester Road or did it remain consistent? It's generally consistent because there's so few, you know, it's one or two a year and and and there might have been three in one year, right? with with 18 over 10 years. Uh but yeah, not a whole lot. Manchester Road really got a facelift, if you will. You know, it it got new curbs. Uh but we there wasn't a lot of access management that was able to be done. There was no, you know, center left turn lanes put in or any any left turn lanes really put in. Uh no additional traffic signals. So, there wasn't a whole lot of change. uh the median that's on Manchester, you know, extended back from Brentwood. I believe that was already there in the past. And you know, it's it's a nice feature to keep the right in right

driveway right in right out and call yours been there for you know a long time in its current condition. Um so that answer your question sir. Um we also uh looked at the data that the um that the um applicant provided for three stores and as part of our study we had a fourth store from Springfield, Missouri. And those stores range in how many daily um uh transactions they had. And then the stores also range, you know, during each day. They gave us two full days of every hour of counts. And what we see there is um that we're focused on is the highest number of transactions. So um for both stores they had a number around 126 and they had a number around 147 for transactions each hour. When we did the traffic study we calculated that at 104 transactions per hour. Uh so uh we recalculated and um we still wouldn't expect you know the average queue to be more than about 10 vehicles. Um, however, it's important to keep in mind that the service time, which they've said is 45 seconds per car on average, and they can get it lower as they speed their processes and learn, um, that their max hourly transaction data on a regular day would be expected to create some pretty decent cues. Um, and we believe CBB believes that 20 to 22 queuing spaces with an operation like this should be adequate because at some point when the it's a convenienceoriented trip, right? I want coffee. I'm on my way to work. I can't wait a half an hour, so I'm not going to

get in a huge line. But people start to gauge those things. Um, I would think that the 23 spaces that they have should be adequate for their operations and if they're getting higher traffic numbers that they could um, you know, decrease their service times. Um, however, because they're, you know, very, very high numbers to begin with, if they start to exceed that, and all bets are definitely off on these days where they give away three free things, um, the cues can build quite quickly when uh if if there's additional cars. So, there's still some concern, I know, by the board, the city, that they could exceed their 23. As soon as they do, they got about one more car and, you know, out in the drive aisle that blocks inbound uh shopping center traffic and that second car behind the 24th car uh there on Manchester Road. Now, they did share this information with uh MDOT. MODOT did not request or require that they shut that right in right out driveway and MDOT found their plan acceptable. Uh that was an email from uh the permits uh folks at MODOT. So MODOT is aware of this. Um trying to think if I left anything out. Oh, just the fact that with the additional landscaping requirements, um they've curbed off areas to create where some of this uh some of the controls on the site were painted lines. Now they've got curbs and that allows them to get landscaped areas and that will control traffic better. So this site should be safer, you know, from a flow perspective now that they've got raised islands instead of just painted islands around. And with this modified kind of turning

everything sideways shape, what they've been able to do is they've moved the exit much further away from Manchester. So that'll help a lot with that traffic flow. It'll help cars not get congested on the way in as well as on the way out and related to the shopping center. With that, I'd be happy to ask any answer any questions that you might have. I think I've got a couple and I'm sure we will have more. Um, one thing just to clarify for the total orders that is actually orders, not vehicles. Is that what your interpretation of it was from Seven Brew? Yes. I was getting transaction data. Yes. So, I'm assuming that's receipts. There could be more than one receipt per car, but then that might take them a longer time to fill that order or to if you're especially if you're paying separately and those types of things. One thing, if you could go to page four of the report, I'd appreciate it. The site plan. Uh yeah, just one of the things that I forgot to mention, we talked about in subcommittee was, and I know that we have representatives from the landlord here as well this evening. During the free days when I believe the subcommittee had the greatest concern that we would see massive queuing, there was a conversation around shutting off that right in entrance there, which would force people to go around on Collier or to come in the other way, which provides for longer queuing. In fact, you can get the entirety of the private drive in addition to that area. So, just something I wanted to mention. I'm not sure if we got an answer because I'm not sure that Shnooks would be thrilled with that although it is a limited number of days but something that we may want to hear from as well but I thought that was important to mention. So I did put something in the report that we recommend that you require them to have a management of traffic plan for special days and then they provided a plan. Okay. But um I

don't know if that plan will work or not. And I believe that what if this passes and when they open that they should implement that plan and if that plan doesn't work then they should modify that plan and that you all should work together to make sure that they have a workable plan. Shutting off the right in right out was one thing that we mentioned that might negatively impact Shnooks. what they came up with was having people come on in but be directed to continue on through the shopping center loop around. Um, you know, we could also there's a lot of different ways we could work on it depending on how big of an issue it becomes. Uh but they might need to in instead of having, you know, an employee flagging traffic if it's problematic, they might have to hire an offduty officer, you know, to really uh enforce what we're requiring the public to do on those days. I think a couple last thing and then I'll turn it over to the commission. I was surprised, I think Mr. Kennedy, you had mentioned you were shocked to see that about half the folks coming off Brown Boulevard. I'm shocked that 10% of the people heading southbound on a particular day heading on Brenwood Boulevard appeared to turn into the Shnooks. Um it's probably great news for Shnooks, but um that was how high the volume was and I think it was even higher percentage uh from northbound. So interesting. Uh members of the commission, any other questions for Mr. Cannon and we will hear from Mr. Frankie as well. Please. Mr. Null, could you talk a little bit about the site parking? It seems like you think it it wasn't quite adequate per the code. Um yes, sir. Uh so the new plan versus the original submittal plan, they've been able to save nine more stalls. Uh the beauty of the new plan though is that this parking that remains to the

south of the seven brew really makes sense related to that inline uh retail bays. Whereas before it was just kind of mixed in with the seven brew. It was hard to get to. But this really makes sense and is kind of cloistered that parking over towards those. So, they're still not compliant. Um, let me make sure I get the numbers right. Straight city code requires 285. Um, the city council without a variance can reduce that by 20% to 228. The shared parking calculation that I came up with was 267. So they are tw I believe that the revised site plan will have 246 marked parking stalls when it's updated to this. They'll be 21 short of the shared parking calc and 39 short of the straight city code not looking at shared parking. Um, now when I was out there the one day taking a look at the parking at at 10 or 11:00 a.m. in the morning, um, the Shnook lot wasn't half full. So, practically speaking is different than the code calculation, right? So, practically speaking, I believe that all but the highest shopping days um they'll have enough to park all the cars, but you're taking away uh parking stalls to put the seven brew in that would probably fill up on, you know, the week before Christmas, the week before Thanksgiving, and those other big shopping time frames.

Anything else? Mr. Nolan members, Mr. Foreman, doing math. I wanted to see if I did the math correctly. Trying to take notes when you started your presentation. The 25% of traffic. So 50% coming in off Brentwood Boulevard, 25 off the right in right out, 25% off Collierish roughly. So, you were at about one car per minute in the right in right out. Yes. And it's pretty it's it's a little easier to see on page six, you can see what those actual vehicle numbers were the day we counted them. Uh, so then if they had a peak, I believe I heard the highest number was 140. Oh, so so I was talking about shopping center traffic counts, right? Current count. Current counts at Yes. about one a minute. Yes. And then at other stores, what they've seen, what they have seen is a transaction number of up to 47. So if we're at 140 per hour, about two and a half per minute, which even if we based all of that in the right in right out, we'd go from one car per minute to four cars per minute at worst case. And there would be a safe assumption that part of that 140 would come in the other two entrances to get over there once people figure it out. Mhm. If if you're coming from the south, you know, I don't know why you wouldn't come in uh at the signal and you know, if I knew it was there, I I would bounce down one of these streets behind it and hit Collier. That's just what I would do.

Different topic, but so that so we're going from approximately one car per minute to three or four cars per minute in the right in right out. Does that metric still It sounds like that's what MDOT is saying that is acceptable to Yes. Yes. Does that feel I'm asking your professional opinion. Four cars per minute in or out of that feels appropriate? It could be up to that. Yes. Yes. Again, if you're if you're uh eastbound on Manchester Road, you know, it you're probably not if for seven Bruce and on the corner, you're probably not going to turn right at Collier. You're going to use the right in right out. But, you know, for the other three directions, uh we've got three other, you know, north, south, and and to uh from the east, which would reduce that. Yes. Proportionately to the other entrance. Yes. Yes. Yes. So it might only be two or three cars per minute, you know, instead of up to four because of the dynamic of how many cars are there only so many of their patrons coming from the west. Right. Thank you. Any other questions for members of the commission? Mr. Nerburgger, any questions? Thank you. Any members of the public wishing to address the commission on Excuse me. We forgot Mr. Frankie and I apologize, Mr. Frankie. That's not okay. Thank you, Mr. Canon. Mr. Frankie, can you talk to us about I know we made some changes. Tell us what changes were made. Good evening. My name is Andrew Frank. I'm a landscape architect with Planning Design Studio. Uh the city's on call landscape architect. I'll tag in here after Lee. Uh we re we re-reed um the plan uh that

was submitted. They basically addressed every comment adequately except for two. Uh the first one is there were two Norway maples that are just a little bit outside the their property line that weren't really doing that well. They didn't indicate if they were going to replace them or not and we were just kind of wondering what their plan was there. Um our second comment was all the ground cover that they're providing in the new islands, which we're really happy about, um are one species. And while there's nothing in the ordinance that uh tells them to plant more than one species, it's kind of bad to have a monoculture. So, uh they're not obligated. We just asked them if they would consider uh kind of adding two or more species throughout and have not heard back. So, other than that, any questions? Any questions for Mr. Frankie? We always ask Mr. for Rafferty if he um could what his uh take would be on those two requests. But thank you. Thank you. Got an answer, Mr. Frankie. You're welcome. Any other questions for Mr. Frankie? Thank you. Any other members of the public wishing to address the commission on this application? All right. Uh is there a motion? Mr. for me. I have some further questions not related to traffic or landscape. All right. I had the misfortune of driving home from the airport at 1:00 a.m. from a business trip, passing by the Seven Brew on Olive. The elevations you're showing just flat fascia. The fascia on the building on olive has recessed LED or fluorescent lighting outlining the whole structure in blue and it was very noticeable even from the highway. We haven't talked about your exterior elevations, materials, lighting at all. Is there a plan to light this

facility in a similar manner to the one on Olive? Typically, that would be how we would light it, but we also have stands where we've done just like LED covers and it'll push the LED down to the ground. So, you won't see those lights anywhere near as bright as you normally would. And we would be completely open in doing that. LEDs dimmable fluorescent or cold cathode is not. So, if that and most of the stuff we're doing these days is LED anyway. So, um, the second one, I'm reaching back to the last meeting. You're showing the composite concrete panels in the upper portion of the building. I think you had a thin brick on the brick portions, but last time you brought a piece of corrugated metal that sat quietly over there that we didn't talk about. I I I believe that was for the other uh good clean dog, was it? Okay. Yeah. Just cur I thought it was we use a nichiha panel right is basically the design that we use throughout the whole structure as well as our walk-in cooler and the um trash enclosure. So they would all match up and you know the pre those prefinished materials tend to do very well lifespans matching you know a retail installation like that. Um, but I would like to get something in our motion about controlling that's for I think it's a good point you raised architect's eye. Mr. Foreman, what would what is the city's ordinance on the lighting that was described? Basically, would that be considered part of the comprehensive sign plan? Would it be considered an architectural feature? How would we um and if we don't know the answer now, that's fine, too. rate code does require that you have to be less than 3,000 Kelvin. Um we are in the processes of updating to the 2024 code building codes. Um as part of that they do talk

about um when there's no activity lighting is to be lowered by 30%. Um I would challenge this for the light for the signage because this this was decorative lighting. It wasn't the 3000 Kelvin site lighting, excuse me, the site lighting for safety and you know there's building code that governs that part for you know one foot candle for minimum safety lighting. That's the lighting we've reviewed as a board and talked about the temperature and the Kelvin. This lighting was blue accent lighting on the fascia. So it's either going to be part of a signage piece or an architectural accent. It would be part of the architectural accent but they are not showing that on the drawings that were submitted. So that was the first part of the question. Yes. So they would have to come back I think uh to review that uh for an amendment to the cup if they wanted to go ahead and start it or proceed. I do believe I was going to double check that and Mr. Rafferty I believe you said that that's something that you could live without if that was needed for this site. We can provide cover on it. We can also, they're on a light switch. We can literally flip them off. Very easy. I like I I prefaced it with it was one in the morning on purpose because if it turned off at the end of business hours, I think that would go a long way toward controlling it as well. So I think there's some there's some discussion to be had there, but I thought it was a valuable point to raise. I agree. So, our code does say under illuminated signs that no exposed reflective type bulb or incandescent lamp which exceeds 40 watt shall be used on the exterior surface of any sign or in any manner to expose the face of the bulb, light, lamp or to any public street or adjacent

property. And the use of exposed neon in the windows is limited to six square feet. And the use of exposed neon neon as an illumination source is prohibited. So I would say that that would be a prohibited element that is not included as part of their as part of their application. Okay. Do you think the blue lighting is part of this application? I tried to ask that as carefully as possible. I think that's important. I I'm not sure because I I think generally the material and the building design, you've updated the elevations to match with the new configuration of the footprint. But it I can say we do have it on all of our other existing buildings though. So I would say yes by default unless there was discussion around that. um prior to this meeting then I would say yes it would be all right please sorry Mike yeah I think it would be important to include that with any motion made that there be a restriction on that pending I mean again can always come back for further amendment carney is that correct y that's correct it would be um part of the a condition on the conditional use permit Anything else, Mr. Foreman? No, except I have no idea how to word that in a motion, but so we can figure it out. We usually do. Any other Sorry. Any members of the public? And now I'll get it at the right time. Wishing to address the commission on this. I know we're waiting for a motion, too. We have more questions. Is there a motion, then?

cribe perform. Can you describe what the blue light was? Was it an exposed neon or just blue lighting? It was It appeared like either a neon or an LED strip that ringed the entire perimeter of the building as part of the fascia assembly. So, it was either attached or if it was in a cove. Um, I've done similar things where, you know, you can put a lens over it. You can build it into the bottom of the cove. LED, you can control the amount of light. You can dim LEDs. So, I think there's enough things that can be done to address the concern. The simple one is at closing hours they turn it off. Um, but I would say we need a way to control the intensity and visibility of LED accent lighting to be integrated into the facade. And I think we also I think there was some interest in including a traffic management plan which would be something that would be not for overseen by the planning and zoning commission but by staff. So is there I know we're going adding complexity to the motion but is there a motion or perhaps we can use a little help from city attorney on making sure we get it worded correctly. So, so one suggestion might be um as a condition on the conditional use permit, no neon or lighting accent shall be incorporated as part of the structure unless expressly allowed in the code. So, if the code allowed for, let's say, uh a lighted sign, then they could do that. But outside of anything that is expressly allowed in the code, then they

could not do any kind of neon or lighting accents as part of the structure. I'm going to advocate for our applicant the six square foot. You're going to blow by that. That's so if we word it that way, you're going to have to come back with a some with some supplemental application for that lighting under that part of our ordinance. Correct. So there is also the provision um in the sign code that says external lighting such as flood lights and thin line or goose line reflectors are permitted provided the light source is directed upon the face of the sign and is effectively shielded so as to prevent beams or rays of light from being directed onto areas o other other than the sign. and the lights are not of such intensity so as to cause glare or impair the vision of the driver of the motor vehicle. Where the director denies the applicant for excessive or uncontrolled lighting, they may appeal under a comprehensive sign plan. So they could come back under a comprehensive sign plan for that for review of specific lighting. So with that qualifier, I think the way you've worded the addition to the motion would be appropriate. And then I think it puts the owner on the applicant and your lighting designer to understand if you're in compliance with that section of the code. I think Mr. Sheldon had a comment. Mr. I was just going to ask when you can you Google I was just have it like seven brew at night and I'm getting a little bit lost in the code the typical lights and maybe Mr. Foreman can agree that this is what he's referencing because I don't believe this is falls under any signage or flood lighting that I think it's architectural feature.

Yeah, just a bunch of them popped up. Yeah, there we go. First. Yeah. So, that is the intent is what I'm saying. And that's not signage, right? Correct. Yeah. That's not signage. At least not interpret like that. So, based on that, it appears that that would be prohibited with what we're talking about. But for that second section that she just quoted out of the code for the signage, If the applicant doesn't believe they're in compliance, then they have to come back for the sign comprehensive sign review to address that lighting type. Right. I just make sure we're all on the same page. Is there a motion? Hang on. I move to recommend approval of the conditional use permit for the site development plans for the Seven Brew Coffee within the parking lot of the Shnook Shopping Center at the 8828 Manchester Road subject to the conditions discussed on June 11th, 2025, July 9th, 2025 planning and zoning conditions or I'm sorry, commission including the first one was traffic mitigation or traffic mitigation plan including provision of a traffic mitigation plan focused on the free days. I think just traffic mitigation plan

traffic mitigation plan and then also pending the discussion on control of exterior lighting under the sign comprehensive sign plan. I would use the wording that the attorney has provided that can you repeat it again Miss Carr? Sure. a further condition that no neon or lighting accent shall be incorporated as part of the structure unless expressly allowed in the municipal code. You accept that amendment? I accept that because I'm going to get it wrong if I at least we can get moving in the right direction there. I appreciate that. We have a motion. Is there a second? Second. If motion second. Roll call vote, please. Mr. Favaza. Yes. Mr. Nolan. Yes, Mr. Foreman. Yes, Mr. Shelton. Yes, Mr. Moore. Yes, Mr. Hunt. Yes, Miss Schwaring. Yes, Mr. Ritter. Yes, Mr. Nerburgg. You're muted. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Motion passes. Thank you. All right. So, again, that goes on July 21st. And Mr. Raford, just to make sure, I think what we got done is at least moving in the right direction. and we may have further conversation about the neon understanding that you've got in your other buildings, but you can have some conversations with staff and we will see if we can get to the right spot. So, I appreciate it. Thanks everyone for your work on that. Uh, we will now move on to new business. Uh, first we have case 25007. This is an amendment to the conditional use permit and site development plan for Tonus Margarita Bar and Restaurant at 1221 Strawner Drive. Is the applicant or their representative here this evening? Please, if you could come up to the

podium, state your name, and give us your address. Hello everyone. My name is Cheyenne Copeling and we're opening a Mexican restaurant margarita bar on 1221 Strawn Drive. All right, tell us a little bit about your application. Hello you guys. Nice to meet you. My name is Cheyenne Copeling. I am one of the owners and representatives of Tonus. It's going to be your newest Mexican restaurant and margarita bar in the city of Brentwood. Um, per request of the city, I'm here with my partner, Doggoberto Cruz, to discuss our request for the conditional use permit for our location. At the previous restaurant, um, it was originally like a gray and a bright lime green color, and I feel like that doesn't really align with our vision for a Mexican themed restaurant. Um, so first, just to be really clear about our restaurant, we don't want to do anything structurally. We don't want to change anything structurally. We want to keep everything exactly the same as far as the exterior, same siding, same materials, everything. The only thing I want to really discuss about is just painting the building. Um, so inspired by the beautiful architecture in Mexico, we plan to use like this creamy pure white color and then match it over with that copper orange accent just to kind of reflect that warm traditional look for like Mexican homes. Um, additionally, like on the commercial roadside, we have uh two signs that are going to say ton us. underneath it is going to be Mexican restaurant. The other side's going to say margarita bar. We do have plans to enhance the road height roadside appeal with some gardening. However, with us opening in the fall, it kind of doesn't really make sense for us to do that right now. So, we kind of want to revisit that sometime in the spring. So, I understand if we do have to have another meeting about that. Um, for the front west elevation, the sighting will feature uh like a mimics of bricks essentially. So, it's going to be the same sighting. We're just going to paint bricks essentially. Um, we'll

have tonas in the front of it and then some colorful planet pots. Um, yeah, but our goal pretty much is just to bring some color, some culture, some authenticity to Brentwood. and we're truly excited to be a part of this community. Um, Doggo and I have been working in the food industry for a while now. I've been in there since I was 15. I really enjoy it. Um, so we are going to be a family franchise and I'm really excited to meet you all. It's a pleasure to meet you all and please, it's my first time being here so thank you. Thank you, Miss Coping. We'll go staff report please, Miss Kelly. Um, yes, sir. Um, as the applicant has indicated, they are replacing the former Sali Leone um, restaurant that closed earlier this year. They are within the one-year time frame. So, they have started the interior renovations. Um, however, the dra the ordinance for Sal Lemon referenced their exterior modifications and therefore the exterior work is prompting the uh, need for a new CUP or an amendment to their CUP. Um we do think that the color scheme is more inconsistent with the original development. Um and therefore we do not have any concerns. As mentioned they are under a comprehensive sign plan. They did not provide any specifications of their signs, but that comprehensive sign plan did specify a good deal of signage and it appeared a rough estimate from just looking at the elevations that it would be consistent with that with the existing comp. Yeah. Uh any concerns about landscaping understanding that it is July in Missouri? Um, I did not go out and redo a landscape plan. Um, as they were just

doing modifications to the exterior of the building. We could have Andy do that if you wish to. Um, otherwise, I don't even know if there was an original landscape plan for this area. So, yeah. Honestly, you guys, we don't plan on touching the fencing or any of that as far as the landscape goes. We're just here to get the building painted. Uh, questions for members of the commission. I do recall a conversation of when this was painted yellow and there was some concern about that. I do believe this gets it much closer to what its original color was. Um but for a good reason. So I think that's great. Mr. Foreman, you in your presentation you referenced bricks. Are you talking about the color bricks that are up there? Yeah. Okay. Exactly. Yeah. It's just pretty much like the illusion of bricks from like mimicking bricks essentially. Anything else, Mr. Sorry, that's that's it. I just wanted to clarify, make sure we're using the right the same words for the same stuff. I like it. I think it looks cool. Any other questions for members of the commission? Any questions for members of the public? Mr. Nurburgger. All right. Is there a motion? Nothing. Thank you, Mr. Nurburgger. Is there a motion? I move to recommend approval of the amendment to the conditional use permit and site development plans for the exterior elevation at 1221 Straner Drive for Toness Margarita Bar and Restaurant subject to the conditions discussed on July 9th, 2025 planning and zoning commission. We have a motion by Mr. Nolan. Is there a second? Second. Second by Mr. Shelton and Mr. Nurburg is close by. Uh roll call vote, please. Mr. Favaza, yes. Mr. Nolan, yes. Mr. Foreman, yes. Mr. Shelton, yes. Mr. Moore, yes.

Mr. Hunt, yes. Miss Schwaring, yes. Mr. Ritter, yes. Mr. Nerburgg, yes. Motion passes. Great. So, that will go again to the U board of alderman on the 21st. We are the recommending body and they will be the one reviewing it for approval. So, um, welcome to Yep. Sorry. Go ahead. Uh, I'm sorry. This is new business, so I haven't publicly noticed it for the 21st. It will be at the August meeting. August meeting. My apologies. There we go. So, it'll be the August meeting. So, don't show up in the 21st. Be in August. Look forward to uh visiting you in Brunwood. So, the planning and zoning commission is a recommending body to the board of alderman. So, the board of alderman has to approve the con the or cup. Yeah. Yeah. All right. Next uh item of business is case 258. This is a site development plan for Metro, a by-state development enterprise for improvements to the Bretwin Metroink station. Addressed as 8398 Eager Road. Also addressed is 1401 Musk Memorial Drive. The applicant or the representative here, if you could state your name and address for the record, please. Hi, my name is Kelly Hayden. I'm the project manager for Secure Platform. The address is um we can use the one here 1401 Music Memorial. Thank you. Yeah, I just refer to it as the Brentwood Station. And I actually will note uh for disclosure um I was involved in funding some of this program. So, I will be recusing. I actually don't normally vote anyways, but I wanted to make that disclosure um with a commit or excuse me a um board that I'm on. So, I will abstain from any voting which I don't normally do. Please go ahead. Awesome. Uh, so we're here tonight to seek approval for the modifications to the eastern entrance to the Brentwood

Metroink platform or uh Metroink alignment as part of the secure platform plan. So, just to give a little bit of background on the secure platform plan, uh, this project is to enhance the safety and security of the alignment through the installation of gates, fencing, and CCTVs. Uh the concept is to transition it from an open system where you can purchase your ticket and walk onto the alignment to a closed system where you purchase your ticket, badge in to one of the gates, the gates will then open and then you can access and walk through. Uh so far uh at the stations that have secure platform, we've seen a decrease in crime, greater ridership, and overall just a much better feel. So with that going into the requested modification. So over here I'm actually going to show you guys to the demolition plan. So if you go to page I believe it's the third page in your packet. It's going to look very similar to what we have pulled up right there. So essentially what we are doing is we are expanding that concrete sidewalk uh to allow for greater space for the gates and allow patrons access to walk around it, walk to it, walk through it. So with that we are extending slightly into that circle drive that music memorial drive. Um the bus loop will be decreased to 25 feet 3 in uh where the existing in certain parts was roughly 30 to 35 feet. Sir, we need to have you speak in the microphone. Sorry. We record this. That's why. Sorry. We have the original curb line of that plaza area. Um that curb line out to allow room for our

security gates. Here is a an example of a security gate that we're using. This is the throughout the system fencing that we use nonclimbable harder to cut fencing for our security. What we're what we're doing is expanding the plaza actually drive which is our bus loop. We run two routes through that bus loop drive um the the number 32 and the number two um routes and so it's actually we're we're encroaching through our bus loop not necessarily music drive. We already we we work with very closely with DCM um on that project. We own the parking garage and we lease some to DCM and DCM manages parking garage for us. Um and we work very closely with them for the whole development um back at the original Cross County Metro Extension. Um so that's essentially it. We're just going to push the ballards out um create more plaza area for for the secure platform project. As um Kelly mentioned, it's it's throughout our whole system, which will only allow um passengers to access the plat platform that actually have a a ticket and that has been punched. Taking a look at the fencing plan, um since we obviously have an open system and you can't fence it the entire route, uh I see we've got open fencing there. So, you're basically creating the what I would say is a nuisance fencing. You're making it so it's harder for someone to go around. Am I understanding that correctly? Okay. And so there'll be and then there's going to be only on the which direction would they be? West side. Is that correct? That's where the gates are going to be. There's not going to be gates on the east side. Am I oriented properly? Um there will be gates on the east side. Okay. At both sides on the on the um Hanley Industrial side. There'll be gates too. So the Hanley Industrial side, the gates

are going to be closer to the platform. So, you're going to end up walking down that um not staircase, but just walking down that pathway and then there right. So, we're keeping that on on the Metro Link rideway property. So, I was going to say if we go to the next uh it's actually going to be after One more. Here we go. Oh, here we go. That went right away. Got to speak into the microphone still. Oh, sorry. There you go. Yes, the um security gate on the west side will be um within the rideway, the existing rideway. Um and then fencing, we're just basically replacing the fencing that's there now with the um secure fencing that we're installing as part of the project. All right. So, that's the distance everything basically layout of the fencing is going to be the same as it is now. Basically the same. Correct. Okay. It's just the gates there. Right. All right. Uh so, as you know, this is a a big project for Metro. I think it's a 60 now $60 million project um to secure the whole system. Questions for members of the commission. Mr. Favasa. Sure. Um so then you would be able to buy a ticket now from the what would that the west side entrance? Both sides. Correct. Both sides where as right now you can only do it from the parking garage side, not the Deerberg side. Now there's TBMs on both sides. There there is now there are ticket vendetting machines on both sides. Correct. There are okay

but we're moving the ticket vendetting machines outside of the platform so that you have to go through the security gates with a validated ticket before you can access the platform. Okay. So the idea is that you know nobody can access the platform without a valid ticket. Okay. because now we have an open system, you know, honor system that that was originally planned from the phase one by the local leaders that wanted an honor system and you know, now we're changing that to a secure system. I did skip a beat and I forgot staff report. My apologies, Mr. Favaza. Any other questions first? So, we'll finish up. Thank you, Miss Kelly. Staff report, please. Um so as the applicants have indicated they are seeking for security and other improvements at the metro station at 1401 South Brentwood I mean um music memorial. Um they did go before the board of adjustment to receive a variance for the met use of a metal fence up to 8 feet tall um which was approved. Um generally that is limited to within a front yard set back to 24 in or 4 feet in the side of rear. So the the detail in the staff report um I apologize that the pictures got shifted when it got moved to but you can see here you can the existing platform was back here. The existing curb line is in yellow and then they're expanding further into the rightway of Music Memorial Drive. Therefore, it's prompting a review for site development plan uh at the planning and zoning commission and board of alderman. Um um as they this is due to a matter of public safety and transit for the metro region. Staff doesn't have a concern with issues with the modifications. believe I can recall correctly, we have

a reasonable incident of shoplifting and theft and that uh that shopping center where folks are using Metro as a convenient way to get away and this will probably do something about that as well since they'll have to go through a turn style. So, uh, other questions for members of the commission? Any questions, Mr. Nerburgger? Thank you. Any members of the public wishing to address commission on this topic? Is there a motion? Chairman, Miss Sharon, I move to recommend approval of the site development plans for the Brentwood Metro Station security update subject to the conditions discussed on July 9th, 2025. Planning and zoning commission. There's a motion by Miss Sharing. Is there a second? Second. Second by Mr. Ritter. A roll call vote, please. Mr. Favaza, yes. Mr. Nolan, yes. Mr. Foreman, yes. Mr. Shelton, yes. Mr. Moore, yes. Mr. Hunt, yes. Miss Schwaring, yes. Mr. Ritter, yes. And Mr. Nerburgg, yes. And can you record that the chair abstains for that, please? Thank you. Motion passes. August for board of alderman, Miss Kelly. August for board of aldermen. Um actually this does not require a public hearing notice. Okay. So I believe we can get them on the July 21st meeting. July 21st. I will confirm. Uh next order of new business is case 25009. This is a comprehensive sign plan for 2001 South Hanley Road. Is the applicant or their representative here this evening? If you could state your name please and your address.

Yeah. Hi everyone, Drew Clary, Intel Commercial Real Estate, uh 11701 Borman Drive, St. Louis, Missouri 63146. Tell us a little bit about your application this evening. So, hi everyone. Thanks for having me. Um this is an application to essentially redo and rebrand the signage at Hanley Point, which is 2001 South Hanley, the former Wallace Pencil building. Um, basically what we're trying to do is is just modernize the existing signage. Right now it the last plan was approved in 2015. Um, we have tenant identification signage on the south side of the building on the north side of the building. We have tenant identification all all across the front portion, the main portion that fronts Hanley Road. Um and so we're trying to re reduce the amount of tenant identification on both the north and the south and really lean into more um just the main identific identification points being the the portion of the building that fronts Hanley Road the longest portion. You know the the signage plan that was uh put into place 10 years ago was a lot more relevant than it is today. right now. Um, it's important it's it's very important to us and tenants still that they are identified in the center as being in this center where they're are where they're at in the center, excuse me. Um, but at the same time, you know, people have phones, they're going somewhere, they're plugging in Google Maps, Apple Maps, whatever I'm going here, their car takes them right there. Um, so that also, um, we are we are tweaking the directional signage inside. We're attempting to tweak the directional signage within the center as well once you pull into the parking lot. Um right now one of the main directory signage is if you guys are familiar with the property there's that curb cut right across from Walmart. Um the main directory signage other than the two that are you know on the north and south side of the property is up against the

wall and to figure out where you're going you have to walk into the drive lane um or walk in the mulch to see uh where you need to go. So, we are moving that back. Uh, we're we're kind of tweaking and making the a couple directional signage po um monuments is isn't the right word, but there's some smaller directional signage kind of spotted around the property. Um, we're we're making we're improving that as well. Um, I think I've covered that's a decent summary. Yeah. I miss um staff report, please. Miss Kelly. Um, yes, sir. Um, as the applicants indicated, they are updating the sign plan um from 2020, I'm sorry, 2015. Um the comprehensive sign plan is to provide for flexibility um of the sign code provided that they are uniform in regulations orderly in development further the goals of the city's comprehensive plan prohibit hazardous or dangerous signs and provide a desirable and attractive living and work environment harmonious and to be largely consistent with the overall go standards of the sign code. Um the building signage has the existing on the north elevation of the north building has an existing 108 square feet of sign where the maximum sign area allowed would be 80 square feet. Um they did not provide the square footage of the wall pencil company sign but that is and we do not want to lose that as that is a historic indicator of this the building. Um, Miss Kelly, if I could, is that something we would normally basically exclude from a comp sign plan or is that traditionally have we done? I haven't run into this before in my time on the commission, I don't think. Yeah, this hasn't come before the commission as far as I'm aware of. Um,

okay. But it is building signage, so I just wanted to acknowledge that. Thank you. Um the tenant identification signs for the tenants are to provide 12 inch lettering for um each tenant and the width would vary based upon the name. I did feel that that should provide a little more clarification. Maximum sign area is based upon the width of the tenant space with a minimum of 20 square feet. They are suggesting that on average each tenant would of 20 tenants would have up to 28 square feet depending on the the number of letters in a sign but that each sign would have 12 inch letters. Um I did feel like that needed further clarification where you would be granting up to 540 square feet of total wall signage for each individual tenant. um without any regard to clarifying its application to that tenant space. Um the large monument sign or they have a number of monument signs that are pre-existing and have already been changed out, but it's the Hanley Point one that they're changing out. the multi-tenant one um on the south end of the property that that corner that they're changing from a non-illuminated sign to a single 250 square foot sign. Um normally any ground sign is limited to 1/4 the width of the tenant of the linear foot of the um width of the property. um which for this property would be limited to they have if I um the total width along South Hamley is 814. So normally any ground sign would be limited to 203 square ft.

They have three monument signs that are being proposed. the 250 ft sign at the south entrance, the two signs at the north entrance, one at 58 square ft and 14 feet in height, and one at 34 square ft and 11 ft in height for a total of 342.8 square feet for the ground signs. I do not have a concern with the tenant identification sign as they are more internal to the site and provide direction. Um, but I did feel like the tenant signage needed further clarification as that does represent a total of 560 additional sign area for the building. Um, and uh, all of the signs represent 975 square feet of signs for the property, not including the tenant signs. That could be even more. Correct. That's the All right. That's the navigational signs, the building designation signs, and the monument signs. The Sorry, the ground signs. Oh, I did include the tenant the 560 ft for the detent for the 975. Yeah. Okay. Okay. Is there a change? And this is one I wasn't clear on. Um, north elevation on the Wallace Pencil Company, there is a Hanley Point sign existing. Is that being changed as well or is that one? No, that is that's there. That's staying there. There was additional tenant signage beneath that that we removed. So that that's signage that's been removed. Square footage of signage has been removed. And we're doing a similar deal with the signage on the south side northbound the south building. Yeah. Um I might have just mixed those up if that's the one you were talking I think I'm tracking. Okay. Um do you have multi I guess and I'm going to use the terminology wrong but it's something that's come up on um another property that we've discussed

recently. multi-bay tenants, i.e. they have more than one entrance or a larger sign, but you're talking about a consistent 12-in. Yes. Okay. I And and I to be clear, I this is all aesthetic for us, right? I I I want all of the we want all the signage to be consistent. Um where we did run into issues is, you know, there are I think the bays are about 1,600 ft in areas. Does that sound right? Yeah. So, the smallest one's about 15 to,600 feet actually. Um, so there are some tenants that are 4,000 feet, right? We don't want them to have a bigger sign, but um it that is an issue that we run into just in trying to map out the exact amount of signage that is dedicated to a bay. Obviously, um square footage or I'm sorry, the amount of tenants in a building can also change. We can have a tenant contract. We can have an attenant expand. Um, so I I what the ultimate goal practically is to try and have consistent signage, evenly spaced that looks appealing, and that is the primary identifier for each one of these tenants. It's back lit. We don't they're not relying on window decals. They're not relying on banners. They're not relying on identification on the sides of the building. You can you can see them from the front um right on right off Hanley Road. I'm not very familiar with this building. Are there 20 door exterior doors for access to these bays? No. No. Um, so there's it's it's a two it's a two building piece of real estate. And there's the south building and the north building. Um, the first one I don't know if if there's an area on this package that Okay, shut up the floor. Yeah, there you go. So you can see some of the sorry I'm toggling back and forth here. I think

you can kind of make out the division of some of the tenants. The smallest bay is 1500 ft. So if you were to truly divide it up a little bit, you could have more more um maybe that much on the south building, but then the north building goes back. It goes uh to the west. So, I'd say there's probably 10 to 12 10 to 12 doors on the south building and maybe eight eight or nine on the north building. I say Google Street View will help you. I Yeah, it drops back a few years. So I I ask questions. Yeah. Make sure Mr. Hunts, Mr. Foreman. So I love what you're saying because Yeah. What I'm because I'm looking at Google Street View and I drive by this every day. So for in the packet you had like Hoffman law, right? Where in Google Street View and from memory that's actually two lines right now. So that would be revised to one Hoffman Law line without a subcursor. There you go. Underneath it, I would think. So it it really would depend on what the ultimate package calls for. If we have a certain width requirement and I'm sorry, a certain height and width requirement um and we had to whatever looked the best really. Right. And then it I think I heard you say consistent fonts as well because everyone every font is different. Yeah, I I'm not sure that's what was in the package though because I specifically had a question about that. Yeah, because I heard him say it. I'm like I like that. But I do I do too. Um I think what I

probably should have said is consistent styling. If you guys wanted to be, you know, that was part of the approval here was consistent font. I think we'd we'd be amicable to that. The only reason I hesitate a little bit is sometimes you have a tenant who is very specific with their type of font. If you ask my company's marketing team, they could tell you the font to the tea and the color. So that that's the only reason I hesitate. But I'm a fan of consistency. If we needed one set of font, I think that would be amanable amanable. the chair's point, similar applications of multi-bay tenant space. All I was trying to get out, Mr. Foreman, and I would contend as an architect looking at your elevation on the east that it would be pretty easy to cut in another door. You know, you could actually cut the brick out, create a bay if you needed to. But the prior agreements with property owners we've worked out is the bay the tenants in gets the sign. If they have the next bay, they can do some logo work, but not another sign or a bigger sign. They could do something that shows that they inhabit the next bay as well, but it's not another sign. So, let me take this one step further. Let's say Hoffman Law Office had two bays. Could they have Hoffman Law Office? Hoffman above Bay One, law office above Bay 2. I believe the way we structured it was more Yeah. retailbased where they had Hoffman Law and maybe they had like a logo with a gavel that they could repeat in a small band to show that that was theirs as well. Okay. But it wasn't another sign. Yeah. And the point all I was trying to make was the consistency of spacing was

something that um and multi-bay tenants was what I wanted to raise. If you had multi-bay tenants, it's not multiple signs. They don't get bigger signs. that creates it's visually jarring, let's just say. So, that's what I what I think I heard you describe you're trying to avoid. I I certainly wouldn't want a bigger sign. We would want consistent spacing. We're on the same page there. I was just thinking if you have would you have twice the width of signage. Your height would be the same because you have two bays. Um I would also point out where we've done that before the sign band was very limited on the Yeah. and defined um for each of those spaces. Um Mr. Foreman, other questions? Thank you, Miss Cohen. I think we're philosophically moving in the right direction. We just need to figure out how to write it. I would note and open up for other questions as well. Um I do want to I guess I'll say circle again 975 square ft. Just for curiosity, what would be allowed without I know we have a comprehensive sign plan. This is a complex um building or set of buildings. What would it be allowed under just because of footage? Do you know? Did you have I thought that was in staff report. Maybe not. That was in um the ground sign is limited to I'm sorry. I didn't mean to put you on the spot. I thought I remember seeing that it was I think we're something in the order of three times. Yeah. So, building identification signage is limited at 80 square feet. Right now, they have 108 square foot on the north elevation. The ground sign is limited to 203 square feet. They're proposing 150 uh 250 on the south entrance and 92.8 for the two different signs on the north entrance. Um which represents 342 square feet. Um and then each of the tenant panels would

be on average 28 square ft. Um would total for 20 tenants total 560 square ft. Um generally speaking, I believe any signage is limited to a total of 250 ft. Um, the concern is if you have a tenant that moves in and they only have a 10- foot wide tenant space, but they say, "Well, hey, and I apologize to Mr. Cannon, but if we use his company's name, it's instead of CBB, I want Crawford, remember what BB is for, transportation engineers, and planners all in 12inch letters across the building." That would be granting him a a very large sign. Yep. No, I think we would have to put some some constraints around that which I think we've heard would, you know, probably be reasonable. Other questions for members of the commission. I'd lie. I have another one. Hold on. Let's see if anyone else has some questions first. Mr. One, excuse me. Um, that follows along the signage discussion that we're having. So, for the example of the law office, you know, if they have two bays, conceivably they could go back to one bay and then another tenant can move in that second bay. So, I don't know that limiting it to a total square footage makes sense. It's almost like one one sign per tenant and then maybe we have to figure out how to best address the size like Whitney was alluding to. Just say it's 20 tenants today, it's 900 something square feet. What if there's 22 tenants next year? But, you know, they could still use that space. So, um, not sure how to address that, but I wanted to raise that for the group or if you have any thoughts on that. I I was going to say I think part of that onus is on I understand you want to make sure it's covered, but part of that is also on the landlord and the broker where if if a if a law firm goes down in

size, their sign has to get cut in half because we need that space for the next tenant. But then again, I guess someone could come along that doesn't need the signage and that law firm gets the bonus extra size. But yeah, it when I I would expect that when a tenants space goes down, the the amount of bays that they occupy goes down, the the width of sign is there allowed goes down as well. And it could be something where it's a maximum width per sign. Looking at the amount of letters there, I mean, we're talking about 12 12in letters, I think, has been the standard is what they're asking for. And so what what would be reasonable? So I think we talk about that. Good. Mr. trying to do you have a question. Well, at that point, if you're saying you're if you were going to approve 12inch letters and assign a maximum width, you're essentially giving them a certain number of letters, right? Yes. That would be the idea. Okay. Of Yes. Because then then it's the um I guess I would say is we don't care how many letters you use. This is how many letters we're approving. And as long as you're staying under that number of letters, then we're getting a total sign area that is what has been approved here and by the board. That make sense what I'm trying to get at? Again, I'm not sure that there say I'm not sure I'm at a here's how many letters, right? I'm just saying conceptually we're talking about maximum width. We already know what the height is. It's 12 in. What's the maximum width and that I think depending on the number of tenants, it's we're we're not going to change that. Here's the maximum width. You have five tenants, it's this. If you have four tenants, you have one tenant, they can use they can have a really long name. Um, I don't think that that's the look you want and you're we hope that you have more than one tenant because we like that as well, right? Um, so we can at least throw a concept out. Mr. Foreman's probably got a better idea though, Mr. Foreman. No, it's actually a qualifier. So, in the exhibit, you have Hoffman Law on the blue background with the horizontal

articulation in the panel. I'm looking at street view. Tell me if it's old. But within Street View, there's actually some of the panels like I'm still seeing Kenan Chiropractic. I don't know if that's a current tenant or not. She's still there. So those panels have a vertical rib instead of a horizontal rib. There is a architectural feature where some of the corrugated metal is vertical and some of it is horizontal. Um, just for the purpose of this little picture, I don't know if Hoffman is behind a vertical or a horizontal. On the street view, I wasn't sure. Street view, it's horizontal. So, the P that currently it's showing kind of vertical, horizontal, vertical, horizontal. Right. That's going to remain and then the 12 in are just applied over. Exactly. The intent would be to put raceways affixed there and then attach the sign to that. Okay. It wasn't that you were in the process of replacing and that's why it's Good question. No. No. We actually wanted to do something more, but the price of metal shot up and that was a compromise unfortunately. I get it. Yeah. Yeah. We got a lot going on and it's been a long meeting. Making sure I'm understanding the south facing sign. We're basically doing a it's I believe same size or similar size to what's existing, but we're cleaning it up. Is that my understanding? It's basically going to just be the I think it's 2001 the point basically. It's going to need a new naming. Yeah, I believe that that's that's correct. North. All right. So, that one either same size or roughly the same. It is smaller. Smaller. All right. Even better. Sorry. I not That's great. I appreciate it. Um I think I heard from Miss Kelly that we don't have concern about the internal

navigation signs. The city is basically those are internal navigation. We still have potentially with the ground signs some size questions. The north facing sign that is on the uh historical building is already in place and will not be changing. Just trying to recap a little bit. Correct. except the what was in the original plan had additional tenant identification signs that it has been removed. Okay. Just like you saw in the picture or in the street view on the southern side that you see northbound. All right. If you go back in time, you would see it. Gotcha. I don't want to go back in time. I like that better. You're good. All right. And so really, I think then the questions making sure and keep me honest here, folks. We're talking about tenant signage on the blue and we are talking about the ground signs or of the concerns. All right. Sorry, just making sure I was keeping track. Any other questions from the commission? Are we going to be able to figure out a width that we can live with or this might be something that we may need to ponder a little bit? And I just want to restate that the tenant identification signs on the north side and the south side have been removed. So that's a reduction in overall signage. The the directional signage that's in the parking lot, we we did remove more than we added. And we did this also being mindful of to try and take some of that which we square footage that we've removed and increase the amount that we're allotted on the blue band. And that's for both the south building and the north building. And and that that as you saw the tenants do have signage there. Now, we're just trying to make it back lit and make it nicer. I've been on this commission for a long time and Miss Carr, I believe I recall a conversation, and you may not have been

here for that, about font, and that is a first amendment, right? And we can't necessarily dictate font, right? Just like you can't um dictate um um colors. I mean you can place put some time, place and manner restrictions on them, but we can a landlord certainly could encourage or require font. Um can I please Miss Kelly? Can I just add um as part of the under standard code the city cannot dictate font as a free speech issue. However, they are asking to amend that code and if they are in agreement, we as part of the comprehensive plan, it can dictate those things. Correct. Because they're asking for extra. Yeah. Beyond what the code requires. Yes. But if the landlord is willing and interested in forcing that, then they have the right to do that, right? Okay. Because it's their building. Uh, other questions for members of commission? I do think uh for me uh the ground signs I take uh the point I think that they they add to the character of the building and the site. Um I do think that the benefit again of the cleaning and simplification of the end signs both north and south facing is is good and move in the right direction and I applaud the direction of consistency for tenant signs. Um, and just think that uh the point raised by staff of we have to have a cap. It cannot grow endlessly. Um, or you will just face pressure from your tenants of why can't I have another 85 ft of signage is going to be an issue there. I don't know how we can solve this. I am not a mathematician, but I think we need a mathematical solution of here's how many characters you can have and I'm not sure how we can get to that. Yeah. I um

I would also not address was actually the tenant signage of United Refrigeration um that was not shown. And so I would prefer if there was some way that the applicant could come with elevation drawings so that we can see how the signs would fit on the building. Um if you can I can Andy say something real quick, please. Good. and state your name, please. Yep. Andy Herdla, 330 Southport Drive, Columbia, Illinois. Thanks. Uh, couple things I just wanted to mention real quick. Uh, going back earlier in the conversation, typically um, like that existing historical sign. Those are usually considered as a historical element of the building. Just in my experience doing this for a long time and dealing with lots of buildings. Um, in regards to, you know, it seems like there's a little bit of a struggle with regard to figuring out exactly how to have tenants have those names on the front. Would it be helpful if we came up with a couple of solutions pretty quickly, visually, and presented them to you guys to show you what we think might look nice and something that you guys might be agreeable to. I love it when solutions are presented to us for to take a look at. Absolutely. because I think that there's Yeah. No, I I think there's a couple ways to do that and sometimes if a company like ours steps up and kind of lays that out in a couple of different ways that might be helpful. Any objections from the commission? Seems reasonable. Um I the concern normally this would be something where we would love to have it at a site plan subcommittee um which is the more informal meeting and it's held in between these meetings but given the summer vacation schedule we find it difficult to get anyone to show up at a site plan subcommittee meeting and we can't take any official action anyways

so this would likely or it would anyways be carried over to our August meeting. Is that something that you could have in place for the August meeting for hopefully quick action by the commission? Does that sound reasonable? Does that work for you? Sure. All right. It's not a problem. Any concerns from the city? No. I think we have a solution. So, we would then need a motion to carry this over and to table it. Uh, one more quick point. Sorry, I just wanted to um I did want to say too that what we're proposing for the primary wall sign is actually 50 square feet less than what was approved back in the day. Now, I understand that was several years ago. The south you're talking about the south facing. Yeah, the 2001 handling point, right? It's a step in the right direction. It looks It definitely looks much better. Looks a little better. Yeah. No, that's it. Thanks, guys. Appreciate it. Any other questions from the commission? Any member of the public wishing to address the commission on this application? If not, is there a motion? I think to motion to table. Yeah. Make a motion or to carry carryover. Yeah. Motion to continue to the August 13th meeting. Like to make a motion to continue to the August 13th meeting. There's a motion. Is there a second? Second. Second. All in favor signify by saying I. I. Opposed. Same sign. This will be continued to the August 13th, 2025 meeting. Thank you for your flexibility and consideration. Uh, next item business is the alder manic report. Seeing no alderman, director's report. Um, the deadline for the August 13 meeting is actually next week. So, I will let you know. Uh, we have not had an application yet, but I am working on a few text amendments. So, with this application coming before you, I will try to bring one of those forward. Sounds good. Any other items of business

other than let's get that air conditioner working. Yeah. Is there a motion to adjurnn? Got a motion. Is there a second? Second. All in favor say I. Opposed.