Planning and Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

Commission for the City of Brentwood for August 12, 2026. If you would please join me in the Pledge of Allegiance. Thank you, everyone. Mr. Moran, if you could please call the roll.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Hart Nelson. Here. Martha Fazza. Here. Paul Moran's here. Lisa Sherring.

Here.

Brian Nolan. Here. Carl Carlin. Here. Jack Shelton. Here. Jeff Moore. Here. Sherry Bilderbeck.

Here.

We have a quorum, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Moran. Next item of business is approval of the agenda. I believe we may have one item we wish to move. Is there a, I don't know if we need a motion for this even, but is there a motion to adjust the agenda? Ms. Bilderbach, what would you like to change?

I would like to move the text amendment to the end of the new business.

Any objections to moving the text amendment to the end of business? All right, to the end of new business. All right. Any other objection to approval of the amended agenda by acclamation? Seeing none, the agenda stands approved. The minutes for our July 8th meeting and our July 29th site plan subcommittee meeting have been distributed. Were there any amendments or changes needed for those? Seeing none, any objection to approval by acclamation? Seeing none, the minutes stand approved. Next item of business is citizens wishing to address the commission on items not on the agenda this evening. If you would like to address the commission, please step forward. If you could, state your name and your address. You need to please step forward to the podium here. Thank you. And again, we do limit time here to three minutes.

Brock, I live at 8736 White Avenue in the second ward, I believe. And I came here today just to speak really quickly about something that's really important to me. Is that okay if I do that?

We're up to three minutes. Yes, it is.

Well, thank you. So I want to talk about the walkability and the bikeability in Brentwood. Let me just cut to the chase. It's not great. And I really think that as a city, it's something that we have to prioritize more. Because as you can see, I'm a teenager. I don't drive yet. And I'm working on getting my permit. But, you know, if you're disabled, you can't afford a car, you're not old enough, or you just don't want to drive, you know, Brentwood's not going to be super friendly to you. You know, Brentwood Boulevard, the main street of our city, it has six lanes of traffic. It can get, you know, during rush hour especially, it can get insanely loud. And... Trying to walk along it feels kind of wrong and empty. It kind of feels like you're not even supposed to be there. And it feels more like a highway than a main street at some times. There are countless empty storefronts. There's not a whole lot of shade, which is desperately needed during a Midwestern summer. And the stores that are there are surrounded by rows upon rows of parking, which on foot just makes it insanely hard to get around. I also rely on the metro link to take me into the city and to the St. Louis Community College. But the area around the Brentwood station is just parking, parking, parking. And the pedestrian crossings on Eager Road are so wide that you could actually get hit. And none of this really matters to you if you're driving from I-64 to your home in Kirkwood. But if you actually live in Brentwood, it feels like if you don't have a car, you can't afford a car, the city punishes you for it. I don't want this to be taken as me complaining about the state of affairs in Brentwood. I love living in Brentwood, but I really think that this is something that we have to prioritize as a city. And I think that when we look into the future of the city of Brownwood, I want to see a city that works for everyone, not just if you can afford a car.

Thank you very much. We appreciate it. Any other citizens wishing to address the commission this evening? Please, sir. If you could, again, state your name and your address for the record.

Name's Anthony George, my address is 9137 Lawn Avenue. Just a quick comment request. There's a lot of graffiti on public property that I'm seeing, and if we could please address that, it'd be appreciated.

Thank you. Pass that along to the city planner for input for the board, please, and enforcement. Any other citizens? Ms. Bilderbach, you forgot to remind me.

Anyone online? Seeing we have a number of participants, it seems online.

Seeing none. We'll move on then to old business. Our first is case 26018 and 26019. This is the extra space storage boundary adjustment, the site development plan and the CUP, or excuse me, the conditional use permit at 8071 through 8075 Manchester Road. Is the applicant or their representative here this evening? There you go. If you could, again, please just state your name and your address for the record. And I know that we've had some conversation since then. You can just give us a brief update and then we'll go to the city, the staff report, please.

I'm Joel Oliver from Halo. Our address is 900 North Rock Hill Road. Bo Reinberg for DSS is on his way. He got held up in a meeting, so he will be here. No problem, Joel.

Appreciate it.

Hello, I'm Lenny Mears, Grimes Consulting Engineers. We are the civil engineers on the project. And as you know, we were here a few weeks back and went to a Board of Adjustment meeting and did not pass that. So we are back with our revised plan, also taking in some comments that the board gave us last time. But we are completely back out of the buffer. Major changes are moving the plan out of the buffer. We have added the ride in, ride out access on the eastern end of the project. And then also did a better job of combining that western driveway and widening it with the adjacent neighbor on the project. Other than that obviously with the pulling it back we had to make some parking changes and modifications to the dumpster location and Those items are all included

Appreciate it. Uh, for those who weren't able to make site plans subcommittee, we did have a good discussion. Um, and as noted again, the variance wasn't, uh, approved. And so that was a change to the setback, which adjusted the parking. Uh, we also discussed, um, the, and it might understand correctly that there is a cross access agreement now with the neighboring so that we will be eliminating one curb cut. If that is my understanding.

So it's not complete yet. That actually, as kind of the master developer of the district, wanted to address that. So I'll acknowledge Mr. Cherry from Manor Real Estate is here. They purchased the building at 8805 Manchester, which is the brick building adjacent just west of where Extra Space will be. We, along with DSS, ESS, it's like a tongue twister, and Manor have worked together on how this could be. We were very supportive of Manor purchasing that building as part of the overall district when they did that. The city was very fortunate that they were able to acquire that and make improvements with no incentives, which was great. The consequence of not getting any incentives was they didn't have a development agreement with the city to kind of codify that they were kind of part of the redevelopment district. So we've worked closely with them. I think they're okay with the new drawing showing how the agreement works. The issue has always been they want to be recognized as being part of the redevelopment district. So our proposal to do that, having talked to staff, is we do have a site plan that shows both of those buildings and the cross access he's meant. I think ESS's concern is one of the proposed conditions of approval tonight is signing the cross-access easement, which we're totally at Manor's discretion to do that. I mean, they privately own the property and they can't make them do that. So their request is just if we can take that site plan that shows both buildings, just kind of show that they are part of the redeveloped district, that's what they've asked for, just to show that. So that would be our only request would be the way that the approval's written tonight, if they just say, no, we won't sign the cross-section, then we can make them do that and a permit will never be issued. So if we can somehow incorporate that, showing both buildings like that, I think would alleviate that and then never be as agreeable to it.

Go to the staff report, Ms. Kelly.

So that is a revision that hasn't been reviewed. Any site plan that is reviewed at the Planning and Zoning Commission, we really needed to have an overall review, including review of their existing landscaping and filling in. So our staff would not recommend just incorporating their site plan into this as is without us having any chance of it. All we've asked is that they allow for the cross-access with the shared driveway that is partially on this applicant's parcel. And at any time they wish to submit for a site development plan for their existing building, that we could review that at that time. That has not been part of the discussion with this application.

they have indicated they will not do that. So they will not sign the cross-access easement without this being done. And so the way that the approval's written tonight, we're just asking for some flexibility in the language to go through the process that staff has suggested, that they can review the site plan, that it complies. So however that happens, there's currently just not a mechanism for this to move forward and succeed. They're very excited to break ground on this project, and as it is, they're not gonna do that.

I haven't reviewed the site plan. As a joint site plan, basically. As a joint site plan. OK.

Understood. I think there was some, and again, we can have this conversation. I do want to hear some of the other updates that have been made, but for those who were in site plan subcommittee, it was something that we preferred to have the cross-access agreement, but I don't believe it was something that we had come to a conclusion that having the other curb, the more western curb cut removed was a requirement. It was just reference, and it is also multiple curb cuts in close proximity on a busy road already, so there was some concern.

but we can talk through that as well this evening.

Ms. Kelly, anything else from staff on this? I know we had some conversations around landscaping still and a few other issues there.

I will do a screen share for the staff report. Talk through it. At the prior meeting, the discussion was this is 106 square foot. thousand 992 square foot extra space storage facility thousand 396 I think study has not had not been completed at and who is here tonight and can address that did indicate that 51 parking spaces more than adequate for both extra space storage So the site plan has been revised to include 51 parking spaces that did require shifting, removing some of the parking lot islands on the east side and the buffer between the adjacent property on the west is now eliminated. Frankie with Planning Design Studio completed his report this morning for your review comments. I will note that that did not make any changes to the amount of buffering along where the residents are.

All right, Mr. Franke, why don't we hear from you first, if you don't mind? And then Mr. Cannon.

Certainly. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, I'm Andy Franke with Plain Design Studio, one of the cities on call landscape architect. Has everybody got a chance? Did they look at the memo? I'll kind of just go through the highlights, if that's okay, unless you just want to... You have questions?

I think that would be helpful, Mr. Franke. I appreciate it.

Pardon me?

No. So, no, I think that going through the highlights would be helpful for the public.

So the way we've been doing these in the past is when we have comments from the previous review, we put kind of a response in bold. And we do it in several categories. So our first category is general site plan items. The first one was revised erosion and siltation notes because they reference some other municipalities. That still has not been done yet. We also noted that there were kind of long distances from the parking into the building. No changes to the site plan have been made to address that issue. A new photo metrics plan was submitted and it has addressed the comments so there's no spillover onto adjacent property. Turning movement sheet, revised turning movement sheet has not been submitted. They made some significant site plan adjustments and we have not seen a revised turning movement sheet. The issue there was it looked like there might have been a conflict with the dumpster enclosure that's moved so we just wanted to note that a revised turning sheet should be provided. We also requested, now we're kind of moving into landscape plan items, we requested incorporating some landscape plantings such as raised planters into that upper deck, and that was not included in the revised landscape plan. We also noted that along Manchester Road, or adjacent to Manchester Road, that there's not enough landscape islands per the ordinance, they're short, and that was not included in the revised plan.

Mr. Frank, are those landscape islands within the parking area?

Yeah, they're within the parking lot. We just want to see one or two and evenly spaced through there. Okay. We talked, I think, earlier, this issue has come up about the border or kind of the strip between the two parcels, the western parcel and this one. There's no five-foot landscape strip within that area currently, as the new alignment shows. We also... made some comments about the rear landscape yard. The petitioner has addressed those, what we feel is adequate. One thing to point out is that that material and all landscape material on this project should be irrigated. That's especially critical. So then we move into a little bit more unusual part of the report about the monument sign. And I won't go through all of these comments. The monument sign, it raised about a foot. No real significant changes in how you see it from our previous memo. There are a couple items to note. One is because of the new reconfigured site plan, there's virtually no room behind that sign for any landscape planting to serve as a backdrop. And to further kind of contributes to that, the landscape material in that new parking lot or that reconfigured parking lot, there isn't any. So it even, it kind of detracts from that. And if you remember, and I think on one of the last pages of this report, The original concept had a pretty significant amount of landscape behind it to serve as a buffer or a backdrop to that, so that's not provided in there. One other item to note in kind of figure 3.1, the size of the retaining wall or the wall that the sign would sit on has been reduced, and we feel that's a good thing because it's just not so visually overwhelming in that situation. Additionally, A lot of stuff here, sorry for the long memo. One of the last things that we do when we have a resubmittal is we have the final section, which are new comments that really haven't been addressed previously, and so there's several of those. The first one is that the revised parking lot on the east side does not have any, or does not have adequate landscape violence per the ordinance. The revised parking lot green space calculations on sheet L1 don't seem to match the parking totals that are shown, so that needs to be revised. We also wanted to see product cut sheet information on the proposed retaining wall on the north side. There's a couple small retaining walls. We just wanted to see what kind of material they were looking at there. We also wanted to just make a note to confirm that the dumpster enclosure will be as it was shown on the previous submittal for sheet A7.07. Two more points. A transformer needs to be screened per the city ordinance and there are a few landscape trees essentially within the 50 foot buffer. We think we're very sure if those remain in place, they need to be approved by both SEMA and DNR because they're within that buffer.

Thank you, Mr. Franke. Any questions for Mr. Franke at this time? A number of issues. I think in many cases what we'd like to hear from the applicant is their willingness to address those issues that have been raised by the landscape architect.

Bo Reinberg, 7018 Maryland Avenue.

Thanks, Mr. Reinberg.

Yeah, I didn't hear anything or see anything that, you know, a landscaped island somewhere. I mean, the monument sign, obviously part of our desire to go to the Board of Adjustments and move in a certain direction was to accommodate landscape backdrop and different things and landscape island. As that moves, which that was a three-to-one vote, it needed to be unanimous, there's only so much space that can occur. There's no way a landscaped island or a I just know that that won't get in the way of a good project. So we're completely amenable to working along those guidelines. And the other thing too, I think, from the traffic consultant, depending on where we shake out with this access, a big driver for some of the adjustments on the site plan are the right in, right out. I mean, that's us giving up a full access curb cut to our project on Manchester and moving it to a limited access curb cut. That's a substantial, that's substantial. That's not a small give from the standpoint of accessibility to the project and marketability of the project. We think it's It works out, and it works out well, I think, for us and for our neighbors who have done a great job improving their property. We think the right in, right out makes a lot of sense there. But we wanted to conform our parking right there so that we didn't have bottlenecks for folks that were trying to go to the rear of the building for storage with the limited retail parking on that side. Just to walk through some of our thought process and how we looked at the site plan.

Understood. Appreciate it. I think the monument sign, I will say, is a little bit of an unusual thing for us, since that is the city negotiating for this. And to be quite honest, I know that Alderman Lockmuller is in here, and I would say that it is probably more there. area than ours. And so in some ways, unless the commission is entirely opposed to that, I would punt on that. That's not ours to decide. It's the Board of Aldermen's to decide. We're a recommending body. So I would actually move that appropriately to the Board of Aldermen and leave the monument site aside and look at the rest of the site plan. It is a little unusual. Ms. Kelly.

Since not everyone was here to hear Lee's traffic and he's here tonight,

We would absolutely do it. Since we were talking about the monument sign. Mr. Cannon, if you wouldn't mind, please tell us what we've learned since our last meeting.

Good evening, Chairman, members of the Commission. For the record, my name's Lee Cannon, principal with CBB, offices at 12400 Olive in West St. Louis County. Just as a reminder, I am your traffic engineer. I work for you. So if you have any questions, feel free to ask and we can address that. We were asked to do two specific things for this site. They're somewhat separate but also related. I'll talk about the traffic issues first and the parking issues second. I believe you may have already had an opportunity to read the report that I wrote. The report I wrote was prior to the last iteration of the site plan. From a traffic perspective, this facility just won't generate much traffic. The biggest piece of the building is self-storage. and those facilities don't generate much need for parking and they don't generate many trips. The retail is relatively small component of this facility and it's the primary driver for parking and associated trips. So I have no concerns with traffic flows or congestion based on the original plan. But the recommendation was to share the existing driveway with the adjacent property to the west. THE PROPERTY LINE FOR THE EXISTING TRACK ALREADY LANDS SOMEWHAT WITHIN THAT DRIVEWAY, SO THAT DRIVEWAY LANDS ON BOTH THIS SUBJECT'S PROPERTY AND THE ADJACENT PROPERTY. WE RECOMMENDED A WIDENING TO ALLOW A LITTLE BIT BETTER TRAFFIC FLOW WITH THAT EXISTING WESTERN DRIVEWAY. and recommended shifting the existing curb cut and restricting it to write-in, write-out access only. It's my understanding that the applicant was willing to do that. They drew it on their new plan and made that submittal this week. And based on that new plan, which I shared with MoDOT, I got a response back just Monday that said MoDOT is fine with the access as approved. So second piece would be parking. And based on the city's code, you really don't have specifically self-storage of warehouse use. We offered to do some investigations. And what we found out was that self-storage and true warehousing, which you think of goods in large spaces, generate about the same number, which is a very low number of trips. And so the warehouse, the self-storage won't generate very many parking stalls occupied, maybe five up to 10 sometimes. So the recommendation for the minimum number of stalls is 46 to 51 in that range, whatever fits would be fine. And then applying the city's logic of we don't want too much parking, so we allow 20% without a variance over that, that number would be up to 61. So the parking will be satisfied on this site at 46. And if the developer wants to provide more parking for their own reasons, we would be fine with 61 stalls. Anywhere in that range should suffice. for the site. And I'd be happy to answer any questions about traffic, parking, or otherwise.

Mr. Cannon, I may have been slow on one thing. You said that MoDOT looked at this and was fine with the plan as a proof. Which are we talking about with the single entrance with cross-access or right out and then keeping the existing curve cut for access into the site?

The drawing that's on the screen now, which has been revised since site... SUBCOMMITTEE WHICH IS SHARING THE NEIGHBOR'S DRIVEWAY AS EXPANDED IN WIDTH. OKAY. AND CLOSING THE DRIVEWAY, THE FULL ACCESS DRIVEWAY WITHIN THE SITE FRONTAGE AND SHIFTING THAT ACCESS POINT AS A RESTRICTED RIGHT IN, RIGHT OUT. at the location shown or thereabouts. There's some wiggle room in that. We wanna make sure we're far enough away from the signal at Hanley and far enough away from the full access driveway. And there's a range of space where that fits nicely. So if they need to make a minor adjustment to something, that would likely work also.

Questions for Mr. Cannon from the Commission? Thank you, Mr. Cannon. Thank you, Mr. Franke, too. I'm not sure I said that. All right. We have a number of items, I believe, that they have expressed some concern about what I see in condition number six in the recommendation or in the conclusion and action from staff. So I simply want to note that for folks. That's on page 18 of our package. Any other comments from the Commission or is there a motion? Mr. Carlin.

Acknowledging that I don't understand exactly what we might be voting on tonight because there's some questions relative to the cross-access. Also acknowledging that a lot of work has been done both by the applicants and by the Commission in my absence because I was on vacation. So I'm not interested in making confusion or turning tables up or anything like that. I do have a few comments about the project because it's the first time I've had a chance to do so. I will not keep them to the purpose of today's meeting relative to the landscape concerns. I feel that a building of this stature and of this type, relatively, and this is maybe an opinion, but it's relatively austere. It's certainly modern. It's going to absolutely change the character of the entry to our city. That's one of the first things you'll see as you come into the city, from that direction anyway. So it's relatively important. Much of this has maybe already been said in previous meetings. That said, then the landscape component to me seems really important, because it becomes the only option we really have to soften the appearance of that building. And the renderings, which if it's needed to show them, it's fine, but they show some larger plantings on Manchester, they show essentially the renderer knows that they should try to hide the building, right? And so if we're actually not doing that, if that's not what's gonna be done in the planting, then I would have a concern because I think that would be the only way to really harmonize this with the neighborhood personally. I have a larger question which I'll just put out, again, acknowledging the work that's previously been done. We have a few projects now going on in the larger development pattern. We have the daycare, we have a further project later on in this review in the meeting, and then we have this project. And I at least for one, and I don't know if my colleague Matt Forman, the architect on the board and the rest of the commission feel the same as I do, but I feel at this point that I have lost the thread of what the larger development plan for this part of Brentwood is. I see some piecemeal projects coming together. I've had questions about all of them. And I have additional questions for the project coming up later. I don't know that they feel coherent. They feel to me like putting chess pieces on the board wherever one can. So I would like the commission to consider that this is a complete and total redefinition of our city. I understand we probably know that. And I don't know that we're approaching it coherently. So I would like Do you have a better sense, either from staff or from other commissioners or from applicants, of what that larger vision is? And so relative to this project, is it a public benefit? Do we need this project? Is it going to help the city? I don't believe so. I don't think we need it. I don't think it's adding to the character of the city. Understanding that a lot of work has been done, and I may be a solo voice in that regard, but I wanted to put that out there because we're on record. So thanks. Thank you, Mr. Carlin.

Other comments from commissioners? Ms. Bilderbeck.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My apologies. I'm a little bit short, and I moved my chair down. This is an area that we've worked on for a really long time in the city of Brentwood. And this particular location, we've gone through iteration upon iteration upon iteration of development projects, all of which that have fallen through. This entire Manchester Road corridor area is something that we've been working on as a municipality since the 90s. I think a couple things I want to say in the big picture and then I'll get a little bit more specific on on this project itself. So as far as the overall redevelopment plan that was approved by the city for the area, in the Manchester Road corridor. I had the privilege for 25 years of being a part of the Brentwood Redevelopment Commission. I resigned as its president last September because I have a lot of things going on. But in that entire process and what we put together and ultimately what the city put together as a plan, Working very much in depth through the master plan as well with the community with tons of community feedback the plan that was approved really in its character in its thoughtfulness as far as walkability which the young gentleman who I commend for I don't know if he's still here, but for actually coming to a meeting and to speak can be very intimidating. But a lot of that was given in mind to the walkability of the area, what the community was going to look like, accessibility, and the cohesiveness of the area. In this larger redevelopment project, we've had one of the same principals who's here tonight who's been involved with the design aspects. and understanding at all of the meetings that we've had and with all of the community members and all of those types of meetings, what it is that we've been looking for as a city, what's in the redevelopment plan, what's in the master plan. And I wasn't able to attend the site plan meeting. I've had some things going on with my parents. and i spent more time tonight looking at this uh tonight and then of course hearing the comments of the the landscape uh planner who we're so lucky to have i mean just does an outstanding job and same with mr cannon of cbb does an excellent job on the traffic and when he he says something you know that it's it's going to be reliable so when i look at this project i was really pleasantly not surprised Surprised is a strong word, but I was really pleased because I think that the way that the building looks, the, the colors, the materials, um, the area that it's located in as far as, you know, what it should look like. And you think about Brentwood kind of being bookended on Manchester road. We have the kitchen conservatory, which is very much a modern building on the other side. We have this one here. And when I look at this building and I look at the one later on the agenda, I actually feel like they are cohesive and that they blend well together. Obviously, there's a lot of work that's going to happen on the one later on the agenda anytime you get into these big redevelopment proposals. But this is a huge thing for Brentwood. I mean, we have been looking at this eyesore for decades. And we have tried and tried and tried as a city to get someone to come in there and put in something nice and actually stick to it and get it done. So we can sit there with broken down things and there's a pile of dirt over there, some other things like that. Or we can have what looks to be a really outstanding building. I haven't in the past, I actually was not supportive of a prior proposal that came in for storage in Brentwood because it didn't look good. It was at a different area of Brentwood. I think it was the bowling alley, the old bowling alley for those of you who've been around for a long time. But we didn't approve it and it didn't happen. But this is completely different. This doesn't even look like a storage facility. So I, for one, am just really pleased with it. I know that we've got the issue to deal with on the egress, and I know that the Board of Aldermen will do their best to figure that out. You know, we only have so much power as a planning commission. Like the chairman said, Mr. Chairman, as a recommending body, I would encourage us to move forward with this, and I would love to make a motion, but first, I know we have to ask for citizen comment, Mr. Chairman.

And we also have other comments from commissioners, potentially. So anyone else from the commission? Ms. Kelly.

I just wanted to point out, now that we've gotten Andy's report, the conditions for the staff report, if we do make a motion, we should include applicants should address the landscape. Guys, I left that out. That could be is condition seven is the applicant should submit a grading permit for the landscape improvement. Add a comment that a revised landscape plan should be addressed, should address.

Other comments from commissioners? Mr. Moran.

Yeah, I got a question for Whitney. Is the failure to comply with the recommendations and landscape report, do we think that's just a sign of not going to do it? Or they just didn't have time to change the plans? Because getting a verbal, sure, we'll take care of it, doesn't do much for me when people can't even put down what we've asked for in the plans. We always have a problem with compliance anyway. but herewith are even complying in the plans, let alone the implementation of the project.

So we received the revised drawings for tonight on August 5th, and therefore there wasn't time to complete an entire review and ask for revisions since the agenda is posted on the 7th.

We may be a little lagging here, but as long as it's in our requirements, we don't move forward with the permits until then.

And that's why I'm suggesting we need to include it as a condition of the approval. Yeah.

Okay. Thank you.

Mr. Nolan.

i just wanted to add i appreciate your comments on the project even if you think it's not perfect i think it's a really good use for the site i think they've done a good job of addressing our comments i will say the commission though i think on this cross-access easement i still think that needs to be a condition because they need to acquire you know get the modot approval so if you don't You know, if you have the mode out approval, you have to have this part, too. So if that's going to be a big issue, we can talk through that some more. But I think you have to get those. And if they need to come back for site plan approval for the other property, we can we can do that next month or whenever that's available.

I will actually look, Ms. Carr, for the, what are some recommendations for if we wanted to provide, I guess I will say staff, some guidance on making sure that it at least, I was thinking through that myself, of a best effort, knowing that as the developer and the applicant said is you cannot make another person that we do not have under us this evening, and in putting a site plan forward, we cannot make them do anything. But I think that we need to make sure at least there is an effort, understanding that MoDOT could also provide approval for the site plan without that. I mean, it can go back to MoDOT. What we asked for, they approved, but we could also ask for something, or Mr. Cannon could ask for something different, and they could approve that as well. Ms. Carr, do you have comments for that, please?

So what you could do is put a condition on there that they shall negotiate with the owner next door for a shared access, a shared driveway or something like that, that would be acceptable to the city attorney and city staff. And if they were able to work that out, it would not come back here. But if they were not able to work that out so that they would have to realign that driveway or do something else, then that would necessitate it coming back here.

Appreciate that. The other thing to think about, of course, is, and I think that this is what Ms. Kelly said, that they have not had an opportunity to review including both properties in the development. I don't know what the legalities and what the concerns are of that, and I'm not going to try to guess. So I will also say that may that be another option forward is if the owner of the adjacent property is indicated to be willing to sign if they were included in the development property, or excuse me, the development. Maybe that's what we need to do with staff's advice. So I think we have some options in front of us. So I appreciate that. Ms. Bilderbach, did you have your hand up? No? Okay. Yes, no?

To make a motion. Yeah, except for we need to do the rest of the public comment.

Give me a second. Any other questions from members of the commission?

I'm sorry. There were a couple of items listed in the staff report. The applicant has indicated waiving any, the site-proof fence at the property line where adjacent to residential given the retaining wall. The fence can be, they'll need a safety barrier fence for the retaining wall. So that is not shown on the drawings. And so that would be something you would, I just want to have you all discuss. Yeah. And then at the prior meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission, there was discussion about whether or not they would have

displays at the corners which equates to signage uh i didn't know if i believe we were clearly told no that it would be preferred by the petitioner by the applicant but that they understood that that was not what was going to be allowed with this okay so that could be part of the approval but i believe we got our answer on that one i appreciate that i would like it yes

Mr. Chairman, just a question to make sure I understand. So do we need to say in the conditions that it's not allowed, or by not allowing it, is it just not allowed? I mean, by not saying it. Do we need to state it explicitly that it's not allowed?

We believe it is signage, and it is not allowed because it is signage.

I believe that's the statement.

And I believe that that was stated in site plan subcommittee. But please, correct me if I'm wrong.

would prefer that any that may be under item 10 that all signs shall be consistent with chapter 410 including any upper floor displays unless otherwise approved as part of a comprehensive sign plan at a later date we can and then

And then what you said also about the placement of the sign-proof fence is there just has to be one on the property line or at the top of the retaining wall.

Currently, the code says that where adjacent to residential, you're to provide a site-proof fence. Correct. But given the landscaping and the height of the retaining wall, just providing... A fence at the property line, the applicant has indicated it's not feasible, if they want to address that.

So a natural screening would solve the problem, would actually be better than a site-proof fence. Correct. Agreed.

For maintenance as well. I think that was the question that was raised when we talked to site plan subcommittee, is the ability to maintain between two fences is limited, but to maintain between a screening and an existing fence is. Is that correct?

Yes, again, just what we discussed at the site plan committee is there's two retaining walls. The one retaining wall is right at the property and it's six foot tall above the other one pretty much, okay? All of the residences have a site-proof fence within their property a foot off the property line, off that wall. Well, besides the fact that I can't get to the property line to put a fence, if I put a six foot fence, it's gonna be right up against the concrete wall. but I could put a safety rail in that lower, like a safety fence, maybe an aluminum fence. And we did landscape in there based on our landscape architect's discussions with Andy. And we are proposing now most of that was invasive species. We're tearing all that out, putting plantings in there to soften that concrete wall too. But another point that our landscaper pointed out is all of those residents have mature trees and most of that screening you see up there is actually within their backyards. So they're gonna be screened just with their own vegetation.

Not a big fan of that in Brentwood.

We don't even like it at the farm.

Anything else, Ms. Bilderberg?

So we don't need to mention this guardrail thing, right? I didn't think so. I think I got it now.

All right. We've got a lot in front of us. Any other comments from commissioners or questions? Yes, please.

Mr. Moran. Yeah, Whitney, again, did we say that the Bretwood sign wall is in scope or out of scope for us to discuss?

I think it is at, I'll let the city answer first, but yeah.

That is a negotiation with the Board of Aldermen to include that since it was part of the Brentwood-bound park development to have entry elements. So changing that really should be addressed at the board level and not at the Planning and Zoning Commission, yeah.

Okay, and Mr. Franke, do you consult to the Board of Aldermen like you do for us?

Could you repeat that?

Yeah, do you get to have input to what is presented to the Board of Aldermen, like a landscape report like you do for us?

Yeah, we'll be meeting with the Board of Aldermen next Monday to give them an update of this and the sign so that they can evaluate it and decide, you know, provide their input into it because their original intention was for that original concept. That's what they want to put in. There's some other issues that they need to talk about. We need to present to them about that.

Okay, yeah, because I thought the points you made at the site plan subcommittee meeting were very good, and I hope that they're expressed to the Board of Aldermen.

They will be. Thank you. We'll be sending a presentation to Whitney about that.

Thank you very much, Mr. Franke.

Thank you, Mr. Moran. I don't mean to overstep. It's just for us, we are a recommending body, and we don't do negotiations for the Board of Aldermen.

So that was why I was passing that over to them, as I believe is appropriate. And I appreciate the city and the city attorney's input on that.

Anything else from the commission? Any members of the public wishing to address the commission on this application? anyone online. Is there a motion on the floor? Ms. Bilderbach.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to recommend approval of this proposal to the Board of Aldermen with the conditions that are included in the August 12, 2026 Planning and Zoning Commission report with the following revisions. relative to under conclusion and action on page 18 the landscaping will be deemed sufficient as currently indicated in the plan with any additional revisions by the landscape designer that we have as our consultant in lieu of the fence screening that the natural buffer will be an excellent screening in that situation also under number six where it discusses that the applicant shall secure across access and with the neighboring property, that will be revised to say the applicant shall negotiate with the neighboring property for a cross-access agreement. As outlined and that with the idea that that the driveway would be acceptable to the attorney and the city staff. And if this cross access agreement cannot be worked out in a way that is acceptable to the attorney, the city attorney in the city staff and then it that it will come back to the Planning and Zoning Commission and could be looked at with further site plan considerations. Also, that when we look at number 7. That in addition, the applicant shall submit a landscape plan that's revised that will be consistent with and including all of the items is outlined in the August 11th, 2026 memo by Planning Design Studio. In addition to the conditions that are listed on this document.

Signage. Signage.

Signage.

That all signs shall be consistent with Chapter 410 of the city's code of ordinance regarding signs and advertising devices, including displays on the upper floors.

And that it specifically amends item number 10, that the signage, that any upper floor displays will not be permitted because it is deemed signage under the code and under this ordinance. recommendation and condition.

There's a motion on the floor. Is there a second?

Clarify that number 10 is unless a comprehensive sign plan is reviewed.

And I so amend my motion to include that addition to item number 10.

We have a motion on the floor. Is there a second?

Second.

Seconded by Mr. Nolan. Roll call vote, please, Mr. Moran.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Sherry Bilderbeck.

Yes.

Martha Vazza.

Yes.

Carl Carlin. No. Jeff Moore.

Yes.

Paul Moran is no. Brian Nolan. Yes. Lisa Schering.

Yes.

Doug Shelton.

Yes.

It's carried with the majority.

Thank you, Mr. Moran. This will be recommended then to the Board of Aldermen on their next meeting, which is? I should know this.

September. It'll be the September meeting. September 7th, I believe, or 8th, because of the holiday. Okay.

September 8th. Thank you very much for the work that's done on this, and we appreciate it. Thank you. Next item of business is 602. This is old business, case 26020, titanium fitness, conditional use permit at 854 to 856 Hanley Industrial Court. It's the applicant or their representative present. I think you're wearing the right attire. I see that. Please, if you could state your name and your address for the record. Tell us a little bit about what you're trying to do with your project.

Uh, Charles Beckham. I'm the owner of a titanium fitness and we've been in business for 12 years now. Um, eight, five, four, eight, five, six handling industrial road or court is the address.

So tell us what you're planning to do.

Yes. Um, and just to be transparent, I actually, the work's already done. Um, so I took down just a few walls and, uh, I was paying rent for empty space. So we expanded the gym, and we were really crowded on one side. But, yeah, that's what we did, and I'm just following the protocol and grateful to be here. All right.

We'll turn it over to Ms. Kelly.

Staff report, please. I would like to introduce Samuel.

Excellent. Sam?

I'm saying his name wrong. He's our new city planner, and he assisted in drafting this staff report, so I will let him take it.

All right. Welcome, Sam.

Thank you. Thank you, Chairman and Commissioners. As the applicant has indicated, they are seeking a conditional use permit. The property is owned, planned development overlay district, where there are some preexisting nonconformities on the site. but under the planned development overlay zone district includes enclosed or open recreational uses such as health clubs and fitness facilities as a conditional use. The property consists of two separate buildings that are approximately 16,300 square feet each that was developed in 1965. There are several other uses on the site such as other fitness facilities. Titanium Fitness currently operates in the tenant space addressed 854 Hanley Industrial Court, with a total of 2,500 square feet. The applicant is proposing to expand into an adjacent tenant space, 856 Hanley Industrial Court. That square footage is 2,400 square feet. In total, the expansion will consist of, in total the tenant space will consist of 4,900 square feet between the two tenant spaces. The site requires a total of 60 parking spaces with all tenants. And on the total site, there are 87 to 96 parking spaces. So staff does not find any concerns with that.

Any questions for members of the commission? Mr. Beckham, obviously, we appreciate your transparency. We'd prefer that in the future, if you make any changes like that, come see us first. We like to have business in Brentwood. I will. Is there a motion on the floor? We need public comment, my apologies. Is there anyone wishing to address the commission on this application? Anyone online? Thank you, Ms. Bilderbach. Now, is there a motion on the floor? Mr. Raffazza.

I move to recommend the approval of the conditional use permit and site development plans for titanium fitness at 854 and 856 Hanley Industrial Court, subject to the conditions discussed.

We have a motion. Is there a second? Second. Second by Mr. Moran. Roll call vote, please.

Jerry Bilderbeck. Yes.

Martha Fazza. Yes.

Carl Carlin. Yes. Jeff Moore. Yes. Paul Moran. Yes. Brian Nolan.

Yes. Lisa Schering. Yes.

Jack Shelton. Yes. That's unanimous, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Moran. Appreciate it. Thank you very much. This, again, will go for a recommendation to... Actually, do we need to go to roll a vote for the Board of Aldermen on the 7th? 8th? 8th of September. We'll get there. But thank you very much. Appreciate it.

Thank you for your time.

Next item of business. We switched this around a little bit, so we will be looking at 702. This is PNZ 26022. This is for a mixed use, multifamily development, site development plan, and CUP, conditional use permit, at 8300 to 8330 Manchester Road. It's the applicant or their representative here this evening. Please step up again and tell us what we're looking at here.

I'm still Joel. My partners in this project are Mark Rubin and Jason Braidwood are here, and Tom Young will also be speaking, so 900 North Rock Hill is still our address. All right. Do you want us to do our presentation first or do your report first?

No, you do yours, and then we'll go to hers.

Give us a minute while I get them hooked up.

We will take a short recess. Yes, we will take a slightly longer recess. You don't need to run, Ms. Bilderbeck.

Thank you.

Yeah.

Oh, it's preparing. Yeah. That's something. Oh, there.

All right. Next slide.

All right, we will resume, so please.

Thank you all very much. Super excited to be presenting this to you. As I said, Halo's partners in this project, Mark Rubin, Jason Braidwood, and then Tom Young is our architect at Halo. He'll also be doing part of this presentation. This has been obviously a long time in the making being here, so we appreciate it. I'm gonna go through some of this pretty quick. I'll pause if you want, just tell me to pause. I'm gonna recap a couple of things just because the previous conversation, I think it's really important to do that. Where have we gone, where are we? So this is the redevelopment corridor. The site we're talking about tonight is what we call the public work zone, because 3 4ths of this site is where the current city public works facility is. For reference, this is the approved master plan that is attached to the redevelopment agreement that we originally did, so just as reference, we'll point this out a couple of times as we go through this. Just as reference, we know things have changed over time. Just a little bit of context of what in the world have we been doing over the last several years. I think as everybody knows, the lawsuit between the Institute for Justice and the city that's been going on has really hampered a lot of efforts over time and left us in a position of what are we able to execute on while something that we're not party to is litigated through. So really the biggest key is the extra space piece to the overall development. We started the conversation, was then life fitness almost four years ago. So it's taken that long to really unlock what a lot of people would argue is the most key piece of this whole development adjacent to what the city did at the park. So as you can see, moving them up there is very important. We have tried to get other properties under contract while the lawsuit's gone, and it was just with no success. Because people know while it's going on, there's uncertainty. It's been very hard. So we assessed, what can we do? And it works out that with the city's public worksites and the other facility that the city had acquired, and then the other corner being for sale, gave us the opportunity to do that. So if you look at what these four projects are that have gone on so far, really represents 23% of the total redevelopment area, which is kind of amazing, giving the headwinds, not only with the lawsuit, but the economy. So as I mentioned earlier, Manor's redevelopment of the red brick building with extra space going there, with KinderCare and with this project, that's a massive success that the city should be really proud of. So we're happy to be doing that. So this is a site, just for context, the yellow is what the city currently owns as a public works site, and then the not yellow square is a privately owned site that we do have under contract to complete putting the whole site together. In the original Astro Plan, in this quarter specifically, it's the same confines of what you see here, had these five buildings. The two orange buildings were single story kind of commercial buildings with this not ideal surface parking lot right up against Manchester Road. Then the three yellow buildings against the park were going to be condo buildings that had first floor parking. So no activation along the center street, which is very critical to what the vision that we're trying to achieve. So we believe that the plan we're showing you tonight is consistent with that vision because it is housing and it's commercial. Densities are different, but the uses are similar and we believe we have a better condition with that parking on Manchester.

I'm turning it over to you.

Okay, so this is the proposed plan tonight at a very high level just for context to show you. We have a four-story residential building along Manchester with a strip of parking that's much reduced, a five-story building along the park to really maximize the views of the park. The orange is the commercial space, which is 4,000 square feet. We've aligned our kind of amenities, the pool, and this access to the park we talked about all along the western spine of the site. And we'll discuss why it's on the west. There is some logic to that. This just shows you over the existing condition what this plan looks like. We believe very deeply that the center street running east-west is critical. It was part of what we proposed when we originally did this years ago. to create this kind of downtown Brentwood feeling that doesn't really exist anywhere, to really address some of the comments, like have something that is walkable, that is bikeable, that feels good, that ties to the park, that you can take the Greenway up to the Metrolink station in Maplewood. So our site, we can only do what we can do on the site that we can control, but we have thoughtfully designed it to be able to do the future roundabouts that are shown on this plan. You see the two roundabouts on either side? Our plan allows for those to be added as the east and the west pieces develop once we're able to do this. We are maintaining the connector to the park. The original plan, years and years ago, had two connectors to the park. We've evaluated this very heavily as we've looked at the topography. We have to raise the site considerably to get out of the floodplain. So how the topography works, where there's retaining walls, FEMA, as the city knows, is very sensitive to altering anything in the floodway of the park. So our good partners at Grimes, we feel good that this connector we can do. So we're showing the one connector, as you see here. I'm now going to turn it over to Tom, because he is better at talking about the design piece. Do you have any questions? Go back to any of that, or good?

No, no questions.

So again, Tom Young, the architectural designer here with Halo. So big picture, I'm just going to talk about the buildings. Joel was talking about big picture site planning and where we were with the master plan and where we are now. So as Joel mentioned, we thought the center tree line pedestrian connector street was critical. So that's why we ended up with two buildings to split that. So what we're showing is some commercial properties up in the upper left-hand corner, the two orange icons, as you can see. On the lower southern building, the lower left-hand corner, you can see our yellow, that's kind of our active amenity program. So from the facade, we'll look like kind of commercial space as well. We have our pool and exterior amenity off to that left side. And the idea being that park connector also ties into all that. So if you're coming from the homes to the north, you work your way into our development, you can stop, get a cup of coffee or whatever that eventual commercial use is, a small restaurant, and then work your way down into the greenway system. So I talked about the pedestrian path, temporary road. So another important thing to know is the gray road on the left side, Joel talked about the future roundabout over on the right hand. Right now, we're using that existing drive that exists because we don't have access to the properties of the west or the east. So that is a temporary drive for now. We will put in the future roundabout in the future and future access as it's illustrated in the master plan. But big picture, what was critical about this site strategy was that center street connector Retail where we could in portions of the building, but really all these these units that are aligned on that center street connector would have front porches places for them to put furniture out and landscaping to kind of create these these like row house feel as you work your way from what will be a future commercial district to the east and also the west as you work your way to the park. These are the upper story plans. So it's approximately 185-ish units. We're still working with that mix, but a mix of two bedrooms and one bedroom units. Four stories on the north side, five stories on the south side, as Joel said, to take advantage of the views and also free up some space for that ground floor exterior amenity. These are just some kind of cartoonish bird's eye views. So this is a bird's eye view from the northwest. You can see the temporary road that currently exists. It's that alley that'll be repaved. but it allows our neighbors to the west on the park side to actually access still where they need to, but also get us into our development for the residents and for the commercial uses. This is a bird's eye view from the southwest. So as Joel mentioned, there was a couple of pedestrian connectors previously illustrated back before we had any topographical information, back when that FEMA floodway edge was really defined. So that was just kind of a graphical representation of, hey, we're gonna bring pedestrians from the north side of Manchester down into the park. Now that we have all the information, there's quite a bit of topography to make up and make ADA accessible paths down in the park. So you have to see, and we're not allowed to modify that topography. So we can't do a lot of switchbacks or retaining walls or systems. So we worked with our civil team to do this path that works with the topography at an ADA level to get down into the park. And again, you can see our exterior amenity and that idea of that. That pathway continues all the way up to Manchester. This is a conceptual look from the northeast. So everything you see outlined in orange, the two buildings, are what we're proposing. Everything outlined in yellow is that future roundabout connector and access to Manchester. And then the park is up in the upper left-hand corner, a representation of the park. And then what is approved in the master plan are multiple multi-family buildings, potentially a hotel. And then an entertainment use up in the upper left-hand corner adjacent to the park. And then some small parking structure to help to facilitate parking for the district. So again, at a conceptual level, flipping back, looking for the park. This is a view as you enter our site from that northwestern corner. So if I flip back, I don't know if my arrow will work on here. So entering from here down in the lower right hand of this image, this is what you get to see is some outdoor dining space tied to some commercial use. You can see in the backdrop where there's some people and you can see our second, the building in the background kind of steps up to two-story of commercial glass. That's like our retail frontage for the main entry to the building, but that's also the exterior. We envision this is like the corridor to pass through to work your way down into the park. That's just another bird's eye view, again, as we move further back and position up to see that pool. And then back that center street, we have some images of what that'll look like as well. So this is that central street concept. When we were meeting with the board of Alderman, we did talk about this idea of street line retail. The reality is it doesn't work. So we've maximized where we could and where we think is the most attractive for potential retailers. But then the idea of creating these like row house experiences, you're working through an urban residential frontage to get, again, over to the east, which is a future larger scale development, which will have more commercial users. These are just technical elevations that are part of this middle, you know, not as easy to read for people that don't do this type of work. But you can see the top image on the east side. We're coming down about nine or ten feet from Manchester in the northeast corner. So the building's finished floor is relatively the same, maybe a little bit taller on the north side. But in the top image, the building to the left, you can see there is an initial story on top of it. And then these are just overall elevations that are giving square footages of masonry. We're showing masonry. We just kind of represented that tannish brown. We're showing a metal facade, a faux wood facade to warm up certain sections, and then a hardy board panelized system, which is that lighter gray up on the top half of that upper building. So that's like a larger panel that has these aluminum strip systems that connect it all and clean up the edges. Yeah, if you wanna trade off here.

Okay, so since we've made the actual submittal to the city, we've had some dialogue with staff and some feedback and things. So there's a couple of things that have been added that are very additive. So we wanted to share that tonight because I think it informs the conversation for modifications for the next one. So the one concept was, it's nice that you're doing the sidewalk, but it would be nice if it had a little more amenity for the public. And that also fed into the conversation of, There's a trade-off when you invite the public onto a private property like this, right? So having the one point of access into the park kind of makes it clear. You can have very clear signage for people from the public. If the neighborhood's the north, you go through the tunnel, you come across, or you go across the crosswalks, you know exactly where to go. So we've added this kind of rest area that you, See in the bottom left corner here, so there'll be a shade structure, seating. Ideally, we would like for Civil to add a water fountain kind of function to really serve two purposes. If you're going to the park, you can rest, but if you're also just somebody in the park and it's like it was today and it's just blasted hot, there would be signage in the park to direct you that this would be somewhere where you could go and have a little bit of relief. So it kind of cuts both ways. We did work with our civil team of, man, wouldn't it be more practical to put that in the park? So if you're in the park, you do that. And I think the concern was with FEMA, you just don't know. They want the least disturbance as possible in the floodway. So placing this on our property, the way we've done it, puts the onus on us to maintain it, to ensure it, to make sure it looks great over time. So we did add that element, which we were very happy about. The other really good feedback that we got was on the curb cuts on Manchester. There's two. Tom did a very good job explaining the one to the west. That is currently how the properties to the west access their buildings. So if you eliminated the current western curb cut, you would be eliminating those people's ability access or property, it's not great. So the eastern though and the submittal set is not perfectly aligned across Manchester. So Grimes did a very good job modifying this in time. So what we've done is on the right is what you have in your packet, what you all have seen and has that strip of parking there, but as you can see across the street is not perfectly lined up. So that required them to shift this curb cut 10 feet to the east So in the revised civil set that we will submit to the city, the center lines are now aligned. If you recall in the original master plan, this is the only location along Manchester that is envisioned to have a future new signal. So we think doing that intersection correctly now is very important. So we relocated the parking in this area, we relocated some of the subsurface structures, and that is our intention is to do that so the streets align now. I believe those are the two things that changed from what you all saw.

We'll go to staff report, please, Ms. Kelly.

Yes.

Did I just click out of this to get out of that? Okay.

OK, so as the applicant has indicated, they are seeking approval for two structures for apartment complex, mixed use, multifamily development at 8300 through 8330 Manchester Road that incorporates the city's current public works garage. So I won't. go through everything. Their overall structure is four stories on the north portion of the lot and five stories on the south portion. As the applicant has indicated, they've made some revisions that have not been submitted at this time. Current review as part of the Comprehensive Assign Plan, this is part of the central opportunity area and part of the 2019 supplemental Manchester corridor that is roughly within this area of the appendix of the Manchester corridor that did foresee some form of multifamily development in this area. The original concept is part of the RFP that was submitted in 2022. Yeah, 2022 also included multifamily. But as the applicant has indicated, as properties become available, it's how those features are being presented. First feature on the south side of Manchester. The use limitations when you're over four acres is unlimited, so it is per your review. It's on approximately four acres, or over four acres, so that is unlimited, and the maximum site coverage is 80%. They have not provided a site coverage calculation at this time, so that's one thing that we've asked. In addition, in a large review, as you can see here, in future phases... You're not projecting anymore.

All right.

Hello. Here, the idea is that the central corridor would serve as the access... to all of the adjacent properties and that would come on as those properties redevelop. This area on the east would be the major north-south access to Manchester Road with future lighted signal intersection on Manchester. Therefore, the drive aisle on the east would need to be reviewed to be more of an access road versus parking lot as currently designed. And we have not done a landscape or parking or traffic analysis on this property as the applicants have not signed the agreement to proceed with that. So we would ultimately recommend continuing this discussion until those can be completed. In the MC district, there were a number of details that were provided, as you can see in the site plan. The outdoor seating where adjacent, that could be a future retail. There's no buffering between the parking and the outdoor plaza space that they are proposing. So we've recommended that additional buffering landscaping area should be provided here. The access to the Great River Greenway in the original Manchester corridor, they proposed two accesses in the same area, as you can see. down here. And so staff is recommending that the east side should also have an access down to the park for those visitors and residents that are on the east side of the building that may not want to go through the entire, go west to just right down to the park. However, both would have to be ADA compliant. And so that could be a concern with the grade changes. But we have asked that they look into, we are asking that they look into that. Also, our new city planner who worked at a prior city out in Colorado, they had a proposed requirement. They had a requirement for multi-unit dwellings that short-term and long-term parking spaces be provided and well-designed. The short-term could be outside, and there's an incorrect number. It's two spaces plus 0.05 parking spaces for bikes per bedroom of a multifamily development. And then you would have long-term indoor storage at the same rate at 0.05 per bedroom. Since that is a recommendation, A recommendation from the Manchester corridor to encourage and promote biking to and from the MC district. Bike racks shall be provided at appropriate locations at any building. And therefore, we are asking that they provide such short-term and long-term storage for the multifamily development. And that is something that we can look at as possibly a future text amendment if we wish to do so. So here's an example that SAM has provided from Grand Junction, Colorado, of their endorsed long-term parking storage. So if family visits want to bring a bike and ride in through the park, they can provide storage as provided. They have not provided any signage at this time, but that could be done as part of a conference's sign plan at a later date. The Manchester corridor does also talk about the need for public art that is appropriate for the scale. And while that is a goal, that may be premature at this stage as future development occurs. That could be addressed at a later stage, but that is something that we would expect from the applicants to take into consideration for any future development as well. Sorry. There should be separated cross-access for pedestrians across parking lots. And so therefore, the conference, the MC district asked for different raised materials for pedestrian access to kind of visually highlight those changes that pedestrians are in that area. So we are asking for that as well, are making that suggestion further. The stormwater hasn't been fully reviewed. That's usually reviewed as part of the building permit, but we will have our stormwater engineer, since this is a big project, review that and come back to you with his initial findings. However, they are showing that the stormwater will discharge into the creek. That would require the Board of Aldermen approval to do so and an easement. So that may be further discussion with the board and the Planning and Zoning Commission. There was no location of screening. There was no mechanical equipment shown at this time, but that is to be appropriately screened. And they are providing for parking, but our traffic engineer has not been able to start that parking review at this time.

Ms. Kelly, what percentage of those are surface versus below grade?

They're all surface parking. 260? Yeah, they are not proposing any garage parking. They are proposing some of the structures along that would have like canopy structures to provide some shading for some parking, but currently it is all surface parking.

Up to 260, okay.

So at this time, you know, We would recommend continuation so that the applicants can engage with the landscape architect and the traffic engineer to do their findings. The traffic engineer has indicated that would take approximately four weeks. Therefore, we are recommending continuation. However, if you'd like to review more detail on the architectural design of the buildings, we can continue it to the site plan subcommittee on the August 27th or just continue it all to the September 29th.

It might, but I guess, so I think that'll be up to the commission. So thank you, Ms. Kelly. What I'm hearing is we're still early days since we don't have a lot of the reports that we generally take a look at. And so obviously can't consider site plan subcommittee. My concern is, do we have enough to even go to site plan subcommittee or is it best to continue this for another month and let work be done? So, Let's open it up first for questions from the commission, again, recognizing that we still need some information here, and then we'll open it up. I recognize we have more folks than we often do at these meetings, so we'll open it up for questions from the public as well. Ms. Bilderbeck.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I love these buildings. I love these buildings. I mean, all of the comments that we received throughout that giant process, like of all the different levels and layers and what had been put together before, it really – like to me like it it really it does all of those things I love the balconies because I love to have balconies for people we really need this kind of building and units here you know we have folks in Brentwood who were aging who also maybe want to move into something where they don't have the responsibility for external care able to go into a community like this and that's that's walkable that's right next to the park I mean it really fits with with what we've been talking about all this time like I'm excited about it I know there's a long way to go and there's gonna be a lot of traffic things and landscape things and all of that but just as a broad thing I would love to talk about the architectural and everything that we can at a site plan subcommittee and I will be there if we decide to send it there And you had me at Hardy Board. Like, you had me at Hello. You had me at Hardy Board. Hardy Board is so nice. I love the building materials. Outstanding. I also love that you helped create and maybe at the idea of that placemaking. But that idea of that placemaking with creating that shaded spot at the corner, I think that's a great balance to avoid the issues with the park and FEMA and keeping that clear while at the same time providing that, it's almost like a transition between the public space of the drive that goes to the park and the actual development itself. I think that the way you described it, like a perfect balance between wanting to demarcate You know, this is kind of private, this is public, but this is where we can all come together. I love how it's walkable. I mean, the young gentleman who said earlier, I wanted to tell him that, oh, just wait till we get to this project, because this is all about what we've been trying to do and what the community had said they wanted. because the speaker wasn't alone. I mean, because that's part of what the city's been trying to do. So I think that that's fantastic. Yeah, and I'm sure I'll have more comments, but I'm excited to dive into this. I can't wait to work with the traffic engineer and the design company and delve into it with all of you guys. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Bilderbach. Other comments? Mr. Favaza.

THIS IS FOR WHITNEY. HAS THE CITY FOUND ANOTHER LOCATION FOR PUBLIC WORKS AT THIS TIME?

YES.

OKAY.

WE'RE WORKING ON THAT, YES.

THEY JUST BOUGHT A PROPERTY NEXT TO YOUR HOUSE.

EXACTLY. OTHER COMMENTS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS OR QUESTIONS?

I'VE GOT SOME QUESTIONS I THINK FOR MR. OLIVER. AT LEAST I'LL START WITH YOU AND IF YOU CAN DEFER TO YOUR What kind of demographics?

Leasing and property management, thousands of units in St. Louis. So from an operational standpoint, they are the experts. I tell people a lot of times, I've built a lot of apartments, I've never leased an apartment. So having expertise there is really important. We're envisioning really kind of what we see in most of St. Louis, and we call it bookends, really. It's young professionals that can't afford to buy a house that want to be in a community, or it's the empty-nester kind of folks who don't necessarily want a yard or they have another property or something. So that's really a lot of what we see. So that's what we would anticipate. I don't have the rental rates Off the top of my head, do you?

Sorry, yeah, we're recording. Mark Rubin, 222 South Central. As it relates to rental rates, we're going to have ones in two bedrooms. We have a lot of market data here. Jason and I are involved in, historically, over the last 15 years, about 2,000 units here, so we We know the space very, very well. We understand the local landscape in addition to it. Price points will range really between about $1,700 up to about $2,800 or so. So it's a broad range. But we really do want to make sure we've got approachable, affordable units. We're not looking to elevate this above and beyond. That's really kind of the missing middle, so to speak. So we want to make sure we can accommodate really that demand center and those in need.

Thank you, stay there please. Sorry, who's gonna own the building? To whom is the rent gonna be paid?

So yeah, we collectively will own the project. We're the developers and owners of the building. Okay, that's interesting.

Is there any kind of tax abatements or concessions being made for this?

We don't have a finalized agreement with the city, so I don't know how to answer that question. say that again please we don't have a finalized development agreement with the city we're working through that process also as it goes um it'll be something similar to what is contemplated in the structure of the master development agreement though is what i would envision okay and despite miss bilderbeck's excitement about the balconies i read that the juliet balconies and can you describe for us what a juliet balcony is please Oh, absolutely. So we have two different kinds of balconies we do. The ones that you see that stand proud of the building or that you could open the door and you could walk out and you have a table of chairs kind of thing. A Juliet balcony is generally a slider door that's a flat kind of railing across it. So there's nothing to step out onto because some people don't want that outdoor space because it's a little bit more expensive. But opening that gives you the ability to have more fresh air come in. It's a bigger void if you have small children or pets or something like that.

All right, thank you very much.

Other questions? Just some comments. And again, I suspect there's gonna be more discussion, so I don't know that every single micro-architectural discussion has to occur right now. I appreciate the sensitivity that you're bringing to the design, I thank you for that. I agree, it has the potential to elevate some of the discussions, different from my comments previously, so I agree with that. I have a couple of thoughts, and these are not for now thoughts, these are for going forward and thinking about them thoughts as you guys bring new things to present to us. One would be, I'll go to the big one, and I understand the challenges intimately, so I'm not saying magic can occur, but the parking all on the ground and not tucked into the building, which I understand has complications and ramifications, it's making the central corridor like really not that welcoming, right? So if I'm looking at the sort of main floor plan, it's a lot of diagonal parking, you know, kind of in that center corridor. And I personally would, given that the Manchester corridor, you know, it's high speed travel and no one really sees that as a welcoming corridor to walk along to the gentleman's point, to bring that energy inside that main center corridor, which seemed to be the goal. And at the moment, with the parking challenges you have, I'm not sure you've fully achieved it. So if there was something to be done to make that more pedestrian friendly, like you showed an image of the apartments at grade level facing out to the street, facing out to a continuous line of diagonal parked cars is maybe not the way I'd maybe like to see that. Given the challenges you face, I understand. that would be something to focus on. That ties into the bikes. I know at one point in the master plan discussion, I appreciate, by the way, I should start over. I really appreciate the master plan update. That was very helpful. It both confirmed and also reassured me in terms of the sort of piece by piece strategy, because there's a very good reason for it. You're doing what you can at the time you can, so I appreciate that explanation. That said, now we're taking a piece of higher density residential, which used to be over somewhere else, and now we're pulling it over here. So I would expect a corresponding change then to the rest of the master plan to not keep doing high density residential when we've now moved to this location, right? So does that make sense?

IT DOES LIMIT THE AMOUNT OF DENSITY FOR THE ENTIRE DISTRICT.

TO HAVE THAT OUT THERE, TO MR. MORAN'S POINT, IT'S GOING TO CHANGE A LOT OF THINGS ABOUT OUR CITY IDEALLY FOR THE BETTER. I LOVE THAT YOU STACKED THE TALLER BUILDING BEHIND MANCHESTER. I think that would be sensitive so that's all good material wise I'm in favor we had a project come through a couple months ago or last month for MAJ not the same scale of project but a large scale project for a small lot and there's lots of concern about that one of the things that we did with them as a commission was we asked them to sort of break up the massing a little right so it was very similar like you know one level line building for nine units you know different And again, this is a much more modern proposal. I understand all that. Somehow, maybe, looking at the front elevations, if there was a way to break that up a little bit more. You mentioned row houses. It does not feel like row houses, right? It feels like something else. So within the bounds of what's possible material-wise and otherwise, if we could somehow... Leave it to the designers. That would be helpful. And then the bikes, really important. I think the idea for this mass, not mass, but larger density residential was that we have a train station. We have two of them. We have one especially on Manchester. So that central corridor to me is an excellent opportunity for people to connect either through bike lanes, as mentioned, or through walking to get to public transit. So there again with the cars, I'd like that to be a focus, not an afterthought.

And we agree completely. So, I mean, precedent-wise, between the three of us, we've developed thousands of apartments in St. Louis, and I think everyone who has it. It's so important. But we kind of tweak it every time, try to make it a little better, ask tenants, like, what's good? What doesn't work well? And I think that's been very iterative, and it's super important. You were spot on.

And it's closer to the train now, so that's good, right? The image you're showing, I love, like, the idea that there'd be a public amenity, like a node. People hit the node. That's great. I could live without the second access, frankly, because I get the challenge, and one probably would work, but I would like to. Okay, my time is running out. And that's about it, I guess. So those are the things I was thinking. Most importantly, maintaining the quality of that central aisle, because I think that's where the, it sounds cheesy, where the magic of this might happen, not happening quite yet. Thank you. Mr. Nolan.

yeah i'll be brief i just wanted to echo what what carl had to say because um in looking at the the project first of all i really appreciate you talking about the central corridor and the plan and and how that fits together but i think there's a lot of surface parking here and and i think that has to be addressed um when you do the roundabout to the east you're also going to lose all that parking so that even reduces the number of of spaces so i just would encourage you to maybe look at another way to to try to make that work and to try to make that corridor more of a walkable street and not a drive-through.

Yeah, one thing we didn't point out, there's a lot of information. Once we started the design process, something we discovered, so it's on, it would be on, it's the east side of the site, kind of where the yellow note is. We weren't aware at the time that the city had actually granted a cross access easement to the industrial building to the east. So originally there was more parking there that once we learned that that easement was there, that bump out had to happen. So naturally as you develop going east and are able to then pick back up that cross access easement, it frees up more than enough parking to relocate that roundabout. Does that make sense? Yeah, so. Does that make sense? So yeah, absolutely. It's a great question. And I'm sorry, I didn't point that out earlier. So, yeah.

Other questions from the commission? Ms. Builder back. I'm sorry. Please, Mr. Sheldon.

Sorry, can I ask you real quickly? Can you just confirm for me, that is where you're intending that future potential signalized entrance to be?

Yeah.

Can you go to the north of that? Yeah. Correct. Yep.

So it's hard to see if you're not looking for it in the master. So you can see the signal right there in the corner there. So that was, yeah, from the, if you go back to the original agreement, the original concept, that was the one spot when we'd worked with the city years ago that we believed MoDOT would be okay. With the realignment, the way we moved that curb cut over 10 feet, that now aligns and will allow for that signal to happen. Also being sensitive to people that are going to the school north there, like having a safe way to cross in the future is very important.

Okay, thank you. Ms. Bilderbeck.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, one of the things I wanted to mention, cause it came up earlier and I know you said it, but I hadn't fully clicked on it until Mr. Moran asked you and you answered the question again. But as far as the owner developer that you guys are developing it and going to continue to own it, that's like the best of all worlds, uh, in the experience that we've had when we first did like the promenade, that was one of the things that we wanted to happen. and that we looked at with some of the developers, because what it did was it gave us more control over the situation. It made sure that the promises were followed through on, and the people who spent all of the time, blood, sweat, and tears in the development process on the development side, then were the ones that carried through the vision that everybody agreed to as an owner going forward. So actually, that's something that to me always is an extra feather in the cap as far as something that I personally look for based on our experiences in the past. And I'm really pleased to see you guys making that kind of investment and sticking with it and your commitment to Brentwood.

Yeah, I appreciate that work. THRILLED TO FINALLY BE A SPY WHERE WE CAN DO THAT. WE LOVE THE ROLE THAT WE PLAYED FOR KINDERCARE AND EXTRASPACE, BUT THESE ARE BIG COMPANIES, RIGHT? AND THEY HAVE THEIR STRUCTURES OF HOW OWNERSHIP WORKS. SO WE'RE VERY HAPPY TO BE ABLE TO FACILITATE, WORK WITH THOSE TEAMS, GOING TO GIVE OUR INPUT, BUT WHEN YOU'RE THE OWNER OF THE PROJECT AND YOU'RE OPERATING, IT REALLY GIVES YOU, THE ONUS IS ON YOU TO DO IT RIGHT.

YEAH. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.

Thank you, Mr. Builderback. Sorry, Mr. Moran.

Just one more question, please. Is electricity going to be underground? What did you say? The electricity supply, is it going to be underground? Buried lines, I think you guys call them. Yeah, it'll be buried. Okay, so Manchester will have, from Hanley Road, utility poles, right? And then drop down.

Right, the Manchester would still have that corridor if poles were there, but that would serve underground. There would be a drop off of those. We're showing a transformer on our plan at southeast, kind of in that bump out right now, but we'll figure that out better when it comes to the fact, but right there, at southeast down right there. So that's where the, it would drop down from Manchester somewhere back to that area. Okay, thank you. And then serve out to the units.

So there's a bit of beautification involved as well then, right? Losing the polls is always a win. Thank you.

And the one question was asked about mechanical units. And this type of project with the flat roof, all of those condenser units are on the roofs and in the center of the building. So the line of sight wise, you're not able to see this.

And they're screened, it looks like. Well, yeah, you've got parapet or at least a partial parapet.

It's cheaper to build a pitched roof, but then all of your condensers are on the ground.

Mr. Carlin.

I'm good.

We have more visitors than we normally have this evening, and folks may just be here for information, but if there's any member of the public wishing to address the commission on this project, please let us know. Please. Yes, and I will note, yes, this is a beginning of a multi-meeting process here, so.

Yeah, just wanted to say, like Ms. Bilderbach said, this looks pretty cool. That's all I wanted to say, no questions from me. One more thing. I appreciate the focus on bicycles here. Maybe something for consideration in the future would be a bike lane along Manchester or Brentwood, which would be especially useful for people getting to Brentwood High School, Brentwood Middle School. Just something to think about. Yeah, that's it for me.

Could you state your name again for the record?

Brock. Brock.

And just to clarify for the speaker, the shared path, the new sidewalk when MoDOT was completed, there's a wide shared path adjacent to Manchester Road on the south side that is for multi-use bike path, walk a path. So that is a wider that was designed for bike and pedestrian access along Manchester Road. Oh, yeah, that's good. Yeah. Okay.

Thank you. Any other members of the public? Anyone online? All right. Is there, so obviously we have more to discuss and more input to receive from our consultants on this as well. And I know more work to be done from the developer. Is there a recommendation? Again, it could go to site plan subcommittee, could carry over. Ms. Bilderberg.

I would love to send it to site plan subcommittee based on experience with projects like this. It takes a lot of work. There was projects where we would meet weekly. So I highly recommend it. I will be there. I will put my money where my mouth is.

I believe next site plan subcommittee would be on the 26th, 27th? 26th, is that right?

26, that's right.

Do we have commissioners who will be able to make site plan subcommittee on the 26th? I would be there.

All right, we have at least a couple. Sure, Matt, we'll be there.

I see a few heads nodding. All right. Well, there is a motion. Is there a second second? Uh, and then, uh, we'll just voice vote, please. All in favor of carrying over to site plan subcommittee say aye.

Aye.

Opposed same sign. All right. So this will be carried over to site plan subcommittee on the 26th. That is a more informal meeting. We won't have to set up at these interesting desks. Uh, it will be at 6 0 PM. It is a little earlier at 6 0 PM on the 26th. And we meet in the conference rooms with city planners office. Thank you very much for the information and for the work done on this, and we will continue to work through it. Next item of business is new business. This is 701 PNZ 26021. It's a text amendment to sections 400.2890, 400.3020 of Division 8 of Chapter 400 of Title IV of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Brentwood regulating flood hazard controls. Ms. Kelly.

Yes. So back in March... the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the text amendment where we were doing cumulative, based on recommendations from FEMA, that it would be cumulative for any floodplain permits for those properties within the floodplain. And that was adopted in March 16th of 2026 with Ordinance 5219. FEMA has come back. In our original proposal, the definition for substantial improvement under the floodplain permit was any cumulative reconstruction, rehabilitation, addition, or other improvement or improvements of a structure performed within a 10-year period. So the cost of which equals or exceeds 50% of the market value of the structure before the start of construction of any reconstruction, rehabilitation, addition. This term includes structures which occur to substantial damage regardless of actual repair work being performed. FEMA has said that rather than as just part of the definition, they would want it within the body of the ordinance. Therefore, we are proposing a new subsection G under 400.3. that specifies the cumulative substantial improvements. And then the definition under 430.20 would then be revised to cross-reference that section. So we are asking for your approval of that.

So could I correctly describe this as cleanup language?

Correct.

All right. Any questions for members of the commission for Ms. Kelly? Is there a motion?

Mr. Favazza? I move to recommend the approval of the text amendments as stated. Is there a second?

Second.

Second by Mr., which was, sorry, all right. Sorry, Mr. Shelton. Got my glasses on and off. We got, I think, a voice vote for this. All in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed, same sign. All right, and we have that. Aldermanic report, seeing that Alderman Lockmuller has departed, there is no aldermanic report. We do have some items of, I guess, personal privilege, but we'll go to the director's report first, Ms. Kelly.

So yes, we will have our site plan subcommittee on August 26 at 6 PM. And then the next commission is September 9. So we will have this brought back to us. We currently do not have an application for another application. But again, should something come in, we always try to bring it forward if we can still public noticing requirements. And we are very appreciative of our new city planner to assist in the development and review of projects and looking forward to new ideas such as adding the bike parking requirements and other ideas that he can bring.

Welcome, Sam. You stole my thunder there. Ms. Bilderbeck.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I promised him it wouldn't be weird, but it's a big announcement. So I let the mayor know this earlier, but October 31st will be 31 and a half years that I've been on the Planning Commission. I've been on the Planning Commission more than half of my life. and i have literally i have served like i mentioned earlier the redevelopment board 25 years i was on the tiff commission the board of adjustment as an alternate and some other things and i've decided it's time to pass the baton if you will so i'm resigning effective october 31st will be my last day on the Planning Commission. I'm really excited that we get to do this first Manchester redevelopment project. I mean, when I kind of look back on this, I was appointed to the Commission in 1995 by then Mayor Mark Kurtz. I've been under four mayors. I guess they think I keep doing a good job, so I keep getting reappointed, and I didn't object because I'm passionate, as you can tell, about this work and about our city. So I was secretary for a couple of years. I was vice chairman for a long time, and that was under John Geppert, who was our chairman for a very long time. May he rest in peace, because he's no longer with us. But this goes back to when we had the Home Depot as our first big project, and then the Promenade, which we have a lot of stories about. And then we went over to Brentwood Square, So there's been a lot of things that have happened. Brentwood's changed a lot since I first lived here and moved here in 1992. I had no interest in being on the planning commission. I went to a meeting, there was a residential development and there was a proposal to change the zoning after a developer had submitted his proposal. And I commented on that at the time. with a seven page letter to the Planning and Zoning Commission. And I came and spoke and my little pink silk suit back in the day we suited up. That's how long I've been on the Planning Commission, right? And I remember the mayor asked me if I wanted to do it and I was like, OK, sure. And John Geppert said to the mayor he because remember he was the chairman. He said. mark why are you doing this to me you know because like here i come and i've got all this you know whatever and so who knows that the young gentleman who was here earlier maybe somebody when he's old enough they're going to point him to the planning commission too right and then he can spend like more than half his life on the commission as well um so yeah so it's been it's been a long time we've done tons of master plans we've rewritten the sign ordinance several times we've gone through all the storm water things i mean we have renewed and redone everything in the code 10 times over and in the city and i've been honored to be a part of it I'm just super excited. I mean, part of me wants to try to, you know, stick through for like this entire Manchester Road development project. But, you know, that takes a really long time. So it took a long time for us to get it to this point. So I figure I'll help kick you guys off. Not that you need my help, but like I'll get to participate in that exciting thing with this project. And then I'm going to ride off into the sunset. But you'll still see me around and you'll see me at Obie Clark's, too, sometimes. So thank you guys for everything. I love everybody.

Thank you, Ms. Bilderbeck. We want to thank you for your 31 years of service. You will be in costume, I hope, for the actual retirement date. So that date is auspicious. But I really want to thank you for that. I don't know if we do gold watches in the city of Brentwood. We probably don't, but that may be a close-deserving one.

Any other items of business for the— I think we can afford a $70,000 gold watch if we really want to.

Too soon, Mr. Moran.

Too soon.

That was good. Can she at least keep her name block? Is that—

yeah actually that might be it i mean we don't reuse them so i think i think there we go uh if there's nothing else we stand adjourned thank you everyone appreciate it