Planning and Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

We'll call the meeting to order for the planning and zoning commission for the city of Brentwood for Wednesday, August 13, 2025. If you could please join me in the pledge of allegiance. Our first item of business is approval of the agenda. The agenda has been distributed. Uh folks, please bear with us as we get used to our new system here. I think finally got me trained on board docs and will take a while to get me trained on this, but uh the agenda has been distributed. Are there any adjustments or changes to the agenda that need to be made? Seeing none, is there a motion to approve the agenda? Or actually, any objection to approving the agenda by acclamation? Seeing none, the agenda will be approved. Next item of business, the minutes for March 12th, 2025. Is that right? No, I believe we have Give me a second. Yeah. Thank you. July 9th. This is off of there. Thank you. We're going to go off of this document. July 9th, 2025. have been distributed uh via the new system. Any adjustments, alterations, or changes that need to be made to those? Seeing none, any objection to approval of the minutes for July 9th um by acclamation? Seeing none, the minutes stand approved. My apologies. Like I said, need to get trained. Let's go back and go back to a very important point. Mr. Moran, since you're back and I don't have to do this, would you mind calling the role, please?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Matt Foreman here. Jeff Hunt here. Carl Carlin here. Jeff Moore here. Paul Moran here. Hart Nelson here. Brian Nolan here. Lisa Sharing here. Jack Sheldon here. Absolutely. Aorum, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Moran. And thank you, Miss Sharing. He couldn't reach me to kick me under the table, I guess. All right. Moving on to citizen comments. Are there any citizens wishing to address the commission on an item not on the agenda this evening? Anyone online? All right. Seeing none, we'll move on to uh our old business. Our first order of old business is the adoption of the residential design guidelines. Uh Miss Kelly, we're going to go staff report or are we looking to hear from anything? What is uh what is the item of business here? So, Um because the comprehensive plan included uh a goal to for the protection of the residential areas that we are looking for the planning and zoning commission to adopt by resolution the residential design guidelines and furtherance of that goal. Um, we did proceed to the board of alderman and presented the the design guidelines there. We have not gotten any comments since then. Um, Mr. Bran of H3 Studio is here if y'all would like a quick walk through again or the there was a change made from the when y'all first saw it in June and that we based upon additional comments um from the architectural review board. We did move vinyl to an approved allowed uh a permitted form of building material. So

that was the only substantive change. Correct. All right. Would folks like a recap or is that we comfortable with the information that's been presented? All right. I think so. Um and so then we're looking for our order business for a motion. Is that what we're looking for for the resolution there? All right. Um and I believe again there is in the new agenda a recommendation for that. Any dis uh actually first is there a motion on the draft resolution which is also in our document. Motion to motion to approve the uh the draft uh document as specified with the recent change. Is there a second?

Second. Second. Uh any discussion on this topic? Any members of the public wishing to address the commission on this topic? Seeing none, do we need a roll call on this? Is this a voice? All right. Do a roll call vote, please, if you could. Mr. Moran, Matt Foreman, yes. Jeff Hunt, yes. Carl Carlin, yes. Jeff Moore, yes. Paul Moran, yes. Brian Nolan, yes. Lisa Sharink, yes. Jack Shelton, yes.

That's unanimous, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Moran. Uh, thank you very much for the presentations. And that will go back then, I assume, to the board of alderman for their approval. Then is that or it's already with them for approval and now they have the resolution? Well, they they don't adopt it because the comprehensive plan is Yeah. Is got Yeah. So, the resolutions for you to sign. We're good to go. Yeah.

All right. Next item of business is PNZ25009. This is the comprehensive sign plan for 2001 South Hanley Road. Is the applicant or their representative here this evening? If you could please approach, give us your name and address. And I think we've had a couple updates since we discussed this before. So, yeah, Drew Clary, uh, Intellica commercial real estate representing the landlord. Address 11701 Borman Drive, sweet 100, St. Louis, Missouri 63146. All right. And can you tell us a little bit about uh the the application and most importantly what's uh been updated since the last time we spoke?

So we we made some mod I believe when we met last time um the committee asked us to produce some options of what the new signage would look like. So we submitted a amended sign plan packet. Um, we got some updated kind of text and some renderings, rough renderings, uh, over to Whitney that's been updated in our updated staff report. Um, so hopefully that'll provide a little more clarity.

All right, we'll go to staff report then, Miss Kelly. um at the prior staff uh at the pri prior planning and zoning commission. It was my understanding you're looking for greater clarity on the allowance of the tenant signage for the south building. Um, initially the applicant had wanted up to allow for up to 20 tenants. Whether or not they were associated with the tenant space in which they would the sign would be located. It was to allow for a visibility along Hanley Road. the um signs that were being modified that prior identified individual tenants would include just development um signage for the 2001 Hanley Point at the south end and the larger entrance elements um at the north end of the entrance. um these did represent almost 350 square feet um with um and in addition to directional signage interior to the site. If you look in diligent it was added at the very end. So, the commission asked for what it would look like to have all 20 on the south elevation and they have provided a rendering for you. um the actual packet that included the edits or the um proposed language that would be included I did not get until

like 520 uh this evening so I wasn't able to add it but it is still the bullet points that are listed on page seven of 10 of the staff report which limits now the size of those individual tenants to a maximum of 20 square feet Um the signage shall be 2 feet tall and any text to be consistent back lit in individual white letters. Logo may contain the color. Um so that if there was a color element that the tenant wanted to use, it would only be allowed as part of the logo, but all of that would still have to remain part of the 20 square feet of wall signage. Um it is written that the location of signage would be at the tenants's discretion with landlord's written approval. The tenant signage may be directly above their space or may be in a more visible location such as Hanley facing facade of the south building. Regardless if they have a corresponding tenant space. If every tenant elected to have placed their sign along Hanley, the maximum possible signage would be 20 signs as shown in the graphic which is provided here. And this affords tenants in the rear to have the same visibility as the tenants in the front. There was discussion earlier, but I think that's been revised to allow for tenant signage on the south facing of the north building if they wanted tenant signage there instead of a long handling. Um,

so it it's been revised because you asked for the what it would look like if all 20 tenant signs would be on the south the the Hanley facing facade of the south building. So, if each tenant is allowed a 20 foot sign, I'm sorry, 20 square foot sign and they had it up front, then they couldn't have it above their space on the north building. Um, you know, essentially what we're what we're trying to do is again to echo Whitney, standardize the sign size, standardize the size type, um, and have the tenant elect where the signage goes in the building. I I think the overwhelming majority of tenants are going to want their signage directly above their space. Um, you know, I I think there might be one or two tenants maybe on the north building in the back that would like their sign on the Hanley side. Um, this this building in the center frame here. I think what's more realistic is, you know, there's a tenant in the back kind of right around where that mouse is. Exactly. um that doesn't have a glass front entry uh along Hanley. You access her suite by going around back. If her sign can be up front, you know, in between two other signs, that would let you know that she is in the center. Um but again, I think the majority of tenants are going to want are going to want signage above their space. But because we're doing a, you know, a comprehensive sign plan, we figure we might as well ask. This would avoid us having to come and ask for a variance if I put a tenant in the back right corner of that building and they want a sign somewhere on the front of the south building. Um, you can divide the south building into what I'll call 23 individual bays. Uh, the overwhelming majority of tenants occupy more than than one bay. There's one or two tenants that are on a very skinny single bay.

It's about 1500 feet at its uh, longest. Um, but yeah, it it technically if if you had every sign in the center be on the south Hanley facing part of the building, that that is 20 right there. And and you would technically have three spaces left over. There's about 23 individual bays on that south Hanley facing sign. And again, as a refresher from last time, you know, we're removing the directory signage on the front of the building that you that you only see driving north on Hanley. We already removed it on the I'm sorry, that's the the south side of the south building that you would see going north. And we removed the little directory signage on the north side of the north building that you would see going south. It was small. It it was, you know, it didn't look great. So, our attempt here is to remove that signage. Remove the signage, the corresponding signage in the front. Have clean single, you know, park signage, Hanley Point in both areas. Have simple uh less directory signage and wayfinding signage in the rear of the parking lot and lean into tenant signage um above their space.

Understand, Mr. Clair. Thank you. I think couple things there. I'll comment then I'll open it up to the commission. And I appreciate again showing kind of the maximum of what it would look like. And I will just provide my feedback of I think that does not look good um with 20. And I understand that tenants may want to have it uh you know that may not be that's the worst case scenario. Tenants may want to have it over their entrance. I will say I think and we have another petition that we've discussed and we may be discussing this evening about making sure that it signage is over the primary entrance. That is where signage is most appropriate for wayfinding and to identify that tenant. Um, I think, you know, to the point that you've removed the tenant names from the southern sign, understand, but I don't believe there's a significant reduction. And I like the new sign. It's clean. It looks great. It identifies the property. I don't think there's a significant reduction in square footage, though, right? So, it's you're taking the tenants off, but then you're putting in a sign that's the same square footage to to identify or similar square footage to identify the space. Um I I do think that uh I will say my concerns here are u making sure that uh and understand your point of hey we want to have something where there's flexibility uh that ability for a tenant to decide where they want their sign creates the jumble uh rather than it a a consistent hey this is over our main entrance. uh and so I have some concern that just because we've we have had comprehensive sign plans where that is something this commission has uh required uh at other sites that are similar with the bays and multiple tenants. So uh those are my comments for now. I'll open it up to other commissioners. Any questions please Mr.

So the last time you were in we talked about the consistency of the lettering. Yep. and just, you know, being a bit anal retentive about this stuff. The not sure the rendering is doing you any favors because we talked about single lines. We stopped short of having one font, but we talked about one size, right? But the rendering is still showing stacked lettering and it still shows the old signs that are there. And I think we talked and I can't remember we're relieving the old signs and only changing those out as tenants turned over

the we we were not going to force a tenant to change their sign unless that was part of this. Um couple things. The font I I tried to I was hesitating to I mean I I would candidly be fine doing it. It's just some tenants want some tenants have a specific font they really like. And I thought we were absolutely being giving some liberties with the color. We could say, "Look, your sign's got to be white. Um, it's got to be one to two lines. Everything has to be 20 feet, 20 square feet, but we'll let you pick a goofy font." Now, we also reserve the right to approve all signage. And so, if someone wants to do comic sands font, we're not going to allow that. Um, but we I I did mention we'd be willing to, you know, go with a consistent signage font. I I don't think it would be the end of the world. I did alternate We did alternate two rows verse one row. Um, just to try and add some just to just in case, right? I mean, there are some signs up there now that are two rows. There's some signs that up there that are one. I would be open to going with one style. Look, it's got to be one line this wide, two feet tall, 10 feet across, one line, that's it. Um, and for what it's worth, I agree. This looks way too busy. This will never happen. Um, I again I did we we just want the we're trying to get as much as possible in the in the comprehensive sign plan to avoid having to come back and ask for a variance later. It might be and I did provide a second rendering um with a little more realistic view. It's got about 12 signs on there. Um right now there's about 10 maybe 11 that can go up there. And I said, "Okay, well, one one or two might come from the other side, from the north building. That's realistically what it's probably going to be." You know, Whitney correctly

said, "Well, look, if you're asking for up to 20 on the south building, we need to know what that's going to look like." Um, so again, I agree. It looks way too busy. Um, and I I just Go ahead. Um, Drew and I have talked about this. My concern is if you're asking for up to 20, eventually someone's going to go up to the 20. It's like realistically, as you know, we've realistically have had a lot of requests for a lot of signs. So, anything that's allowed under the comprehensive sign plan is realistically possible. So,

and I and I will take the point, Mr. Clary, that you know, you want to make sure you get it in so you don't have to keep coming back. I think when the last time was was 2015, if I remember that correctly when the comprehens Yeah, absolutely.

Um the challenge of course is that's how um I guess I will say a jumbled sign develops is organically over time as tenants come in and wants to fix things up. Sorry, Mr. Foreman, it was still uh at your time, so my apologies for jumping in. No, I think the the clarity on the number and then possibly limiting it to a single line instead of the stacked might mitigate the busyiness, shall we say? Mr. Carlin, uh maybe questions and some comments. Not fully formed yet. Haven't seen this one previously. Um, we did, well, first question I guess to to to you, uh, Whitney. The is there any other restrictions on the number of tenants that could occupy the space? In other words, regardless of signage, if there's 23 bays, can they have 23?

Yes. Now, the the tenant has or the applicant has indicated they don't think they want to break up the any of the current spaces any smaller. However, again, should the property change hands, that could change as well. So, that's why we've I felt keeping it at the the maximum number of signs per and um that would be allowed is part of the comprehensive plan.

And I asked because it you know, I think one of the things our community does well is sort of it balances the interests of of retail, industrial, and residential pretty successfully, right? And so successful retail is part of that that mix, right? And really I know we're after it for other areas in the city. So we'd be putting the possible future or present owner in a situation where they might get tenants who couldn't have a sign in the future, which seems odd to me. Um I agree there's a lot of signage there, but there's a parallel in a project we looked at recently over in Industrial Park. Correct. Where there was a sort of, you know, a black band.

We're going to be seeing it here in just a minute. Right. I I asked because that one we allowed logos and we allowed different graphics for for as I remember it for each tenant. Right. So to hold this one to a you know purely text standard would seem to me to not be consistent with that other decision we made. I will note though that for that we allowed only one signage for the entrance directly over their space. Correct. And the way the the building was designed, it had a sign band that was broken up by brick facade. So it identified it provided that break whereas this is all one blue facade. Um that would not specifically identify the break within the

understood. I mean they're different architectural conditions. I guess I guess I the idea that we're trying to sort of organize some chaos is is real, right? that there's so I think the attempt to do that is is meaningful and it might not be perfect right so um anyway so that I'm now moving into comment from question right I feel like you know given that this is an attempt to organize what would otherwise be unorganizable right you know um I'm inclined to give a little bit of leeway because again we're looking for the businesses to be successful or else why have them right you know so

thank you Mr. Colin Mr. Clary, just for uh remind, I think we asked this question before. How many tenants do you currently have in the building? 21 spots. 21. Okay. 21. Cell tower is 21 is the 21st. It's 20. Okay. Um 20 individual tenants, correct? Cell tower doesn't need a sign, by the way. Got you.

Um I know what those are. Um there is, you're right, there is a consistent blue band that's broken up a little bit, but when I mentioned bays, um if you could maybe zoom in, who's ever got this? I mean, there there is when I when I count the 23 bays, it's the brick that divides the windows. Um now, again, most of these tenants, Pilates, for example, they're in about three of those, maybe four. Um and so their sign has kind of been stuck there because it's probably in dead center of their space. Um, but we would be willing to say, look, all signage has to be directly above those windows. Those windows are probably 11 feet wide, I would say, because the signage is 10 ft wide. It's just a little less than the bay. So, we could try and and further hone in on spacing. I acknowledge part of the jumbleness is because we've plastered the words future tenant above two spaces because some of the existing signs are above two spaces. Yeah, it may go back to I think uh the point earlier of maybe the rendering doesn't do justice to what we've been talking about. So

yeah, Mr. Hunt. Yeah, I sorry, Mr. Carlin, you were done. My apologies, Mr. Hunt. Yep. I I have some reservations about giving the tenants who are not in the front signage on the front. In the past, I can recall a Manchester Road project where we told a tenant with second floor space that they couldn't have signage because it's inconsistent with what we've been allowing. Um, I think that's an appropriate comparison here. Thank you, Mr. Other comments more,

excuse me. Is there a similar facade inside and band on the back side of the building? In some parts, not most. Um the south corner, if you went down a little bit, does have a band. And then on the north building, uh there is a band that goes back as well. Um but not all the way around. So, the example tenant I used earlier in that back corner, um, she does not have a good blue band to put building signage on. Um, on the other hand, the tenants on the north side do have that blue band where I think their signage will probably go. And, and I think that, um, Sorry, Mr. Moore, please.

Please. I I think that that would be something that I would be interested in understanding is for those who truly have a band that is over their main entrance or sorry the the frontage over their main entrance. Yep. That is visible from Manchester Road. And understanding that it's only visible from one direction southbound.

Um really I mean if you're a north facing tenant you're visible southbound. It seems I guess I would say beyond what we have allowed previously with comprehensive sign plans to allow them to have signage facing the road just for greater visibility. Um, I however can see perhaps with a tenant that has no visibility to either the north or south that that may be something that I would consider uh that they would be able to have signage on on on this side since we are since they're removing it from the monument sign. Any thought other questions? I can I was trying to find

Kelly I'm apologize. Um I was going to try to find the other example that was provided. Um if you want to see that just for a second, let me Yeah. Uh I have I have a couple physical copies. It's nothing special. It's similar in design, but I could give these you could pass these around with handouts. So this was Oh, there you go. Yeah. The um what they provided got it pulled up that showed approximately 12

with the two tenants uh on the north building having signage that face south. Just to echo Whitney, you can see on that handout and on the screen there are there's some signage on the north building there where it is on the blue band. It does face the parking lot where I would anticipate their signage would be. Um and there's about two or three one two or three more signs than would would be there now on the south building uh if all the units were full.

Let me go back to sorry for a math problem. How many tenants do you have on the north building that have the banding facing north that would have entrances? I'm basically trying to subtract from 20. Is it two, three, seven? Oh, seven. Yeah. Wow. It goes back further than I thought. Right. So, I I anticipate most of those tenants will have their signage on that blue band. Mr. Carlin,

just one more thought relative to the the the the font or the control of the text. I I just, you know, being in the industry, I know that, you know, businesses spend quite a bit of money on graphic design and having an identity and a brand. And technology certainly allows you to water jet any shape, whether it's a letter or a square, it doesn't really matter, right? So, I'm not in favor of limiting the signage to just pure text in one font. I think that kind of defeats the purpose of a business going through all the trouble of having an identity and being successful. So I I think if you're going to allow them signage, you know, they should get some leeway to decide how that looks personally.

I understand, but I also believe that's the building owner's prerogative as well. Well, that's that's essent discussion landed last time because we were talking about a consistent height of the letters and the height and the width brought us back to square footage. I'd say square footage and leave it at that.

Yeah. But I think, you know, because I'm looking at Google Earth 3D driving down the street, the question was, you know, with how much is there even with the maximum number, I think it actually gets simplified if it's the single two foot high, 10 foot wide, which would be in keeping with what we did at Hanley Industrial. where there was a defined band. We're almost defining that real estate for them to use for their content wording carefully. And sorry, just to come back to that, I think we'd be arbitrarily, potentially arbitrarily limiting the tenants who'd be willing to move in. I can think of plenty of clients that I've worked for and represented who if they can't have their logo, they're not going in. No, but that's but to the Hanley Industrial example where the sign band was there and we limited to the sign band but within the sign band the square footage applicable for the lettering but by default that was a linear not stacked it was just linear. So if we're applying the same logic, if we do the single linear area with whatever logos or whatever fonts at that defined height, that consistency could even out a bit of the jumbled appearance.

If we were Mr. Foreman, sorry,

anything else? I want to make sure we do recognize Mr. Carlin and then I will have a comment on that. I I think that the challenge I'm having with this is the consistency with decisions we've made recently. Right? So, we've made decisions where we've said that tenants can have it only a single sign above their primary entrance. We've made that within the last few months. We're going to have a conversation about that again tonight. We've had conversations understanding the point about font. But I will also say that there is nothing that says a tenant can't have a different font or a different size. It requires a modification. The comprehensive sign plan requires them to come back. It is what we're willing to agree with now. And I will believe, you know, put forward my opinion that it is the the reason for the planning and zoning commission to make sure that there's consistency and aesthetics. That's what we're here for. And that not just have something develop organically where I guess I will say when I take a look at this rendering um and and mockup that I don't have a particular issue with. It is not as cluttered as the one that was presented earlier. Understanding that you have a number of them around the side. Um maybe this isn't sufficient in terms of the number of signs that are is east facing. I believe um and I I think that perhaps more but the 20 was a shocking number I guess I would say with the way it was laid out and I certainly wouldn't be in favor of of that particular layout and and allowing that to happen uh organically without coming back to the comprehensive sign plan. But that is only my take. Do we have any other comment? Do believe we want to be able to get to a resolution. I'm just trying to decide if we have a prevailing opinion here or if someone is willing to put for a motion. We'll find out pretty quickly. If

I could just make one more comment, please, Mr. Clair.

And Whitney and I went back and forth a little bit on the jumbled rendering because I felt the same way you did. Again, I recognize that 20 is what's in here. Um, but the reason it's there is it's worst case scenario. So, I I tried to focus more on the the bullets, the code, which again is 20 foot signs directly above the tenant space or somewhere else if there's room at landlord's approval. And I do understand if it's a different landlord down the way that it could end up in a in a 20 sign scenario, but I think you brought up a good point. It could also be divided into 23 tenants on that south building and under the existing signage code you would have 23 signs up there because it's 23 spaces. So,

but not the same size. That's a key thing. They would be smaller signs that again that there's it would be a minimum of 20 feet. 20 for the each. Yeah. 20 square feet. in discussions with the applicants. Um, most of their tenants spaces are less the current code does limit signage to 1/4 their lineal foot of their tenant space with a minimum of 20. Okay. For the most part, all of their tenants, if they break it up even smaller, will only get 20 square feet. 20. Okay. Which what we're getting now. But again, it's a comp plan, so you're getting much more than the 20 per. We appreciate it. And they are getting more of the wall sign. Yeah. That's identity signs. Yeah.

All right. Um, let me flip this last question back and then I'm going to turn it over to the folks who will make the motion, which is never me. Um, 20 is what you're showing worst case scenario. I guess my question is what could you live with? Not a bare minimum. You've given us this is worst case is 20 east facing. What is a hey if it was 17 we think we could make that work. Is there a number there or is it hey 20 is what was in the application. That's what we'd like to see. And I know I'm asking you to to dance a little bit.

20 is the amount of vacancies and occupied spaces I have there now. Um there are three spaces we'd really like to combine. That would take it down to 17. Um United Refrigeration is one of those 17. They're out of frame. They're not moving their sign. I think the majority of the again tenants that have the signage on the north building will go will put their sign above their space. Um and and sorry, let me clarify. Yeah, I'm talking about east facing. I hear you. I hear you. And so that's that was the 20. Okay. Yep. Here's I I'm not trying to dodge the question. Just I'm sorry. Let's say I give you a number right now. Yep.

And three years from now some it's not going to happen. But how how easy would it be to modify that number if we ever needed to? Would it be an amendment or a whole new package? I'll look to It would be an amendment and or new package. Okay. Depending on you have to draw up something. Sure. And it would have to be reviewed at the planning and zoning commission.

I would think by that time you would be able to see the fruits of our efforts. there'd be a lot of nice signage up there and it'd be an easier way to say, "Hey, I know we said 17 to use your number." Um, now I need 18. I I highly highly I don't see a world where that's ever going to happen, but again, back to my ear earliest point, just wanted the language to be in there just in case. I appreciate that.

But I I think the real number is probably 12 to 14. Okay. And I think in my time on this commission, I have seen us take amendments to comprehensive sign plans where we see good stewardage and it has moved forward fairly quickly if I'm not mistaken. So, um, all right, I'm going to be quiet because I'm talking more than I normally do and I will stop. Is there a Miss Kelly and then we will go to you for a motion. I'm sorry. I think Brian Oh, Mr. Nolan, my apologies, sir. I I just had a question about so if we approve all of the signage above the door east facing and then the tenants that are not east facing or that don't that are around back how many tenants are there and is there there's some other sign that identifies them?

They they are only allowed 20 ft of signage period. So if they elect to put their sign above their space like this second rendering they're not getting a space on the east facing sign side. So, if that that's kind of the other point of my argument. If a tenant puts their sign on the east side, they're not going to be able to put a sign above their space. They might have a a door decal, but it would prevent their ability to have signage directly above their building. And if I was running the business, I would probably want it above there. But there's a couple people that might really value that Hanley facing frontage and they're okay with just a door decal on their space. And is there some monument sign? And I know you took some of that off from the

certainly there there is some directory signage on either side where the where the two buildings used to connect at the intersection. There's a directory which right now is plastered on the north side of the south building to see it. You have to walk basically into the egress point or stand in the mulch to read it. So we're moving those back, putting them on either building. I think we provided an alternate um to turn them sideways and make it easier to identify the tenant in the suite number.

So th those are identified as C in the original packet uh for Yeah. And there is that I'm sorry that was a change from the previous is instead of a wall sign they may elect to have a freestanding. There you go. But that's not a significant change. Yeah. Not visible. turned it 90 degrees so you can see it from the parking lot instead of having to walk by that bush.

Whitney, can you bring up the plan view from this package? I can't tell which page it's on. The aerial photograph of the center. There you go. So, if what I don't think is really coming across clearly is right the upper rightmost dot with the letter F on it. Those are individual bays that face south into the parking lot. Correct.

So, they will have their own signage over their entries, but it never faces east. Well, the proposal would be to allow for them to have signage on the east on the south building east elevation. So, but I think that's part of the salient conversation with the number of them if if they elected to do it. That's that's what we requested. So, it could go at that letter F or it could go at the letter F, you know, down and to the left, my left. There you go. or these tenants can have it here.

They they can choose to have the signage above their space or they could if there's room and it looks good. We can make it look good then it then they could elect to have it on the Hanley side. But again, that would that would prevent if they choose to have their 20 square foot size sign go on the south building that faces Hanley, then they are not going to have the ability to be on the north building because every tenant is only allowed a 10 x2 sign. And I think I will say my concern with that solely would be that then they're going to put up an A-frame because they got to know where the plotties is and if you don't have a sign over you choose to have it southbound or sorry facing east because you want to have greater recognition from the road and you don't put a sign up. I could see things like that happening. That's the reason why I think that we've kind of uh consistently said you need to have your sign over your main entrance. Um, but we beat it. One actually one last question that was in the staff report and sorry I'm getting away from signages for a second, but I believe Miss Kelly, you had something in there about we've seen a landscape design for the monument sign facing northbound, but we didn't have a full landscape review. Is that correct? And I just

I guess my question to the city is, do we have any concerns that existing landscape is not being maintained to code? That we have a compliance issue that we need to care about that I guess is what I'm asking. Um, when I went out there, I did not notice a large degree. I, um, but I did request that they provide a landscape plan since that is part of the comprehensive sign plan. Um, and I know we got it for a I saw that and there's some in in um the prior staff report. Okay. There was identified and it was thought we provided that. Yeah, maybe just for A and not some other places.

It was Yeah, it was around each of the ground signs as where identified. Sorry. Yeah, it was not just for a but it wasn't a overall if there was landscaping and other it was areas where the signs were being adjusted, right? And I wasn't sure if the staff report was suggesting that there was other landscaping issues that we needed to to be aware of. I didn't notice any and I don't know if the applicant has an approved landscape plan from since the building is pre-existing, right? So, I didn't um Yeah, didn't know if that was a concern of the Yeah, this committee. Yeah.

All right. Any other questions? If not, is there a motion? I move to recommend approval of a new comprehensive sign plan for the Hanley Point development at 2001 South Hanley Road subject to the conditions as discussed on July 9th, 2025 Planning and Zoning Commission. So, we have a motion. Is there a second? And just making sure that motion is for unlimited or sorry, the 20 east facing signs. Should I have said July tonight? Tonight is August 13th. Yeah. So this this hasn't been updated for that. So so amending what I just said to what's been discussed tonight, August 13th.

August 13th. All right. And so that would be the 20 east facing signs is what is the motion. Is there a second? Second. Sorry. I would like so I would like to include that they provide an updated sign package that adequately addresses what you're proving tonight and uh United and shows the United refrigeration signage as well. So just so that we're all clear on what's moving forward. Yeah, Mr. Clarity, you understand that component of it of the motion? I just need to you just want a picture a little longer so you can see the United Refrigeration sign over there. Yeah, sure.

A motion in a second. Any further discussion? Roll call vote, please. Moreman, yes. Jeff Hun, no. Carl Carlin, yes. Jeff Moore, yes. Paul Moran, yes. Brian Nolan, yes. Lisa Shering, yes. Jack Shelton, yes. We have a majority in favor of the approval. Mr. Mr. Chairman, thank you, Mr. Morant. And this will go to the board of alderman, Miss Kelly, on uh September 2nd. September 2nd. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Appreciate it. All right. Our next item of business sec because these are believe this is also I'm going to figure this system out. All right. Give me one second. There we go. New business. Although I'm not sure this is new business. I thought we had seen this before, but anyway, I was PNZ25010. This is an amendment for the comprehensive sign plan for 1234 Hanley Industrial Court for Good Clean Dog. Uh is the applicant or their representative here this evening. Good to see you again. I know we've talked before. It might not have been about a comp sign plan. So, it was probably about a conditional use permit. Uh it's been a been a summer so far. So, please if you could state your name and your address and tell us a little about your application this evening.

Absolutely. Good evening. My name is Jen Stewart, address 2513 Elm Drive, Arnold, Missouri. Uh, we are coming to discuss the signage plan. Yes, we do have our conditional use permit. So, thank you all for your part in that. So, some context here. We recognize we're asking for a lot and something a little unconventional. A couple of notes. This is our we're coming to ask for things. So, we figured we would ask for literally everything that we want. We understand and are open to feedback and changing what needs to be changed. Again, we asked for everything we wanted here. Um the other context I would add is we are a brand new company launching in St. Louis. So to um Mr. Curtain's point earlier, we absolutely have spent a ton of time um money and effort on our brand identity and we really want people to get to know us through the exterior of our building. Also in part because with that carside fetch canopy on the rear of the building, we expect that a large portion of our customers once their customers will not be entering our building. So having that strong brand identity, having that personality outside of the building is important to us. Um beyond that, open to all of your feedback.

Excellent. We'll go to staff report next. Miss Kelly, please.

Uh so yes, this is a new item because at the previous time it was the CUP and we had reviewed a comprehensive sign plan for the entire property. Um, as we've discussed, the building does have a sign band where each tenant is allowed to have utilize the entire sign band over their existing space. And should they take additional uh tenant space, then um a logo or other um decorative element may be applied to that tenant space but not include the entire sign. And if I can recall correctly, Miss Kelly, that was the sign over their main entrance.

Sign over the main entrance and a black background with a black background that matched the existing sign band. Thank you.

Black or bronze? Yeah. Um so the applicant is showing a number of signs. I'll go through this. Um with the good clean dog over their main entrance with dog grooming uh on the adjacent tenant. They are also showing a projecting uh two square foot or yeah round sign at the corner to direct traffic around to the curb for the curbside pickup. I'm sorry around the back. Oh, there you have there. Um then so you have and that's those are relatively small. So she could utilize more of that sound band if y'all would like to see that um on both of those elements with dog grooming maybe abiding bubbles there. That's my thought. So then we have the two square foot round uh directional sign that would project from the building. We are then showing a 360 square foot mural that says spread joy like dog hair. And then also um another five square it actual dimensions of that but it's five and a half feet tall arrow directing it around the corner. It also shows neon signs. Um on the canopy structure, our code prohibits the use of neon. She has looked into an LED strip. Um that information was provided this morning. However, she was saying it was prov indicated that it was at 7,000 Kelvin and our code u max has a maximum Kelvin of temperature at 3,000. So we would need to see a reduction if

that is doable. Um, so you can see the uh 16 square foot canopy sign for car side fetch and then the neon strips also carrying around to the canopy structure. Miss Kelly, can I ask there is that uh overhang or sorry that overhang there is that visible from the street? Do we know? I can look at it. I don't know. It hasn't been installed yet. Okay, that's a new build. That's okay. Yes, got you. that was part of the CUP. Um, and then we have context. I believe it will be visible from uh Strawner. It will not be visible from Hanley Industrial Court. Thank you. You're welcome.

So then we have a few um decorative signs. I would call I guess an 8 25 square foot pull up hand off get going. Um a cute dog on a bicycle. And then the pickup and drop off on each side. Um window signage um is lists the times and dates. I did not have a concern with the window signs. Um and but the overall question would be the um the use of the neon or LED strips and the large um murals throughout the on the north side and the rear.

Add just a little bit of context again on the um illumination for that canopy. I I'm learning a ton through this process. So, please know that we would not be doing the bright LED strips all the way around. Those would be an outdoor LED that would have some sort of covering and/or cap to them. So, they would not be the same brightness. The only place that we would be requesting, and again, we're we're open to what we have to do. Obviously, we're a retro vibe. We're trying to get as close to a neon look as possible. If we can't, it won't be the end of the world to us. We again, we're just asking for it because that's our ideal scenario. the LED strip would just be a single um like outline inside of the letter. So, it wouldn't be that entire thing. It's just um inside of a channel letter essentially. So, yeah, you can kind of see there. So, if that changes anything or helps provide additional information. Anything else, Miss Kelly?

That's all I have. Great. Questions from the commission? Uh Mr. Nolan? Thank you. I just have a question uh for Whitney. On the existing comprehensive sign plan that we did for this building, there was a tenant at the south side of the building. Did we make them remove their sign on the south side? Yes, we did. That comprehensive sign plan prohibited any signage on the north and south elevations um in exchange for the larger wall sign within the tenant band over each tenant. Um, therefore, this would be a deviation from that.

Okay. And then on your plan on the north side of the building, that's the mural, but there's nothing else there. Oh, there's the 5 and a half foot directional. Tell me that we could have the mural and not that. I will happily remove it.

I just have a problem approving. I mean, I think overall this looks nice. I think that's a lot of signage. I think the mural is is big and I just have a problem approving that on the north side of the building after we told the other tenant on the south side that they couldn't have something which was a lot more smaller and I think identified their business which this this doesn't. So maybe there's a way to have the mural around the back.

So again, we're our intention with this is is twofold. one, it's a lot less visible than the other side of the building from a traffic perspective and I think that was part of our our ask there. It's also currently hideous to be perfectly frank. So, we're just trying to make the building in general um more beautiful. So, open to feedback um if you would like to see something that better identified us versus this. I think our intention was actually to not brand it super specifically to our brand name for a more it's a community fun saying that's happy versus like we're just trying to get our name on the building as many times as possible was our intention there. Again, if you wanted to see something else, if you wanted it to be smaller, um we are our our bottom line is that we would like to paint that entire side of the building even if it's just white because it's it's very unattractive to look at currently. Is there another place that you could put that? You wouldn't put it on the rear side. There's probably not enough space there.

If you look at a at a different um slide, we do have like the Rosie is the the dog. Um we have her on the rear of the building currently and yeah, there you can see her there. So, yeah, we couldn't do that that mural on the rear of the building um to answer that question, but we do have other things on the rear of the building. Sorry, Mr. Carlin. Um, so I know this is going to be challenging just based on the, you know, the discussions we've had about this building in the past and others. Um, so I want to start by commending the design work. I think it's elegant. I think it's I think it's part of the brand you've described to us. Um, I would really hope that we could find a way to get most, if not all of that done. As a design professional, you know, I I I travel and I pay attention to things. I just was in Salt Lake City last night. Um, there's a district there I'm getting to a point. There's a post-industrial I'll call it district, right, where there was, you know, previously light industry which has now since become colonized by, let's say, breweries or artists or whatever you want to call it. And this is very typical of that sort of industrial building rehabilitation reclaiming kind of modern vibe, right? So, you know, I think context matters. You know, this is Hanley Industrial Park sort of off the main path. You know, all the efforts you're making to say, please come here. We want to, you know, you know, it make perfect sense, right? Um I understand that it runs almost completely a foul of all the signage standards we have in the town, right? So, but I don't know that it means that your design is bad. we might have a problem with the signage code, right? So, in my opinion, right? So, I I don't know how we bridge those two things. I don't know. I just want to make the comment that this seems very typical in a good way of sort of modern uses of of architecture, you know, to

have the building be part of the work of calling people to it. Um, like we did with the library with a very large sign that, you know, does the job. So, um, I I there should be a way for this to be possible in this in that district in my opinion. I don't know how we get there. So, thank you, Mr. Carlin. Other comments, Mr. Hunt?

So, I I recognize that most of your customers are not going into your building on a given day. So you're, you know, this is a way to brand where they'll actually see it. But I don't see how we can approve the mural or the other stuff on the the walls on in any face. I mean the the um the car side fetch I understand because there's a a very valid wayfinding component to that provided we could get comfortable with what that's constructed with. I you know I I don't have an issue there. But this is a significant amount of signage that we've in my experience routinely rejected in in the past.

Thank you Mr. I think that you know one of the things I take Mr. Carllin's point, I will say I also like the design. Consistency is important. We're have to treat I mean we were treating business owners consistently and the point that was made earlier is we on this exact same building on the opposite side had a uh had someone have to remove it so they can get greater signage on the front and consistent. Um so I I think that that is an important point that was raised is we have very recently said that this is not allowable. I will comment I love the idea of painting it because that wall is not nice and I do like the color scheme as well although that is just commentary because you get to choose whatever color you like. Um any other things Mr. Foreman

on allergies? Sorry. On the issue of color, I think we're conflating temperature of Kelvin for utility light fixtures for general area and safety lighting with the temperature of the colored logo lighting. So the 3500 Kelvin would be if you're doing a white light on a parking lot. That color range would apply to the street lighting as we modified that city directive. The color of someone's logo. that car side fetch is lit. That's going to be a whole different thing. That's not the same bucket of Kelvin measurement.

I do think that the key point was neon is not allowed. I think that there's some willingness to look at LED with a similar look and feel. Um what would be I think that's something I'm thinking of another recent applicant. The hours of operation that that would be lit. Is that something that you're looking to have lit 24 or just while you're operating? While you're operating and currently the latest we would be open is 8:00 p.m. Okay. I think that's something that we discussed. Um, give me one sec just to make sure. Miss Sharing.

Yes, Mr. Chairman. I was actually going to point out in the recent very recent proposal, we just told a client or potential Brentwood business that they could not have neon and they had to choose alternate colors and LED and it had to be shut off when business was correct off. So I would agree with that and I will say it's a really fun you've got a lot of fun design elements here and but unfortunately I know we have had to turn down other similar fun design elements in the interest of being consistent to the comprehensive sign.

Thank you mary. Now Mr. Carlin one second have we so I see that we have front side and rear and I'm thinking of the graphics on the rear of the building. I don't recall those being part of any comp sign plan requests that I remember recently. Have we seen that? And I guess what I'm looking my question to the commission is about consistency. Um would it be inconsistent for us to say that isn't an issue since we haven't said I know the sign the literally this same building the side was that is an inconsistent from us. So I would like us to be consistent there if at all possible. But I don't think the rear again not visible from the street, visible only to customers who are going around the back of the building. Just want to make sure that we haven't seen that. Sorry, Mr.

Just my counter point and I'm thinking out loud here though on using this building as an example, the back on the side that we've referenced is essentially a front that would be visible. So if we allow that, am I thinking about that incorrectly? Help me understand. You probably are. I'm not following. So, so the I the precedent for the back of the building, correct? Would fall apart if we were doing a typical uh retail out building. So, if we had Well, we just saw it. Our coffee front and a back,

right? You're going to you're going to be 360 around the building. That said, in this location, it is the rear of a building that faces the Metroink rightway and it's there's 10 garage doors. Can't count how many ballards and transformers. So, this one's a bit of a different situation, but I we do need to be careful setting precedent for outbuildings. Understood. And I I I agree. I think I take your point, Mr. Sh. Thank you. Yeah. But I I think this one, you know, it faces the metro link tracks, correct? It does. Yeah. Yep. And it's in Is that visible at all from maybe from Straner? But no,

kind of. You can see it on Google Street View, but it's literally the whole end of the there. I counted 10 garage doors, 30 or 40 ballards, two light poles over it, dumpsters. There's a lot of stuff between Strawner and that. Yeah, I think it cleans up the bag and I take uh agree with the point about outuildings. Y

and I think that that's a very good precedent we need to be mindful of. Um for me it goes to, you know, it does it improve the aesthetic of the rear, whatever we want to call it, the rear of the building. Certainly believe it does. Um is it visible from the primary drive street or even anywhere else? I don't believe so other than Metro Link going by. Um, so I have yeah no concerns with the proposal in the rear of the building. Mr. Carlin, sorry.

It's okay. Um, I so the the discussion about consistency and fairness, I do understand and sympathize with those arguments and I don't have a great answer. I I admit that. Um, those are important things to to navigate. Um, and then just, you know, to briefly restate though, I I feel given the amount of future development we're we're hoping for in our community and given the sort of current modern sort of future-looking design styles this represents, I would wonder if there isn't a need to maybe have an overall thought about that again because I feel like we're um a bit behind the times, frankly, in our limitations to be to be honest, professionally speaking. Um, that said, um, I don't know that it's going to help you tonight. And this is clearly a detailed discussion. And I'm thinking we probably just need to move this to site plan discussion because this is not a, in my opinion, this is not something I could vote on tonight because I don't feel comfortable chopping this apart without detailed design thought. So, I, you know, leave that to the applicant to decide if time matters, but I would not do that in this meeting. Personally,

I I would like to see um a night view of how bright these will be cuz what I was referring to get to the correct section under lighting. I'm human. It's trying to verify. Well, you have it up. Do you? Okay. Section 4008.

Section 40080. It does address um exterior lighting u for security, that kind of thing. It also um seems to provide um an avenue for greater than 3,000 uh degree Kelvin um if um if the fixture cannot operate with reasonable efficiency without using a bulb with a rating greater than 3,000 degrees. Well, that was so

yeah, I think when we wrote that, that was for any existing like fixtures that may not be, but it does talk about Yeah. temperature rating of 3,000 degrees Kelvin. Um, unless the owner of the fixture establishes Yeah. Um, yeah. And I will say too that the it it strictly prohibits neon. So, we would have to look at al alternative lighting and then that's when the Kelvin degrees comes into play.

And we have no issue with we're not asking for neon. We understand that's prohibited. What we would be asking for is ideally the 7,000 Kelvin LED strips that most similarly mirror what a neon effect looks like. So, I feel like we're confusing the issue. And again, another reason why I would suggest we take this to a more detailed discussion forum. But um what color is this meant to be? Is it red? Like so the I my understanding is that the light will look red because it's going inside red channels. Yeah. So I don't think that's that's not 7,000. I

But we're conflating two issues. We've got the industrial. If we were talking about the street lights or the wall packs, brightness and intensity versus

brightness that are that's getting us through the two foot candles, the one foot candle for code required safety lighting. That I believe that was the intent of that code section because I don't want to go do the research on what color temperature McDonald's arches are because that yellow will have a different color temperature. The Home Depot orange is a different color temperature. Walmart's whatever Walmart the yellow dots in the little sunshine splash is a different color temperature. I don't believe that was the intent of section 400.

Yeah, it was it was a dark sky initiative and it was about Yeah, it was about intensity and yeah, I mean that was really what it was. So yeah,

um luminosity other well I guess the question so Mr. Carlin understand think that we need to have more discussion. what is the I I guess I will say I heard from the applicant um understanding that that wall mural on the side may be a challenge um that there is an alternative that you're willing to consider which is we'll paint that wall um which I think would add to the aesthetics. I don't think I've heard any concerns about the frontage signs other than perhaps Mr. Hunt you'd mentioned the wayfinding sign just making sure we understood what the material was with that. Did I understand correctly? Yeah, I I I do have some issue with requiring the rest of the tenants in this property to not have any uh lettering on a second or third panel. So like if that sign that says

dog grooming dog grooming instead had Rosie a bunch of times like the dog or something, I think that'd be totally fine and consistent with what we'd approved before. But h having additional lettering there I think is unnecessarily inconsistent. I

think Mr. Carlin asked a question which is an important one. Thank you, Mr. Hunt. To consider is your new business. You guys got your cup. Um, you know, if we take this, we have a thing called site plan subcommittee which is in between um but we don't take any action, it would come to our next meeting. And so I think that um just to get a little bit of your indication of are you um would you rather have greater discussion? It will be the commission's decision on what we're going to do, but would you rather have greater discussion to see if there is a compromise or would you rather move forward? I think that there is what I'm hearing is some willingness to accept many of these design items but not all of them. And so I'm looking for some indication on

happy to move to um a separate meeting and have greater discussion. We are we actually started demo this week. So as we're hoping to be done with construction in December, but that should be plenty of time to to move forward with this. any other conversation with folks here. I will note that it is a challenge getting folks to site plan subcommittee. So before we want to do that, what would the date be for site plan subcommittee, Miss Kelly? And let's make sure folks can make it. August 27th. August 27th. And if Mr. Carlin can't make it, oh, there's going to be things said about him.

Would I need to be present for that? It would be helpful because we will need someone to answer questions. We have a leadership retreat on that that specific day. Okay. All day that uh yes in that evening even it's out of town. Thanks for bailing me out.

I'm sorry. The other alternative can be because again we have to move this to our next meeting to take any action on it is that there can be some exchange with staff um for some of the items that we've discussed such as specifically LED. Um I think that again there is a concern and you've heard about the president for the north side of the building and so we would need to look at an alternative that could be provided. Um anything else that I missed folks that would like to see please? Is there for that that north side is there because we absolutely are working with a company who can make multiple iterations. Is there something that would be a middle ground, a smaller mural, something else that you guys would like to see as an option?

I'm not sure that I can be that directive based on I think the concern and Mr. Hunt and Mr. Mr. Nolan, I believe you weigh in on this of it was a again, it was a a signage for the company, but it was also intended to be decorative a bit. I guess I would say that was it must be removed in order to get the frontage sign. So, I keep having questions. I apologize if we're moving in that direction you just suggested where we can't have the site meeting where I was going to ask the question to you. Um, and I don't and maybe the question first to to to Whitney. If the signage on the what I'm calling the front handle industrial side, if that signage was not necessary, do they get a credit on the rest of the building or is it just perface? It's perface.

Okay. So then that answers the question because I can say if you had to give something up that might be what you'd first give up, right? Okay. But there's no benefit to giving it up. So don't understood. Um can can I also ask like we talk about the signage on the north elevation. How how are we feeling about this? um projecting directional two square foot sign is that still you find on the north

I don't have a particular problem is there any member of the commission that has a particular concern about that I think Mr. or one one of you made the point of it's needed for wayfinding. This is going to primarily be back of the uh building is where a lot of the work will be done. So, and I don't think that we required the removal on this building of anything like that or anything else that I can recall. I don't this isn't a particularly common sign that I've seen. Correct.

And I think it adds to the retro vibe. So, Mr. Foreman, I'm sorry. I would humbly suggest if your signed design company is willing to do options that two of the views you should bring to us are at that driveway on the north side looking east as you're driving by on Hanley Road. What are you actually going to see from the road? Same at the south on Straner. They are not going to be beautiful sexy images. is they're going to show a lot of garage doors and dumpsters and then way there in the back is going to be your drive-thru. But I think that goes to the point of these are not going to be significant architectural elements to your experience driving down the street.

Anything else so we don't create additional delay? All right. I think that you've heard some of the things the commission would like to see. Um please be in contact with staff. Miss Kelly may have some things to help guide that since she knows this better than all of us uh or many of us at least. Then I believe we need a motion to carry this over to our next regularly scheduled meeting for 10th. So moved. Got a motion to carry over. Is there a second? Second. I think we can do this voice vote. All in favor say I. I. All oppose. Same sign. We'll carry over till September 10th. Some work done in the meantime. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Thank you all. Appreciate it.

All right. Our last well perhaps item of new business. I believe we get to talk about solar. Let me pull up my I'm going to get this. Here we go. This is case uh 250011. This is a text amendment to provide and clarify language regarding solar energy systems as an accessory structure. Miss Kelly, I believe this is brought by staff. Tell us about this. So the city um with the sustainability committee um received the bronze designated of souls smart which is a organization to promote the use of solar energy and solar power. Um so we are looking at the next steps to move forward. They did provide a review of our zoning code and felt that we did not adequately address the allowance of solar particularly on roofs and um it wasn't quite categorized. We we call it solar collector which they didn't feel was the correct industry standard term. So, we thought um we would bring forward a text amendment under the in 2021 um the architectural review board did grant staff approval to review um without having to go to the ARB solar panels on the roof provided that the connectors were bronze or dark or that it was otherwise screened from view. um as part of the now adopted residential design guidelines, it also provided similar design standards. So, we thought it would be a good idea to provide the correct language as recommended and incorporate the standards from the residential design guidelines um within the zoning code.

You have is that the there's a redline version. Is that the red line version? I'm just not seeing it's further down.

Oh, okay. Thank you. So, so instead of under solar collectors, we have solar energy systems that include groundmounted solar energy systems which shall meet with the development standards for accessory structures and roof mounted solar energy systems provided that the solar energy systems may be located on any roof face that connectors and metal trim are dark bronze or black to minimize the glare and to blend in with the existing roof. uh that is flush mounted to the roof in a manner that respects the architectural features of the structure including the roof line colors and material and shall not project vertically above the peak of the slope of the roof to which it is attached or otherwise demonstrated screen from view through the use of a parapit or other means. Um and that's more on the commercial side. So therefore, um that's why we're bringing this forward to you.

And I believe Miss Kelly, you said that this is compliant with or or uh does not conflict with the residential guidelines that we just proved. So that sounds good. Um and I would imagine that this does not supersede any since I know that some neighborhoods have more restrictive requirements. That would be Mr. Moore and myself. uh and others. Uh all right, any questions for members of the commission? So, completely agree with the residential part. You mentioned peaked roofs, you mentioned screening.

So, that was just I was I always get in Google Earth and I look around at all our applicants as we do this stuff. So, does anybody here know that there are solar panels on the roof of the old Brentwood School District building in Hanley Industrial Court? Nope.

According to Google Earth, they're there. According to the street view from Google Earth, you can't even see them. If we're starting to require people to do screening on flat roofs because most, you know, it used to be solar panels had to be 45 60 degrees. They don't do that much anymore. They're really very low. They're very low profile. The issue we've had with residential has been we didn't want a black solar panel with bright reflective aluminum hardware.

Right. That's why we designated the darker the bronze connections black dark bronze whatever. So they just didn't stand out.

I would actually question an overarching requirement for screening if it is sloped. It's almost like we want them to provide a study of what it would look like and then decide if we were going to require screening because we've gone back around on a bunch of our projects where they brought mechanical units which are, you know, four, six, eight feet tall. But if we got solar panels that are like two feet tall, it may actually be more obtrusive to install the screening than to just let the solar panel be the solar panel that you can't even see from the street. We never see we show elevations all the time. We never see things in elevation. We see things in perspective. So I understand that part applying to the flat roof. Is there a slope where we could put that into the ordinance, you know, like like some ratio um a specific slope that where you would want to as kind of a cut off for that?

So many variables in that equation. It's almost like you want to say if right if it's visible from the street or visible from but I mean it may not just be the street. Let's put it this way. If you're doing this and I've got a twotory I want it screened from my second story. So I'm not looking at that right like there's you know and that may not be doable. I think that that becomes a challenge is if is the rule just street level or is it right? Um so let me make sure I'm understanding Mr. Foreman. This for D is what you're focused on here and it is that language around or otherwise demonstrated screen from view. I like otherwise demonstrated screen from view but I I think it's

because that could be just inherent in the parapit of a building and it and it does mention through use of a parapit other means screen through yeah parapit or other means. I mean does that leave enough

flexibility? And maybe what we're asking is it's screen from view is left undefined, right? Because from your third if you have a three-story house and you're looking down on the roof of a one-story building, you're going to see it. We can't screen it from view or they don't work. So I I think maybe screen from view from where is what we're talking about. Do you agree? I part of it really it just was like we actually don't have many commercial buildings with sloped roofs.

The other idea is we don't want it to peek up like go up so high that it could violate height standards or be unsightly on top of a roof. So on any new building obviously you would still review that uh for new construction and I think I mean that's shall not project vertically above the peak of a sloped roof. So that's a shall not then there's an ore. So it's not going to go higher than the peak. Yeah. And then there's the ore of otherwise demonstrated screen from view. Yeah. So would it not apply to a flat roof? Right. Just a sloped roof. Yeah. I I think or it just doesn't have

if they have to pitch the um here I can show you the example in the design guidelines but this could be um they didn't want it to all be if It's built in such a way that it's going to project above it on a flat roof in commercial areas. You know, I think that's where we wanted to see some sort of the ARB wanted to see some sort of screening at that point.

Right. So, the top image, you have to kind of zoom in a little bit, but in the upper right hand corner of the top image is a green check mark. in the upper right hand corner of the bottom image is a red X. That one's not allowed because it's because it's boosted. It's angled up. Yeah, it's not flush. You're obstructing view basically. Yeah. Yeah, that makes that makes sense to me. So, the top you're not above the peak of the roof. It's all dark, right? Yeah. Yeah.

So, the idea is we did have a residential structure that had a flat roof, but it was easily there was enough of a parapit that it would screen any uh solar panels. So, the idea is that the parapit would provide that screening. So, so are we um sorry, I just jumped in. Do we do we want to do this tonight or if we have issues with the language, can we suggest amended language and come back to it? Because I Yes. I feel like sentence D is is is in need of a little bit of help and and if we could help sentence D out, maybe we're okay.

I that's exactly the point. I think it's a little we almost want to clarify the language. Maybe subdivide it into sloped roofs mean X, flat roofs mean Y. Okay. And I'm not trying to be labored. I just think it we could if we get into words smithing, it might get late and people might get frustrated. I'm wondering if if in a hurry, let's just maybe do it next time and get the language right. Yeah, we can propose uh new language at the next meeting. Um I think that would be good and I will give some homework to our members of the architectural review board which is come prepared to have those and then we will move quickly on this item because I don't think the rest of it has any concerns. Any other comments for members of the commission though? Mr. Moore,

briefly um 15B the word mounded is a typo. Oh. Oh, Mr. Moore, your eyesight is significantly better than mine. Plus 175, baby. Any members of the public wishing to address the commission on this item? I don't know if anyone's online and I forgot before, so Sherry would have been yelling at me. All right. Do we have a motion then? I guess we will be tableabling this or carrying forward this item to tableabling our September 10th meeting. So moved moved by Mr. Carlin. Is there a second?

Second. Second by Mr. Nolan. All in favor say I. I. All oppose. Same sign. It will be carried over. Uh next item of business is the alder manic report I believe. Seeing no alderman. Director's report please. So we will have the continuation of the items tonight. Um, we have not yet received an application. Um, but we should someone come in and we can still make time. We always make time for them or make public notice, we we work hard to get them on the agenda. Um, and if there's any more text amendments I can swing, I might throw that in as well.

Thank you, Miss Kelly. We've had a busy summer. Um, I will put in the plug generally of let's please, and I am one of the worst offenders. Um, let's please let staff know when we're going to be here since we've had a few quorum scares and one where we didn't make quorum this summer. So, let us do our very best to do that. Um, we do need to make sure that we are moving in a timely manner for the applicants who have spent and staff spent a lot of time and effort to get in front of us. So, anything else of items of business for the good of the order? If not, is there a motion to adjurnn? So, moved. Mr. Chairing has moved. Is there a second? Second. All in favor say I. I. All oppose can stay here.