Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Hello everyone. Welcome to the April 21st Planning Commission meeting. Um, let the record reflect that Commissioner Roberts is absent. All else present in chambers. Will you please join me in the pledge of allegiance? Per the city's meeting rules and procedures, public comments are generally limited to five minutes or less time if a larger number of speakers is anticipated or if approved by the chair. I think we're going to keep it at five minutes tonight. Speakers desiring to answer questions should direct them to the planning commission and if relevant, the commission may direct them to staff. Speakers can also follow up directly with staff during regular business hours with the city. Please file a speaker card with the administrative secretary on the form provided at the back of chambers. During this portion of the meeting, those in council chambers are permitted to speak on items that are not on the agenda. Public comments for scheduled agenda items should wait until that time. So, let's see. Um, yeah, I'll let's open it up for public comment.

At this time, we have one person in the chambers, Danny.

Good evening. I'm going to wind up freestyling tonight because my phone won't let me go online. Whoa, this mic is hot. Um, now this all has to do with planning and the mighty Munchkin, otherwise known as Diane Burgess. I'm sure you guys are aware that there is a recall effort. Now, for me, for Danny Dorman, I am a firm believer in our right to vote, our right to choose, and to live with the consequences. So, recall under normal circumstances, I wouldn't even support whether I like the person or not. This case is a little bit different, though. For one, she ran unopposed. So unlike me who wrote in Mickey Mouse, they didn't make the cut. And this body is very aware of the shenanigans that she has pulled and is pulling. Uh we have the big ugly brown brick building which is going to be a firehouse that I hope does not become a city hazard. And now the one on Brentwood Boulevard because we just don't have enough congestion in Brentwood. Let's add some more. She trapped you guys the last time. Maybe not trap, but limited what you

could do. And it wasn't necessarily to scuttle the project, but make sure that the project fit the needs of our city. And she barely made it. If you see any of my rants on Facebook, I think that she burned up a lot of her political capital and her shenanigans and barely got the firehouse approved. I think that if the assistant fire chief had brought the information that he brought that night, I think that if Anna Marie didn't come in and use her I don't know your own verb there, we wouldn't have this problem. So with the congestion downtown, I mean, what are we talking about? 300 people, which means at least 300 cars on a space of land that without this building would start to open up as you try to go to Oakley will now be, you know, jam-packed. And it's all due to her. Period. Dot. She hog tied you guys. She pulled shenanigans with the council. I always thought Ceno was our biggest issue in this town. And it really isn't. It's her. So I urge those listening

because that's who I'm actually addressing. Recall. Recall if you care about, and I'm only worried about Brentwood. Her claws go out beyond that. But for Brentwood, if you care, vote the recall. And in other news, I love Dame. that person, he, she, or they, I love their satire. I really do. And it is great because we are getting more voices and more eyes to us and satire is it's a beautiful thing. So, uh, with her and with Marie and so many others, we are Brentwood strong. Peace out.

At this time, we have no other speaker cards in person. Thank you, April. Uh, moving on to the consent calendar. Um, our next item is the consent calendar. We do not have any items tonight. Please note that the minutes from the March 17th meeting will be added to the May 5th agenda and will be approved along with the minutes from tonight's meeting. Moving into business items, item E1, a time extension for a previously approved design review application DR22-010 for eight semi-custom homes located on St. James Court subdivision. Staff report from Sarah Ueiler.

Hi, good evening. Thank you, Chairperson Brand. Good evening, planning commission. Before you tonight is a time extension request for the design review application 22-010 for eight new semic-custom single family homes within the St. James Court subdivision located on off of Minnesota Avenue. Uh here is just a brief aerial for a refresher since it's been some time since we've chatted about this project. Um and here is the site plan with the eight plotted homes. Um just to give you some background if you recall this project has quite a lengthy history. Uh a simple simplified background is provided for you today um due to the time extension requests with the full background um in the staff report. In 2023, improvement plans for the subdivision were approved and on-site grading and utility work began. Um, in 2025, the planning commission granted the design review approval uh with an expiration date of January 21, 2026. Per the conditions of approval for the subdivision, site work um is required to be completed prior to issuance of any building permits. All the required site work was not completed and staff could not issue building permits prior to the expiration date. Uh to date, utilities have been installed along the private street and the perimeter soundwall plans have been reviewed and approved and installation can begin. Um given that the site work is still ongoing, staff recommends that the planning commission adopt resolution number 26-008 approving the time extension for design review 22-010 um as previously conditioned. That concludes my uh staff report. I'm available for any questions and we also have the applicant here, Mike Morland, if there are questions for him as well. Thank you.

Thank you, Sarah. Um, any questions of staff? Vice Chair.

Sure, Sarah. Um, I was noticing in the staff report there's nothing in there about um what any kind of standards there might be for um granting an extension on a design review. Um you it's just uh I went and check code and code just says we can extend it. Doesn't say for how long. Doesn't say um you know if we can res re extend it twice. Doesn't say anything. Apparently, we could extend it for a thousand years if we wanted. Um, is there is there any um guidance staff has as to what planning commissioners usually consider when they consider an extension?

Sure. Thank you. Um, you're correct. The time is up to the discretion of the planning commission. Um, typically we grant a year or two extension depending on the project. Um, in this case, we're recommending a two-year um, extension, but again, that's up to the discretion of the commission. So, um, I'll I'll wait to hear what you have to say, but right now, we're recommending two years. So, a 2028 No, is that right? 2028 time uh, extension date. Thank you.

Yeah. Would um, would it be fair to say this project is actively progressing? Um or are we still working through the later stage? I know we have the utility piece that you just talked about, but like are we moving forward?

Sure. So, um the applicant has is actively working out on site. I can I'll turn it over to him for a little bit more information on what's actually happening on site. Maybe just in a second, Mike. Um but as far as for plan check uh the plans for the wall plan uh for the surrounding perimeter walls have been approved recently like in the last I would say last month. Um and then also they're submitting landscape plans to us. Um so that just came in a couple weeks ago. So they're actively submitting things. Um as far as the the building permits are concerned. Building permits have been submitted for the eight homes. Again we can't issue those until all the site work is done. But the permits have been submitted, comments have been sent back to the applicant. So, we're waiting a resubmitt. So, they're actively moving on different things. Um, but I would I would have Mike answer any more um questions for the on-site work.

Um, before if we could just uh two years, where did we come up with kind of to Vice Chair Flor's point about how we determine the the the time extension? Where do we come up with the two years?

Yeah. So, two years isn't uncommon. um we've done that before and I think in this case we were just really hoping to one time extension and be done. We don't want to have to come back again. Um there's been some things that have come up in the field during construction that have you know prolonged things. Um you know Mike can hopefully speak to that as well but uh the two years we felt it's actually two years from the expiration date. So the expiration was in January. So it's at this point it's about a little over a year and a half left. We just felt that was enough time to not have to come back again. But again, that's up to the discretion of the planning commission.

Okay. Thank you. I'll might have a few more, but we'll I'll move forward until and then we let the applicant speak as well. Forgive forgive this is ignorance. When did we when did we approve this previously? The design review was approved in uh January of 2025. So, just a year and a couple. And from what I remember reading and looking at this um nothing has changed significantly in in the uh from when we approved it to now. Correct. Correct. Yeah. It's just a time extension request. There's no changes proposed at at this time with the plans or anything. Okay. Thank you.

The only question I had um was there a public notice on this? I don't I want to say no, but I just wanted to ask to confirm. There's no public notice because uh it would be based on the design review application and we don't notice for design review. So uh the time extension doesn't have a a notice either. Okay. Yeah, I thought so but just wanted to check. Okay. Um any other questions otherwise? Okay. At this time the public is permitted to address the planning commission. Remarks are limited to five minutes per person except for the applicant who will have 10 minutes. Does the applicant wish to address the commission?

Sure. Um, let's see. The the last thing that you brought up as far as the um the design review I have been in touch with a few of the neighbors that had concerns about the two stories um twotory house. Is that better? So, they're they are aware of the changes. um the privacy concerns with lot number seven, I believe, and um one of the neighbors off to the side. So, I've been sending him the updated plans back and forth, and he's seems to be a happy camper. Um so, there's that. On the construction site for the op sites, um we're we've already started digging the footing for the the surrounding wall around the subdivision. We already have the rebar mats on site and we should be pouring the footing next week for most of the wall. Um there was a an abandoned storm drain line at the front of the property. Uh we found it when a couple years ago when we crossed it putting in the fire hydrant on the south end of the property and then when we crossed the utilities right down the middle of the driveway. um and it appeared to be an easy enough um obstacle to deal with. So um we let it lie until now and unfortunately on the north side of the subdivision the um storm drain line kind of goes out under the street. So there's been some discussion back and forth with engineering on how to deal with that and um I think we solved that uh two weeks ago now. So, they're in the process of backfilling that. And then once that's done, I can finally get the curb and gutter and the street done and repave or pave the subdivision and repave the

portion of Minnesota, the grinded overlay. So, things are definitely headed in the right direction and hope to be out of there fairly quickly on the underground side. And then the two-year extension. Um I think I was asking for six months, but um there's this project makes sense if we do it quicker than, you know, stringing it out over two years. I like the two years just because it's, you know, there's a safety net there, but there's no intention for a two-year extension or needing one. Anyway, anybody have questions of the applicant? No. Okay. U you want to share anything else? No. Anything else? Okay, thank you.

Let's see. Um, uh, open up for public comment. Uh, April, we have one speaker in person, Danny.

2006 and Bridalgate. That's when Bridalgate was first approved. Then it got an extension. Then it got an extension. Then it got an extension. Then we wound up in court battles. 20 years later, that monstrosity is going on. Now, I'm not accusing the gentleman behind me of being CEO. I am saying what's the use of having a deadline if you can't meet it. Now the gentleman said he only needs six months. Honestly, I be I'm not cool at all with extensions because their thing ended in January and here we are in April. And this kind of goes back to what I mentioned before about how come we're not getting together sooner because this issue had to have been discussed before January. I can't imagine the gentleman going to staff and saying, "Hey, oh, by the way," but that's an argument for another day. Today, the question I have is what happens if the extension's not approved? Do they have to go back to the drawing board and resubmit all the plans and everything? Because from what I heard, there isn't any reason other than not being ready. And not being ready should not be our problem. And the mention of the water that was mentioned in 2005 or 2025 that was mentioned because the neighbors brought it up as an issue. the wall and the second story that was brought up in 2025. And if I recall correctly, I thought

that there was um uh some type of proviso. And now here we are, April 2026, and it sounds like the issue is not anything other than, and I'm just purely speculating here, but I'm willing to bet, and maybe you guys will ask this question, how much of this delay has to do with the neighbors? Because they they have been contentious about this from the jump. How much of this and the waterway is now just being discovered when it was brought up in 2025? I don't know why there needs to be an extension other than we haven't done our job up to this point. And that should not be a reason for an extension. especially two years. I would rather Hey, if they're not done in six months and they have to come back, then they can explain why. Cuz 2028, what's to stop them from 2028 coming in and saying, "Oops, we need another extension." That's what CENO did. And then on top of that, if honestly, I haven't heard anything that gave any rationale to say, "Okay, you need an extension." If PG& didn't do the work, you need an extension. If the city didn't build any streets, you need an extension. This all sounds like it's contained on the developer. If that is indeed the case, then we give license for everybody else to come back

and say, "Hey, we need an extension. Why?" So, please consider that if you again maybe I I really don't know the answer to the question what happens if this is not approved tonight because it's obviously late. It was supposed to be you know deadline was January and we're in April. So, it's already late. So, what are the ramifications repercussions? What if you say no there's no extension? What does that do to the project? and then maybe consider the six-month deal, but two years. No, not that. At this time, we have no other speakers here in person. We'll go ahead and go to Zoom. If you would like to speak on this item, please raise your hand. We have no speakers in Zoom.

Thank you, April. Um, let's see. I will now close public comment. Um maybe Britney, would you be able to respond regarding the um process in the event this item was denied uh according to Mr. Dorman? Sure. And um Sarah, please jump in um if you would like, but I think generally the design review um would be null because it would have expired and so um the applicant would have to go through the design review process again. That's um Sarah, if you want to add anything.

Yeah. No, that's correct. Um as far as all the site work is concerned, that is previously approved part of the subdivision. So that work could continue and should continue to be uh completed out there. But as far as a design review is concerned, we wouldn't have any approvals for what the homes look like. They would have to come back in and get a new design review application from us. Great. Thank you. Um through the chair,

sorry. Yeah, go ahead. Just one point of clarification. Um, with respect to process, regardless of what the planning commission decides tonight, the next step would be an appeal period uh for the commission's decision. So, it could potentially be heard uh by the council. Uh, for example, if the commission were to deny the time extension request, the applicant could file an appeal and that could be considered by the by the council. I appreciate that. Thank you. Uh, discussion. Oh, wait. Oh, I don't know. Was it public comment? I I'll now close public comment. Uh and we'll move on to discussion. No, we have to do a motion. It's a public hearing. This is not a public hearing. All right.

Uh Commissioner Jones. Yeah. Or Yeah. However you like. Commissioner Johnson, you want to start? By all means, I can be the last one.

Okay. Thank you. Um no, thank you staff for for just the report on this. Um, obviously this has been a long process and uh I mean as in terms of what's in front of us tonight, I mean I think it's it's fairly straightforward. Uh I think you know the extension itself seems like I think a a practical way to do this. Um, where I'm conflicted a little is uh just the the time that has been spent on this project for so long. And um I'm wondering if an appropriate middle ground even being the applicant saying 6 months is probably all they would need as opposed to doing two years to do one. uh just because um you know I I think we need to it I think what would that be the 20-y year mark on this? Yeah. So, uh, I I think, you know, I that would be to me would be an appropriate middle ground. Um, is to extend it for a year. And, uh, at that point, if if if we're still asking for more extensions, then then we probably need to to revisit this a little bit more closely. So, that's that's where I'm at right now. But uh I'm obviously very open to my fellow commissioners and uh just you know the comments they have around this. But that's that's where I sit.

Commissioner Johnson comments.

You know I don't um I remember this from the last time we talked about it and and looking over the uh the report the staff report and seeing that nothing has changed. I didn't really get a great understanding of what the delay was that you know brought us to this point uh that you know brought us here. Um but I you know I am thinking of Mr. Dorman's comment. I don't want to be here 20 years from now. So I have I'm I'm a little conflicted in one thing and that I don't want to see this again like you know I don't want this to come back. So, I don't want to say, "Oh, it's he he's overconfident, say, I'll get it done in six months, and then next thing I know, we're back here, you know." So, I don't want to see that happen. If we're going to get it done, we should get it done and get it done uh quickly rather than uh for your sake, money's sake, cost sake, and for our sake that, you know, it's not dragging out. That's where I'm kind of leaning. I kind of agree with uh Commissioner Jones. Uh um I don't want I I'm I'm scared to do six months and then you come back. Uh so I rather be cautious and make sure it gets done and if it's going to get done and don't come back. That would be where I am.

Vice Chair Flor.

Yes. Thank you. Um, I want to first off address um what this this is and I think that um this will help the public understanding. Um this is a an extension of the design review. The design review is one of the um approvals that will come before the planning commission on a project. It's only one of the appro approvals. as it happens, the design review itself has a one-year expiration date on it when it's issued. Um, and then it can be extended uh by the planning commission. And that's what I was talking to Sarah about earlier. Um, it the the extension which is I think in 17.820. sign in Brenton Municipal Code in case anyone wants to go actually look it up like I did this afternoon. Um it says that that we can extend the um the design review and the design review expires not at the end of the project but um Eric, can you help me out? It's like it it when they receive a permit, isn't it? Or something like that. The when when the design review has met, it's

when we would consider it activated.

Yeah. Yeah. Well, that's a great question. This this project is kind of unique and it was brought up earlier how the map and the design review aren't necessarily tied to each other. Usually, when the commission sees the development project, the map and the design review come in together. When the map came in in the early 2000s, and I think it was approved in 2006, 2007, it was by itself. There was never a design review application that came along with it. So even without the design relication, if if for some reason it got the time extension got denied and we never even had one, they could still proceed with uh the map and fulfilling all those requirements, doing all the utilities and improvements and then at some point a design review application would come in. So that's the kind of distinction uh with this one. For us at the staff level, the way we see it is to activate the design review, we need to issue at least one of the building permits for these eight lots to essentially activate like vertical construction.

So basically once they start building a house and that's that's how I read it. It was once they get the building permit for one of the structures that there that's it. The design review is considered correct.

It doesn't need an extension after that. So this is just a procedural thing just to just to extend the design review. Has nothing to do with when the project ends. Has nothing to do with how long the project takes. It just has has to do with when they um get their permit for their first construction part and then the design review doesn't uh it doesn't matter anymore. It doesn't it won't expire again. So um having said all that and uh having read the staff report gives some account of the of the difficulties that were encountered this year um and the applicant has given a further account. Um I'm satisfied that that they're just being held up a little bit um that they do intend to complete the project. they're out there, you know, uh, moving her. And, uh, so my understanding, um, from the staff report also is that, uh, or from the applicant statement that he was fine with six months, but, staff wanted to go two years just in case anything else came up. And that seems advisable to me. I I agree with Commissioner Johnson. I want to be back here every six months trying if if something did come up and things come up. But I don't see any reason not to just go with the two years. And that's kind of the direction I'm leaning right now. Again, given that this is just one of the um one of the things that we do, it's not it doesn't it's not the whole project. It's not I I understand the concern in the community um with certain other projects that have happened in the past where extensions have gotten out of hand, but this is just a design review extension. So, I think it's fine. Uh great comments. Uh my only maybe this good question for staff is in the event let's say uh well actually this is a

perfect example uh applicant requests a you know an extension for whatever whether it's the VTSM or design um how many staff hours what uh what's the lift here from a from a city perspective in order to you know put all this paperwork together get it to a meeting and then we vote on it like can you maybe summarize that in a couple sentences

I mean time extensions themselves just specific um it's not a terrible lift because the bulk of the work has been done you're analyzing you know new information that may have come in but and there is a fee that's paid so staff time is essentially recovered it's not necessarily dollar for dollar but uh it it does take time I mean It's not really efficient um to be honest with you, but we process extensions probably a few times a year for different projects, so it's not really new to us and we're we're used to them. Does that help?

It does. It does. It just, you know, I I think we've talked about a couple of different time periods uh here tonight. Um so I believe Yeah. And so as vice chair Flora said, is the you know, it's we're we're simply looking at the uh extension portion of this the map. Sorry. The map was approved. The design was originally approved in addition to the COAs that we talked about last January or 14 months ago, I guess. Um, so nothing uh out of the ordinary here. So, um, with that, I will look for a motion. Okay. I make a motion to adopt resolution number 26-00008 approving the time extension for DR22-01 0 subject to no not just not subject to any findings but well I guess subject to certain findings and conditions I guess but there's no findings and conditions additional

and just to clarify are you uh recommend or are you moving to adopt the resolution as drafted as drafted Okay, there you go. Just leave it at draft. I'll second that. All in favor? I I.

Motion carries. Moving on to public hearings. Item F1, text amendments to the Brentwood Municipal Code related to restaurants, including those with the sale of alcohol for on premise consumption. Staff report from Jennifer Hagen. Thank you, chair, and members of the commission. Tonight, we're here to discuss the city's focused zoning code update, specifically regulations related to restaurants and the sale of alcohol for on-site consumption. This agenda item is related to task three of our focus zoning code update. This task includes amendments to various sections of the zoning code to better reflect the community's values based on feedback from the community and the city council and include changes to some of the permitted and conditionally permitted uses throughout the city. On September 24th of 2024, the city council provided initial direction on alcoholrelated uses and then of March 10th this year, the city council was presented with draft amendments based on the 2024 direction. staff is now moving forward with the recommendation uh before you tonight uh related to the restaurants with or without the sale of alcohol um based on the final direction provided by council. While many of our focus zoning code updates have limited or prohibited certain uses within the city, this amendment was created to allow for consistency across the city and spur economic development while encouraging a wide variety of restaurants and new code updates that will be more easily understood. The overall goal of these amendments is to reduce the hurdles for new restaurants and only require conditional use permit review where appropriate. As proposed, the amendments will provide regulations only for those serving alcohol within 500 ft of a K through2 school and with a sliding scale for those located near residential properties.

The proposed amendments tonight um would provide um the following proximity standards. It would prohibit all alcohol sales within 500 ft of a school. Restaurants that are located within 100 ft of a residential property that request to sell alcohol would be required to have a conditional use permit. Restaurants within 100 to 300 ft of a residential property requesting to serve alcohol would be required a conditional use permit only if they are requesting to be open later than 10 p.m. And restaurants greater than 300 ft from a residential property that requests to have onremise alcohol sales would be permitted in conjunction with a restaurant. Um the proximity standards uh it should be noted though does exclude the downtown specific plan area which would remain the same, the innovation center which would remain the same and PD6 which is generally the streets of Brentwood and the shopping center. Based on that, staff is recommending that the planning commission adopt resolution 26-009 recommending that the city council adopt a text amendments to the municipal code which would add development standards related to on-premise alcohol sales and change the land use classifications related to restaurants with or without the sale of alcohol throughout the city. And that concludes staff's report. Um, we also have Perry Banner from Denovo Planning Group who's joining us tonight via Zoom, who has been our consultant and helped us out with all of our focus zoning code update. Um, he as well as myself are available for any questions. Thank you.

Thank you, Jennifer. Um, do we have any clarifying questions of staff on this item?

Seeing none, I just was checking for All right. Um uh Jennifer as I read this um it mentions that um first it says within 500 no no on sale alcohol sales establishment within 500 foot radius from any school that's licensed and operations as of the effective date of this ordinance. I'm not sure license. Did it was that supposed to say in operation? At any rate, so it says, okay, you can't build you can't put one of these within 500 ft of a school that was there as of the date that this is um uh is is effective. And then it talks about a school, a new school is established after the effective date. Um, and it envisions what would happen if it was in within the 500 feet of an existing restaurant. But it doesn't really, this paragraph doesn't really include the new school into the group of schools where no new restaurants can be built after it's built. You know what I'm saying? I I think that the uh if a new school is built and there's not already a restaurant there, then they shouldn't be able to build one. And I'm not sure that this paragraph clarifies that. No,

I wonder if that if maybe it's clarified more thoroughly in the resolution or this is the this is the law. Oh, okay. That's the actual BMC. Okay. Yeah. the way it is currently written that any existing or new restaurant could still expand or go in with a conditional use permit if a school is established if a new school is established. So, it would still allow um for a restaurant to go in.

Okay. I I I see that as a hazard. we'll we'll talk about in discussion um for for Commissioner Johnson. What I'm talking about is the the schools that are already there, but if they build a new school, I also want that school to be protected from new establishments. I I I'm fine with an exception. Yeah. Okay. I'm Okay. And I do have I think another question before I before I give it up. Um No, I think these are for discussion. Go ahead, Commissioner Johnson.

So, I just want to follow up because the way make sure I understand because I think I understand what uh Commissioner F is saying. If there if there is a restaurant that's selling alcohol and a new school comes in, the old restaurant or the restaurant that was there is a grandfather. Correct. Right. His point is if a new another restaurant within 500 ft were to decide to pop up that restaurant the new restaurant is subject to this ruling. Right. The way it is currently written is that a new restaurant could still go in with a conditional use permit

within 500 ft. Mhm. Yeah, that's not okay. Commissioner Jones. Yeah, real quick. Um, the 500 foot school buffer than the 100 to 300 foot residential standards. Um, is this uh consistent with other cities that you're aware of? Um, yes, I have looked into it. it is consistent with um other cities do have similar separation requirements from schools um from youth oriented facilities from residential properties and so forth that the discretion of cities to do so.

Thank you. And and again the kind of a little bit off of what was being discussed earlier, new restaurant comes in. Um the the process is ultimately conditional use permit for any of these. Even if they wanted if they wanted to get an like an exception made for wanting to put something near a restaurant or a school or excuse me a school or residential housing that is or is it just off limits? The school separation um is off limits. Off limits. Right. Okay. the vinity to residential is a conditional use. Got it. That's what I thought. Just wanted to confirm. Thank you.

Any other questions of staff? That one just I uh miss I just have one more question. It's it's going back to this. So, let me just make sure I understand because I think I do. that if there is a school, a restaurant cannot open cannot open period within 500 ft. A restaurant serving alcohol a restaurant serving alcohol, excuse me, a restaurant serving alcohol cannot open within 500 ft.

That is correct. However, if by chance there was a restaurant serving alcohol and a school decided to open within 500 ft within that that perm, another restaurant could open could sneak through that like little loopho. Is that correct? I'm trying to Okay. So, the way it is written is if a new school is established after the effective date, an existing restaurant may continue to operate and expand with the application of a conditional use permit. It does not say a new restaurant. So, if I understand that correctly, that's I'm a restaurant owner. I would have to to continue selling alcohol. I would need to submit a conditional for a conditional use permit once that school moves in.

No, you could continue your hours of operation, your existing operations grandfathered in. If you wish to expand your hours of operation or expand your square footage, at that time you would need a conditional use permit, but you would be grandfathered in at your existing um basically operations. Commissioner Johnson, does that answer your question? Not I think I can help. Not Go ahead.

Well, I I can probably help through the chair. Um what I what I said and what I still see is that um this paragraph that describes it does not in any way take into consideration what happens when you build a school after the effective date and a new restaurant wants to come in. It's it's not addressed at all. That's what I'm saying is it doesn't say you can. It doesn't say you can't. It doesn't address it as written. And um so Britney, do you wanna

Well, so so as written, it says no on sale alcohol sales establishment shall be located within 500 ft of any school, public or private. Um it does not in that sentence say an existing public school at the time of this ordinance. It it says that is licensed in operations as of the effective date of this ordinance. It's the very first sentence. Am I am I looking at the wrong page? It says, "No on sale alcohol sales establishment shall be located within the 500 foot radius from any school that is licensed and operations as of the effective date of this ordinance. And that and that's that's where I'm where I'm concerned. It says the school has to already exist as of the effective date of the ordinance. Then it says if a school comes in after that date and is built, it contemplates what happens to the restaurant that's already there. But it doesn't say anything one way or another about whether a new restaurant can be built within 500 foot of that new school.

Yes. Unless I'm reading it wrong, and that's why I'm turning to the attorney. I apologize. You are reading it correct. If you do not want to require new restaurants, you would strike out that as of the effective date of this ordinance and then it would cover no new future ones. Um the next sentence will cover existing restaurants that come in prior to a new school. Um, so yes, so the one sentence does cover new restaurants afterwards, which if that is not what you intend to do or what you want to recommend, we would just strike out as of the date of the ordinance.

Is that clear to the commission as far as that seemed like a very key distinction uh that vice chair floor called out here? If I'm looking at uh Oh, the attorney, the assistant attorney, if you have any do can you weigh in on how you read it?

I just found I just found it. So, um I had to scroll down quite a bit, but um I will weigh in. I'm just going to look at it for a second. Yeah, I mean I think that language um I think there could be an argument um either way about intent, but the way that it's written, I could see an argument that it only applies to schools that are effective as of the date of the ordinance. And um in my experience, we'll hear all

at this time. We have no speakers here in the chambers. For those that are on the line in Zoom, if you'd like to speak on this item, please raise your hand. We have no speakers in Zoom. Also, the city has received zero public comments regarding this item that were sent via email or otherwise for our consideration. Copies of these comments will be made available on the city's website on the meeting information page. Do I have a motion to close the public hearing? A motion to close the public hearing. Second. All in favor? I I I.

Motion carries. All right. Any discussion? Anybody want to start? Commissioner Johnson, you've got your mic on, so sorry. You're welcome to start. No, I I I don't have any problem overall with the with this, you know, adopting this that the council has already done except for what commissioner floor brought up. I just want to clean that up that language um that language and um other than that I'm cleaning up that language would be important. And when you say cleaning up that language, is that in reference to the sentence uh substitution or Yes. that we just literally talked about.

So, just to be very to be very specific that no new school there no new restaurant, excuse me, serving alcohol after a school had been built would be allowed. Understood. Um I mean that's commission that's vice chair floor's I'm maybe vice chair floor has a different language but I'm in agreement with that particular deal. Great. Uh, Commissioner Jones.

Yeah, thank you. Um, you know, it's interesting too because I I had seen some some things regarding this and I I think there was some confusion too about this item and um, you know, how I'm reading this again is like you this is not a ban on alcohol. It's not an attempt to, you know, broadly restrict restaurants. Um, you know, this is on-site alcohol consumption essentially. So, I mean, I would say for most of the city, um, there isn't a lot of changes here. um you know, restaurants that serve alcohol, they can continue to do that. They're allowed by right. Um and I think, you know, what we're doing here is is we're doing some very, you know, targeted situations, which you have a project that's close to a school, close to residential neighborhoods, right? We need this. This makes sense, right? You want you want to have protection for those areas. Um so, and even in those cases, in some examples when we're not, you know, when we're we're not necessarily even saying no, right? We're just saying let's take a closer look with the exception of the school piece of course. So I I I think this is a common sense approach. Um uh it's a it's a good targeted framework. Um I think it still supports restaurants. It still supports economic activity, but we're being thoughtful about the impacts near the schools in the neighborhood. So um I'm comfortable supporting it. I agree with what um Vice Chair Floyd talked about with just the verbiage just to make sure we're very clear on that. So I'm I'm looking forward to that discussion. uh is in terms of what that might look like. Um but outside of that, uh you know, I I'm I'm I'm prepared to support uh this this ordinance. Thank you,

Vice Chair. Floor.

Yes. Thank you. Um I do have some other items uh in addition to um the the thing about the the school built after the um after the date of enactment. Um the proximity I was looking in the residential but I I really there's a 100 foot proximity and 100 ft is um pretty close. Uh 100 feet is about as as wide across as my front yard. You know it's not it's not a very short distance at all. I um not a very long distance at all. Um, and in particular, I'm concerned about this close proximity because it it doesn't include um, for instance, a patio. It doesn't include the parking lot for like a standalone restaurant. Um these are areas if if you have a a patio out behind the restaurant um that's also going to be a source of the hazard that the alcohol consumption which will create which to my view it's not really stated here what the hazard hazards might be but I think the hazards of you know having a lot of alcohol consumption might be noise and you know general rowdiness because people get in high spirits literally they have spirits they get in high spirits And that's what that means. Um, and so I think measuring it from the physical building, um, you know, if you're measuring 500 ft, that's a good distance. And it, you know, you might overlook the, uh, the parking lot or the uh the the patio or the the sidewalk which is open like which we did during COVID, you know, and some of the sidewalks are still open. Um,

so I I just I I really have trouble with just measuring 100 feet from the closest corner of the building. Um that that was basically my discussion on that is is 100 foot is too close um if you're just measuring from the building and uh I think 500 ft all around would just kind of cover that. And then if you had a 500 foot buffer and gosh they had a patio that extended out into that a little bit then I think that would be a less h of a hazard. You have a 100 foot buffer and you got a patio that extends out to that well you're getting pretty close to somebody's house. You know what I mean? And um and the same thing in the parking lot. Parking lots outside of alcohol serving establishments um sad to say are often the sites of you know disturbances. So that that's kind of how I'm leaning on that. Um, and uh, going back to the first point, um, as far as the location, I I think Jennifer has a good plan here that as of the effective date of this ordinance, um, I think it should I think you should not be able to build a new restaurant whether or not the school was built before or after the effective date of this ordinance. Um, if if we want do we want to figure out some language or do we want to send it back and have them come back for language?

Can you say that one more time just so that we could really I think whether or not a school is built before or after the date this ordinance becomes effective. If there's not a restaurant within 500 ft of it, a restaurant shouldn't be built within 500 feet of it. So you're the goal and I'm saying that this doesn't doesn't say that. So the goal essentially is just to ensure that in no way, shape, or form there's ever an opportunity where this could be near a school. I mean, is

uh only if it's only if the school is built near a restaurant, I I agree with that. Like the the restaurant was there, they built the school, what's what are they going to do? But if there's if there's if there is a restaurant there, leave it. But if there's not and they build a new school, then don't be going in and building, you know, alcohol. And again, these are al on sale alcohol sales establishments. They don't necessarily have to be restaurants, although that's really what um a lot of the the discussion is in the different PDS because they're looking at restaurants specifically and talking and they say if the restaurant is an on sale alcohol sales establishment, then but really any on this as written this applies to any onale alcohol sales establishment. And I'm saying that if you build a school after the effective date of this ordinance and then somebody wants to come in and build a restaurant restaurant or any kind of alcohol sales establishment within 500 ft of that school, this ordinance should prevent that. And as written, it does not. So, I want new language and we can either work that out now or um I'd be happy to um see staff come back with it because I don't know how, you know, how pressing this is or how tough I think we could I think we could fix it here. I'm just I'm just deferring to staff.

April, could you share my screen uh for a second? So I believe uh if we just eliminate that second part of that um provision that no on sale alcohol establishment shall be located within 500 ft radius from any school public or private that is licensed except within the area as defined. Um that so that I think covers current and future licensed schools. So that does not allow for any wiggle room there. And then the next sentence will continue to allow for the grandfather in of existing restaurants that are in operation at the time of a new school. So I think this would take care of what it sounds like your concerns is for this situation.

I do believe it does and I'll leave it to I agree. And if I understand correctly that the goal here is to uniformly address new schools with future schools or sorry current schools with future schools in terms of the application of this. Yes. Okay. Great. Okay. Uh any other any other comments?

And again, I I would like to um change the 100 foot proximity um that's mentioned in the residential for um uh establishments that are not open past 10. Um I think that should be 500 foot as well as for establishments that are open past 10. Um and uh because they're measuring from the building and they're not taking into account the parking lot, um potential patio, just the general going on that will happen around um let's call it a bar, right? Uh I think 500 ft is is a little bit better mark to hit. So that would be my second point of discussion.

Chair. Yeah. Um if Thank you. If I may, um, the the 100 foot establishment, where did that number ultimately come from because I I I like where bice floor is going with this because I mean you got me thinking vice floor particularly on the 100 feet just because 100 feet isn't really that big when you think about it, right? So I I you've got my mind spinning now on that and I'm just curious where that number came from.

Yeah. So just a little bit of a background. um a typical shopping center, a typical commercial center within the city outside of the downtown or what we're envisioning for PA1 and the streets typically were all designed in a way that have the back of house to the residential. I'm not aware of a single shopping center in the city that has a patio on the rear. Um we could definitely add in I think it is you know we could I think it to make it clearer that I think the intent is to measure it from any operating part of the restaurant. So although it does say building wall I would definitely agree that we would want that to also include a patio if there were one. So 100 feet to any eating outdoor dining patio place that there could be the service of alcohol. Um I think 100 ft should be also looking at just the general layout of the city and how shopping centers were designed. Staff did simulated buffers of 300 and 500 ft. If you look overall at all commercial centers within the city that are within 500 ft, there's approximately only three buildings, not even centers, but three buildings that are not within 500 ft. So by extending the requirement to require a conditional use permit for all properties within 500 ft would be essentially saying all restaurants with the sale of alcohol except for three buildings will require conditional use permit. And so that is where the the 100 foot came from. We did initially look at the 300 and the 500 and and determined that the 300 was more appropriate and

still did allow some room for some by right but the 90% of of the city probably more all of the shopping centers just because of the residential nature of our city are all within 300 ft of a residential property. So that's kind of where we came with those original numbers. Um, but yes, if you did want to go to 500 feet, um, I think it may be more appropriate just then to take out all of the red lines. Um, it it would essentially almost require a conditional use permit for all restaurants within the city that would like to serve alcohol.

I I may I through the chair. Um, in listening to the uh the analysis there, there's a a couple points. One is that a patio not being enclosed is going to be more of a noise hazard. Um for buildings that as you described don't have patios. They've got nothing to worry about. Um what I'm envisioning is a standalone restaurant. And uh I'll just go ahead and mention that there is a standalone restaurant in my neighborhood. Um and I have I have no problem with that. I mean I I I think that they're already compliant with all of this. Um I'm just I'm just h just because I'm familiar with that what a standalone restaurant can look like in a neighborhood or what a person might want to construct. Um, not every restaurant goes into a strip mall. Um, there are such things as standalone restaurants. And um even when we were talking about um a a a potential drive-thru restaurant in a in a neighborhood in over in um uh Brentwood Boulevard, a specific plan area. Um there was outdoor areas for people to sit and uh that was not an alcohol serving establishment, but the the the potential to um take over a piece of a parking lot and build something exists. We've seen that, you know. Um so and this is not the other thing I want to say about it. This is not a ban. It's a cup. So by making it a CUP

that gives the planning commission any future planning commission the ability to look at it and say oh you know what this is you know one thing you know it's it's it's it's in an area where there's where it makes sense and there's not a school and um you know it is it's an existing shopping center like you say or they can say oh Look, this is, you know, this is like right smack dab in somebody's neighborhood. Um, they're going to be more concerned about it. You know, maybe we should give this some consideration. Maybe we should talk to the people that are going to be neighbors of this restaurant. Maybe we should have them, um, have the opportunity to come and have a public speech. So, um, I'm not trying to stop anybody from having a business. Um, I'm very pro business, actually. Um, but I'm also pro residents. And I think that in order to establish a good secure boundary for residents to be able to come in and talk about these things, um I think I like 500 ft. Um and I'm open to discussion from from the rest of the commission.

Uh thank you, Vice Chair Flor. Um I wanted to offer a slightly different perspective. I haven't quite heard this one yet. So, I just bear with me for a moment. So, in listening to what council had originally recommended and clearly uh this draft ordinance was brought forward, the idea here was to create a somewhat of a uniform standard across the city that enables a um consideration for sensitive regions as in in this case either residential or um I'll call it scholastic institutions, right? private, public, what have you. It by my analysis at least, it crosses 19 total um I was either 19 or 20 maybe Jennifer. Yeah. Uh PDS total and I went I read through every single one of them and you know that doesn't include the general commercial as well as the downtown specific plan as well as um what is it? PD6 and um the uh PA1. Um there's basically two that are left over um that have some kind of difference uh from what we're talking about now. One is uh PD15 and I believe the other one is uh PD43. PD43 is basically it says prohibited sale of alcohol for both permitted and from a conditional use permit. So in a way this would relax if if you know my understanding is correct that this would essentially relax that in in PD43 PD15 a permitted uses golf related facilities and I think we've learned that before is an example of um a typically a restaurant that has on-site alcohol is very common with respect to golf related facilities and that's consistent because that's in the neighborhood over by um Apple Hill um in district three I think it is. So G, you know, given that it's in looking at all the different and I

can share this with you. It's a doc that I put together that has all the PDS listed out, but um what I'm seeing is that there's it's not that instead of having a a potential like let's call it a future business owner looking at all of the PDs and trying to figure out where would be the best location for the um their restaurant. You might even have two PDs next to each other. one has a uh it requires a restaurant uh require a cup and then the one right next door might be a uh a by right. And so I think what this is really attempting to do is identify zones of sensitivity given residential and and and schools and then just make them uniform across. Um, so just I I feel like at least from a business perspective, and I know Commissioner Johnson here is is one of our more businesss savvy experts here, but I think it would definitely uh bring us a step forward as far as um uh not only giving us an opportunity for a future restaurant uh with on-site alcohol sales, but um also give us a a bit more uh discretion first of all uh from this body as well as council to say as as vice chair described having a um we'd essentially have a uh this body would have that be able to exercise that discretion versus you know as it relates to a variety of variables that we typically see with respect to cups but um it would also enable that level of consistency. So, it'd be a little bit I I would imagine it would be a little bit easier for um a restaurant owner or future restaurant owner to look at that and say, "Oh, that that that seems a little bit easier because um the um the specificity of the PDS is slightly alleviated." So, that being said, uh I can appreciate the pushpull of the 100

to 300 to 500 ft. Um I realize there's a lot of gray area there. So, I think that and judging by what I've heard thus far uh this evening, it sounds like that's where we really want to get a bit more clarity on as a body. So, uh does anyone want to comment a bit more specifically about their uh their thoughts and uh direction as far as that's concerned? I have a thought.

Um okay. Um, one question I have for staff is, um, I, if I recall correctly, when we're talking about drive-throughs, isn't it 300 ft for drive-throughs? The, uh, the distance a drive-thru has to be away from residential. Do we have a I thought we had a ruling on that. No. While Jennifer is looking into that, um, something to keep in mind about a a cup is it goes with the building. So, um, this is only if somebody has an initial intent to put something in that building that wasn't already there, um, that involves sales of alcohol. And then if they receive a cup, then ever after that building is going to have a cup on it that says you can serve alcohol here unless somebody else comes along and you know in in in the distant future and decides they want to you know change the regulation or something. So, I think a cup is a pretty pretty light standard um for something like this. I we see restaurants in here for all the time for all kinds of things. And um if they're in here getting a design review, they're probably getting a cup anyway. And if they're, you know, if they're not, they're probably getting a design review. It's not it's not like they're not going to be with talking to planning anyway in most most situations that I've seen. I I don't know is that is that is that a fair thing to say?

I I think that that's only applicable to do construction. Um and I believe since you know 90 to 95% of the city is is built out um that the majority of our shopping centers are not going to come in uh to the planning commission for any reason at all except for conditional use permit. Um and I did find the the drive-thru if you want when you're ready to go back to that. Yes. What is that? Yeah. So, per our our new drive-through ordinance, drive-throughs shall be located a minimum of 100 ft from a residential property unless separated by a masonry wall in which then they can go even closer than 100 ft. I see. All right. Thank you. Appreciate that. All right. Um well, that was my input,

Commissioner Johnson. You know, I um as Jennifer so eloquently put it, most business owners and restaurants are going to be wanting half foot traffic. At the end of the day, that's what we want. You want foot traffic to get people to see a restaurant to the last thing a restaurant owner wants to do is be smack dab in a, you know, middle of a um now I know that in the middle of a residential area because there's no foot traffic. I realize that your, you know, that situation where you live, that's slightly different, but they want foot traffic. They want the ability to draw eyeballs. And most of our um shopping centers is where they're going to want to be because there are other businesses located nearby that's going to be able to draw um uh bis uh you know, draw business, draw people, draw customers. And then when you take a look at most of these shopping centers, they usually have a brick wall. And right now the brick wall, right on the other side of the brick wall is a residential home which could be less than 100 ft away even though there's a brick wall separating the the property. So I I'm not uh in you know I think I think there's a good plan. I think it it's reasonable. Um certainly don't want a um alcohol near a school in any which way shape or form you know kids walk even though they can walk there you know and ride a scooter. I get all of that and even though that the restaurant tour better check for ID because they'll be fined and lose their license to sell alcohol uh if they violate that rule. I still think it's not a bad idea to have that 500 foot consistent. I um and but

the the increasing it forward um to put like restaurants no restaurant if they are they are the stupid you know that if they want to have a restaurant in a residential area where there's no other commercial activity going on that's not a place that's going to be successful. Uh so I'm inclined to leave it where it is and um that's what my thoughts on on that particular part of it. If I may, I I I heard something um from Jennifer and from Commissioner Johnson that's um intriguing to me about um a wall. If there is a wall, I I would I would say that we could actually add that in to say to to allow to be closer if there is a wall. But, um I'm still leaning towards the the bigger number, but I think if there's a wall, like like I was talking about how a patio lets sound travel, but a wall can help with that, you know? So I think a wall is a good idea.

Um and again so go going back Jennifer to what you were saying um in respect to the buildout of the city you know 90 to 95% so so the likelihood of a new standalone restaurant in an area that falls within the scope of this ordinance um is is is pretty unlikely. Is that is that a fair assessment? It's not unlikely, but it it's going to only happen in limited circumstances there. The majority of the vacant land that we currently have is um along Brentwood Boulevard um which is not straight commercial. A lot of that is commercial/industrial. Um so we may not get uh retail commercial restaurant type uses. Um but the the majority of the land that we do have left is typically along Brentwood Boulevard outside of Brentwood Boulevard. Um there is very little internal vacant land that we have left.

And and to confirm going from 100 ft to either 300 or 500 essentially would ensure a CUP for any restaurant that's looking to sell alcohol. It would given the current location. Correct. Yes. If you extend the 100 ft requirement to 300 or 500 ft, I would say 300 would encompass probably 75% of of the city's buildings and I would say 500 would probably encompass 90% and above uh requiring all properties uh okay to require conditions.

Yeah. And I think to that to that point um intriguing discussion going on to my left over here particularly rel in relation to you know having the wall that separates a commercial building and residential housing. Um I'm I I'm I wanted to talk more discuss more a little about what that looks like potentially from a verbiage standpoint um in there because to vice chair floor's point I mean like if there's if you have a wall that separates housing and the commercial building um you know I almost wonder if 100 feet would suffice. I'm I'm I'm going back and forth because I get what Vice Chair Floor is saying particularly on just being, you know, very careful about um you know, how we're we're we're letting this happen as a city. Uh but on the flip side, you know, I don't want to impede business either, right? And as long as it it makes sense, you know, to to to really look at it and make sure that that the right thing is being done. So, I'm a little conflicted. I'm open to hearing more um about what that might look like, but uh the the the wall component or verbiage um is something I think we might want to explore a little bit further.

And to clarify, it is a code requirement that there be a masonry wall separating all residential and commercial properties. So, that is already a um a requirement within the city. And off the top of my head, I cannot think of any commercial shopping centers that do not have an actual mason wall there. Not to say that there's not an older one, but um it is a current requirement um and has been so for quite a while. Got it. So that that argument is essentially no need to put it in there because it already exists anyway is in terms of when something is being built. But on the flip side, you could still want it in there just to make it very clear.

Absolutely. Sure. Just just thinking about for instance the um the the fast food restaurant that we was requested to be built in a parking lot

and they were going to have an open area and again it wasn't an alcohol serving opening but that one wasn't at it wasn't in the thing. It was a new building being built in a parking lot with an open space and so um yeah maybe 99% of the things that exist now have a wall but that's not 100%. And um also as far as existing now, I'm from Orlando. Okay. So, we went from 100,000 people to a million people in the 30 years that I lived there. Um I saw many things built, torn down, and new things built. Happens all the time. Um this is commercial development. Um a lot of times people don't want to keep their old buildings. And um when you look at how a shopping center is constructed, they're they're designed, they're basically big empty spaces and then the walls inside and everything is temporary. And sometimes it just makes more sense to flatten it and make something that looks that's suits the design that that they want to make for a new thing. you know, it it happens all the time and we're not sure for the next 10 20 years maybe this isn't significant, but I think I think in a longer time span I just went home um and uh to Orlando and had another look around and I I see change everywhere. You know, they say you can't go home and I see change 50 years from now in Brentwood and I see us looking at a law that will still be on the books. So, I just I just want to I just want to think about the future, the present. Um, you know, because there is another wrinkle. We we have mixeduse neighborhoods contemplated for PA1 and it's but it's I think it's been exempted from this, right? PA1 is one of the ones that's not that doesn't count here. So, um that's covered, but I'm when I when I

talk residential, I'm really thinking um SFR, single family residential. And I don't know if we need to make that, but yeah, all good points, but um yeah, just more to think about, lots to think about. So I I just wanted to address so if it's I don't know if we're thinking about the same property where there was going to be something with a outdoor patio. In that case, the whole pad was a commercial uh shopping center and that was in the front of the shopping center. So this wouldn't even apply. Even if they wanted to sell alcohol, they would be way way more than 100 ft away from the nearest neighborhood.

Please make sure your mic is on so we can Sorry, Commissioner Johnson. In that in in the instance that I'm thinking of, um, it was Popeye's and on the corner they were at, the adjacent corner was residential. It was it was it's single family residential, as a matter of fact. Brentwood Boulevard. Uhhuh. Am I recalling that incorrectly? I don't think so. But I mean, I don't want to debate. I don't I really won't I mean the shopping center is here and then there's a a neighborhood here and there's a shopping center across the street on one side and there was like a

I don't there was a shopping center across the street from that pad. Believe it's like Taco Bell was right there and then on the other side of street believe there was a shopping as well. The nearest residential was behind on the back side of that pad. No, it's to the right. I don't know. I got to look. I'm I'll I'll double check.

Yeah. I mean, for me, in the end, it's it's about, you know, is in terms of it's just are are we addressing the school and residential housing piece? I think the 500 foot school buffer very clear. I think now it's just to vice chair Flor's point. What uh is the appropriate number of feet, you know, from from residential? Um, so yeah, I I'm I'm I'm a I'm I'm I'm still a little conflicted myself as in terms of what that might look like. Um, the wall piece is something I think again since it's already in most places, but to vice chair's point, right, things can get torn down, right, and can get rebuilt. Um, so it doesn't make sense to have at least just the verbiage in there. I I I I would feel comfortable with 100 feet too. I think if we had some type of verbiage that just confirmed that there was going to be something that stood between the residential housing and wherever that that potential proposed restaurant's going to be.

That's my thought.

Um as Jennifer described the the uh drive-through ordinance, it's not that it's 100 feet with a wall. It's a It's 100 ft. But if if there's a wall, then it can be closer. So, and that's what I'm I'm thinking about here. We can say if there's a wall, then it be closer. But if there's not a wall, I want it like 300 500 feet. So, if if there's a barrier, you know, that's going to keep the noise down and it's going to keep people from running in and out. um then if that exists or if it's going to be part of the project then fine you know um and if it doesn't exist and it's not going to be part of the project then I want the longer distance that's that's how I'm thinking of it

great discussion um so I'm hearing a couple different things first uh just to directly address the point uh vice chair floor the it sounded like the we're looking for or maybe use your name uh you're looking for some type of we'll call it uh potentially adverse impact mitigation. Is that like a fair and so? Yes.

Can you uh maybe elaborate a bit on what those are so that we can kind of maybe the noise I know was one that you had brought up. Are there any others that um I know because you we seem a bit focused on this wall but I'm not sure if I don't want to get laser focused on a singular variable when there's probably more that are at foot. I know you had said about 500 feet just the schools themselves, but if we're looking at a possible insulation slashmitigation, we'd want to be specific to just encompass all the things that uh would be perceptually obtrusive and and real quick and just just to I want to be clear too because everything I'm bringing up and yeah, I don't want to get obsessed over a wall either, but I I I the goal here is to address potential impacts before they become problems, right? That that's that's what this is, right? So, I think that's one part that could potentially mitigate a future problem, right? So, um I just I want to before it goes over to the vice chair, I just I wanted to make sure we were clear on that because where I'm going with my discussion here is just I want to avoid any potential impacts before they become problems. And if we can do that here tonight, great. Right. Um so, that's that's where my head is at as we continue this discussion.

Certainly. Um, as far as the adversity that I it's, as I stated before, what I what I think the um, adverse impact of alcohol consumption in public is seen to be um, is loudness, drunken behavior, rowdiness. Um, a wall would shield a resident from some of the noise and a kid looking out their window or playing in their backyard wouldn't necessarily see people, you know, whooping it up and getting drunk and being a bad um, influence when the parent is trying to raise their kids a certain way. Um, so that's why I think that when I heard about the idea of um, drive-throughs, I think drive-throughs the main the main thing is noise and um, you know, exhaust fumes and stuff and so a wall kind of screens and plus you don't want to look at the cars. And I think the same way if we had a similar accommodation in um this uh piece of code that uh it would it would help businesses that are in the situation that Jennifer is describing. They're they're going into a an existing shopping center. There's a wall behind the shopping center. The the residents are already pretty well insulated. I'm saying if that situation exists then, you know, I don't want to penalize them. But if that situation doesn't exist, if there's not something, you know, separating visual and and audible hazards from drunken behavior, let's call it, uh then, you know, then we would have a a larger standard, you know, and and again, as as Jennifer describes the uh drive-through standard, it's 100

feet unless there's a wall. And I would say, you know, I would say here I would say it's 300 or 500 feet unless there's a wall or some kind of a barrier. And we're talking a soundwall, you know. Um so I would kind of word it like that. And I I think that that would alleviate a lot of the problems for the existing um shopping centers that just want to add a restaurant that might be selling some beers or some something and still would provide um adequate pro protection in neighborhoods where somebody was envisioning something a little bit different. It was a little bit more open and uh would create a little bit more of a problem. I I'm in I'm inclined to agree on that approach of u 100 foot there's a wall if it's open space there's nothing there then I think 300 feet would be fair that's that's where I'm landing right now

so as far sorry did you have something Jennifer

just some cl if clarifying questions if if I may I know there's no consensus at this point but um I guess maybe if I'm understanding maybe a suggestion where we're going. So, so currently we have two tiers. We have within 100 ft. Right now, as written, it requires a conditional use permit. That is with a wall or without a wall. As part of a condition of a conditional use permit, if there is not a wall, you can require it. So, I don't think that that the 100 ft um as written would need to be required to be changed. I think what I'm understanding is is in our next tier that we have is within 300 ft of a residential zone um or use a restaurant that is open past 1000 p.m. requires a conditional use permit. I believe what it sounds like is it if it is within 300 ft and is open past 10 p.m. or does not have a masonry wall, then a conditional use permit would be required. So if there is a masonry wall, you can go up to 10 p.m. If there's not a masonry wall and you're within 300 ft, then it require that's the distance that's separate. Uh okay. Um but so but the the distance is the separate question. But I think that's what you're going for is with um 300 ft. It is past 10 or if there they can stay open till 10 without a conditional use permit. If there is a masonry wall and if there is not a masonry wall then it requires a

conditional use permit. That Yeah, except for it's 500 ft. But yeah, um that sounds like it would satisfy what I'm thinking. Commissioner Jones, is that consistent with Yeah.

Okay. Okay. So, we're going with Jennifer's uh description as being our sort of source of truth at this moment. So, I assume we all agree on that. Okay. So that yeah, that's the thing that we'll be um debating going forward if if anybody's wants to like I'm I'm feeling pretty positive about that approach. So um yeah, this is great. Thank you for clarifying, Jennifer, as well. I think we've we've been saying a lot. We kind of needed to rope this in in a way that kind of put the rubber to the road so that we can be productive here. Um so we're seeing okay 300 foot you might have a wall. Um and I because like for example open past 10 that is uh that's basically the standard that we have for the downtown plan as well where you can it's by ride up to 10 pm and then after that you need a cup. So there's that's not too far outside the realm of possibility. Um I the other thing too is it's like if we look I know I've talked at length about this. If we look at all the PDs that are impacted here, I think it's like eight or nine out of 13 total are just based in residential areas as is where there is no allowed use for a restaurant to go in, let alone some type of alcohol establishment. So, we can kind of, you know, a a good chunk of them we really shouldn't even well I should is a strong word. It it's not worth our time to really dig into that because it's a PD. that we'd have to effectively change the PD to really make a uh have to re-evaluate our discussion here today. The remaining are mostly like, you know, southeast Brentwood over by the police station. Um the uh northwest corner over by let's see where Highway 4 gets off at Jeffrey. Um and then uh let's see um and then potentially over by PD55 uh surrounding Mary Casey Black. that's

uh around a big residential neighborhood. So, there's a few areas that I think we want to laser into specifically because those are the areas that I think are going to be of most consideration as far as a a true need for a mitigation step as outlined in the 300 foot range that I think Jennifer just called out. So, I offer that as a as a point of uh investigation. Maybe we can comment on those and there might be another one. I've just the ones that I had outlined. Those are the top ones that seem to be blurring the lines as far as the need for this type of um mitigation.

Yeah, going commenting on that analysis. Um I I think that's a a pretty good analysis, but keep in mind we're we're already talking about most shopping centers have a wall in the back between them and the and the residential. whether you know what we're talking about is only in a situation if they're going to be open at past 10 of course, but we're talking about proximity and we're only talking about a situation um where there is no barrier that we would impose the what I would call 500 ft because that's what's already there. I'm what what I would say is as Jennifer said, we could just say as well as if they're open past 10 or if there's no barrier between them and the houses. It just describes the situation. So, it doesn't even contemplate Brentwood could change completely and it just contemplates the situation. If there's no barrier, then we would want the 500 ft. if they wanted to to build something new and put up a barrier around their, you know, space to shield them from the residential that exists, then they they could do that and they could be within 100 ft. Um, so yeah, I I see where you're going with your analysis, but I'm just I'm just saying just in general, just to make a a rule, I would say the rule would be if there's if there's a wall or something or if there's going to be that's fine. If there's not, then there needs to be space. There needs to either be a wall or there needs to be space and then everything else sorts itself out in my view. Absolutely. And the I appreciate the methodology because it I know we're talking somewhat in some generalities, but also we're we're trying to laser

focus on this. And so my next question would be is um as far as wall effectiveness like I know it sounds a bit pedantic but like does you know we've been throwing out the 100 300 500 from a from a distance perspective as Jennifer described to offer some uh flexibility for economic growth compared to uh insulation from sensitive uh uh regions I should say. Um how effective is a wall? uh and not from a question of like is it effective but more like a wall insulates x amount of noise from such distance. It's more of a science question probably for a one of our planners or for Eric or or somebody. But that that that would be my next question is like do we have any ev evidence there to kind of steer us correctly of that that kind of effectiveness if that were a strong consideration for the 300 foot uh sorry reduction down to uh 100 foot with some type of uh masonry wall or something.

Yeah. And it's an interesting point. Again, I think it I kind of go back to um what you know what what is currently out there as is, right, with situations with commercial buildings and residential housing that are behind the walls. My idea of having the verbiage in there is just sort of be consistent with what is already out there in a lot of different areas in respect to the um commercial residential separation. Does that make sense? Um because I that's where I'm why I say to keep that verbiage in there because to your point, how effective is it? I don't know. Right. But on the flip side, I think there has to be some form of middle ground, but the it's already in place essentially. So it's not like you're making something new.

I'll uh I'll comment on the wall uh effectiveness in terms of the visual hazard. um you know children seeing behaviors will be pretty much 100% effective. Um in terms of the audible hazard again we have something we we can look at which is this the existing st statute that just passed standard that just passed that's um regarding drive-throughs which is you know an audible and visual hazard for people um you know the squawk box and having to see the car. So, um, whatever has already been approved for that is probably what I would look at for this. Um, and also consider that a patio is one thing and an indoor restaurant is another. An indoor restaurant already has a wall. It's the back wall if it's backed up, right? But if it's a patio, it doesn't have a wall. the the noise and everything is is is so an open space as you said. So if there's an open space then it needs um some kind of of protection from the noise or you either need distance or you need a barrier. And um as far as how many decibb are you going to get out of a out of a wall? Um well we're talking about a masonry wall. So I I don't know exactly. Um I've seen a lot of discussions about uh decibb in this in this very room. Um but at the end of the day, I think that you know a masonry wall of a given height, which I is that's what it is in the uh in the in the drive-thru thing, isn't it? It's like an eight foot wall or something or a height. I think absolutely.

So, are you proposing that a new restaurant has to build a wall? No, not at all.

I'm proposing that if a if a restaurant um is built in a space where there's nothing between it and a residence and they put like a patio or something in. And if they make an open space area, you know, like a patio or the parking lot even needs to be screened one way or another. Now, the the building itself is screened by the structure of the building, but the parking lot and the patio are not screened. And so, um, if it's not screened in any way, so as as Jennifer describes, existing existing, um, shopping centers are screened because they're they've got a wall behind them usually between them and the neighborhood and they're there's stores on either side of them. Um, I'm talking about if there's going to be proximity to a neighborhood and it's not screened, then we would have, you know, the 500 foot. If it's if it's screened appropriately, then we'd have the 100 foot,

but we're not forcing them to build anything. They can get a cup, but they just have to be far enough away or they have to put up some kind of of a of a wall. Wall. Yes. So that but it's it's nobody's and again it's a cup so it's not like it's a huge burden. I don't know that that's kind of where I'm going. Um I'm not I'm not I'm certainly not envisioning forcing anybody to build anything in particular. And in your description, if I understand correctly, it's like if patio components are the of largest of concern because typical restaurants

and parking lots like if it's if it's just for the restaurant, the parking lot is people people might get rowdy going out their cars and they'll stand around and talk and yak all hours of the night. But that's the 10 p.m. thing. Understood. Okay. So following your uh insulation from the uh general operating vicinity of the um of the of the restaurant. Is that

Yeah. of the uh of the of the what some people would call undesirable behavior and noise and uh you know uh so you don't have to look at it. Your kids don't have to look at it. you don't have to listen to it. I think that's kind of the if unless somebody can tell me what other um hazard to residential areas is being considered in in this proposed um ordinance. I mean, isn't that isn't that what we're isn't that what we're doing here? We're trying to we're trying to um keep undesirable effects of alcohol consumption away from neighborhoods, from houses. So, and that's that's all I'm trying all I'm trying to do. I've got nothing against neighbor uh restaurants myself and I don't have anything against drinking myself. I drink myself. Yeah. I I'm just trying I'm just trying to envision what the purpose of this is and how do we accomplish that purpose and trying to be practical about it. I have a question for you. So, if a restaurant is greater than 300 ft from a residential property and they want to serve alcohol, not past 10 p.m., just they want to serve alcohol, they can do it.

Um, restaurants greater than 300 ft from a residential

res. So I think I I have just noticed um an error in I think some of the language. Um I think we are discussing it correctly. The intent is that it be within 300 ft. In the staff report is it talks about 300 feet from residential and within the draft resolution it talks about 300 ft. But on the last page of the actual exhibit, there is a location in 17.695004B that was incorrectly stated as 500 ft.

Um, it was described and we've been discussing it correctly and so I I did just cl I did just notice that. So, we do at some point um at the conclusion of this need to rectify this to go one way or another. Um but I think staff's original intent and recommendation was 300. Uh it was discussed with city council at 300. Um and so the 300 is what staff is recommending, but there is an error in one of the PDF attachments that does state 500 in one of the locations.

You know what? Sorry, I'm Yeah, the the attachment is 59 pages with all of the PDs. Um, yes. So, that um Yes, I think we are discussing it, right? But visually I think you two might be looking at two different locations and yes, so that is what the confusion is and and I I greatly I I I sincerely apologize. Um but yes, on the last page of the actual um ordinance exhibit A and B, it does say 500 ft in which staff intended it to say 300.

And and you're saying that your understanding from city council is that they were looking for 300 feet. It was presented to city council at 300 feet for the reasons that I had explained uh previously between the difference between how many properties would be encompassed between 300 and 500. So at the last hearing it was presented to the city council at 300. I see. So probably we need to make that fixed and be in the exhibit. Yes. Uh since that is the code that's going in. Um all right. So 300 feet and going I gotta tell you I got to tell you I am like what I don't want we'll leave that alone. I know you're like what is he talking about?

I'm just I'm just looking at the actual wording of the law reading it here and I'm good clarification. Anyway,

Commissioner Jones, did you have a comment there? Uh, look, I I I would just say, you know, for for for residents that are looking at this that are paying attention to this, I mean, know, we didn't have any any comments during the public hearing, so I don't know how how much people are paying attention to it, but I I you know, The goal here is is we're we're trying to be specific. We you know and I think you need to keep keep in mind just that my statement earlier that all of this is to address potential impacts before they become problems, right? And um it's really just again it's about being proactive so that we need a break. Yeah, we can take a short recess. Five minutes. Is that enough? Okay, we'll resume in five minutes.

All right. Resume session. Um, okay. So, we've clarified distances. We understand that Jennifer there was a bit of a confusion between Commissioner Johnson and Vice Sheriff floor. I think we've agreed upon that. Uh now let's see. Seems like our main contention I've heard 500 ft in general. I've heard 300 ft and some question between uh insulation u as a ancillary request depending on that further proximity going in from 100 to going out from 100 to 300. Um so um do we uh maybe we can start with this um so maybe to just sum up it sounds like the 500t school thing I don't think there's any contention here. It seems like we're basically all in agreement as we move into the 300 foot uh we start to get uh for residential use. I think that's our only consideration here is that there's um there's some consideration as far as pulling in all of 100 foot to 300 foot. Um and unless 100 foot we have some kind of insulation that would be present uh to handle the mitigating variables that um come through. Is that is that more or less in

That's where I was. Yep. Okay. Yeah, that's that's I'm pretty much going in that direction. Now, what would you So, we talked mitigation, right? So, we're saying 300 ft uh requires no any type of mitigation. Is that is that what I'm hearing?

Well, I think uh we heard a pretty good compromise from Jennifer that we could say um in B within 500 ft within 300. It should be say 300 feet of a residential zoning district or use and open after 10 p.m. or um how do I want to say it? Uh or with an open space area such as a patio or private parking lot. Um, we're we're you know um I'm trying I'm trying to get there. I'm I don't like the such as though and I don't like an open air. I just don't know how to how to phrase it. But um that's where I'm kind of going with it. It if we just added that in.

Yeah. So if it's at your discretion, we either could do it two ways. We can do um a red line um and come up with exact language or we can go with your concept and allow staff to work on it and then provide the final language to council. Right now, what it sounds like is that if there is not a clear if there's not a masonry wall within a clear line of sight between the restaurant and a residential property, um, then it would require a conditional use permit. And the reason I'm saying it that way is because if there's a building separating the two or some other structure, um I think that would also mitigate it. So it sounds like to me that you if there's a clear line of sight between directly from the residential property to the structure, there needs to be be a masonry wall. Um un otherwise a conditional use permit would be required within the 300 ft. if I'm understanding correctly.

Yeah, I think that's about it. Um, does that sound good? Can I just ask a question? I'm just trying to make sure I understand this because we're we're really talking about I think somebody correct me if I'm wrong here. is a restaurant that is close like you know less than 300 ft

that wants to open less than 10 like it's not open until 10:00 because the way I'm reading it from 100 to 300 ft if you're going to be open later than 10:00 you need a cup. So that means what we're really talking about is a restaurant that does not or is not opening uh past 10 o'clock. Correct? Is that what we're talking about? any restaurant serving alcohol, right? That is located within 300 feet of a property of a residential property would require a conditional use permit. Exactly. If it does not have the clear line of But right now, as it's written, right now as it's written, it says

restaurant, it says restaurants within 100 to 300 Yep. of a residential property that want to stay open later than 10 o'clock has to have a CUP. Yes. And then it says restaurants greater than 300 ft doesn't have the 10:00 in there. Correct. Right. They don't need a cup. Correct. So the only, you know, way that this is going to take effect is if the restaurant is not trying to open past 10 o'clock. It's got to be, let's say they want it open close at 8:00. then they would need a cup because they were let's say less than 300 ft and maybe they didn't have a wall.

Correct. So there would be it would be three qualifiers. So there's going to be within 300 ft and open past 10 requires a conditional use permit. Right? The one that we are now adding is within 300 ft without a masonry wall no matter the hours.

No matter the hours. And correct me if I'm wrong, but uh most of the existing locations with we thought we might have um one of these um establishments opening in already have a masonry wall. So it's it's not like it's a a major um addition like it's not going to what I'm trying to avoid is what the way I was saying it before. If we went 300 feet for everybody, then people couldn't be putting these uh establishments into existing locations. But now they they pretty much can. And this would only be in a very very specific type of situation that basically

may not even ever exist. But if it if it does come up, there'll be something there to protect the the residents. That's all.

That is correct. Typically, the majority of our centers have masonry walls to the rear. What this is going to encompass is those corner type developments that have residential across the street. So, it's typically going to probably it's going to be across the residential would already be across a street. That's the only form that we would have that wouldn't have a masonry wall for the most part. Um, in which the the drive-through restaurant that you were thinking of um it faced a residential side property line. So, part of that residential did have a masonry wall on its property line, but its the front of its home did not. And so as part of that conditional use permit, you did mitigate that by requiring the drive-thru to also put a masonry wall. Um, and so in that type of corner instance where you have a residential property, typically it would be across the street or a lane or a drive-thru. In those instances, if that does come about, then it would require a conditional use permit. But for the majority of the centers, um the perimeter and rears of the centers already have masonry walls, but on corner type lots um or narrow streets, it may not.

I'm starting to get a really better consensus, I think, from this audience or from us on that statement that Jennifer just made. Um I don't want to repeat it because I don't want to add more confusion. Um, and so, um, you know, I don't want to jump to conclusions here. I guess what I'm hearing is that there's there are those, you know, we've added or we're proposing to add a third qualifier, that being some type of building slashwall slructure that would divide uh, a restaurant from uh, some sort of single family home or multif family home, something like that. And that's basically it. distances would stay more or less uniform, but that's the only that's the only proposed change. And I could be wrong. I just I want to make sure I'm hearing it right.

So, can I just maybe I'm not just I this this whole thing with the wall. So, I just want to make sure if we I don't want to mandate that somebody puts a wall there. If you're saying they got to get a cup, if there's no wall, right? Like if there's no wall there, they got to get a cup. Um, and this would be for a restaurant that didn't close that wanted to close before 8 o'clock, like Right. So, it's like before 8 o'clock and there's no wall there. They got to get a CP. Is that what we're saying? Only if they're serving alcohol. Yeah. I didn't say the alcohol part, but yes.

Well, well, Jennifer's as far as um a mandate. I just want to mention that we we did just mandate walls for drive-throughs. So I I'm not I don't think that's too unfriendly to business. Oh, it's Have you built a wall lately?

Well, and and I think just from a we'll call it a practical standpoint. I I feel like we've got, you know, as Jennifer described, the buildout of Brentwood is nearly complete. Yeah, don't quote me on that. Nearly. Uh however, it's like knowing that the the on the practical side of things, it's probably a lot less likely. We already have what I would call and this is my gross exaggeration is like we already have pretty sufficient insulation from a number of other build there. There probably will be exceptions and I don't know how many of those might exist but by and large I would envision that these other uh businesses or uh existing infrastructure or something of that nature would already provide that type of um insulation that I think we're after here. I mean that that's in in looking at the map and everything that that's what I see but I don't know Jennifer

and to clarify you are not requiring the restaurant to provide a masonry wall. What we're doing is we're requiring a conditional use permit. And so based on extenduating circumstances, if that restaurant happens to face away from the residential and there's landscaping or some other type of extenduating circumstances, you still at the planning commission have the ability to approve it without requiring a masonry wall. Go ahead. And that's the the beauty of a conditional use permit is it goes in front of the commission and it gives the commission whether it's this one or future commissions the opportunity to analyze the project to look at it to see if it makes sense to see if it's going to align with where it stands and we get you know you get to put your your whether or not you think it's appropriate or not. Right. So I think we're on the right track. Um uh I might suggest we start typing out a resolution. Um because I we're we're getting we're getting much closer if I I don't want to jump to conclusions, but I think we're getting a lot closer. Um and then maybe we all review it and then uh I' love to look for a motion.

Yeah, I believe I I do have something ready um at least to to start with if you guys would like to um share my screen. My version had the 300. That's why it's highlighted. Um that's something that we do need to take care of. It's not redlined because there was the discrepancy, but um I did add this third um option in which sounds like um I need to read over, but I believe this is what you were looking for. And I presume we'd have a definition for a masonry wall somewhere in the in the BMC to indicate that like

we typically do not. Um okay. It it's just practically speaking. Um

our standards require a minimum six foot. Um, but if it's an older one, it might not be. So, we can definitely add that in. But a masonry wall is is typically considered um a block wall and it's it's typically six feet, but it is not defined. So, if you would like that to be more um specific, we can definitely do that. But policy and procedurally wise, we would typically request it. I don't know all the shopping centers in Brentwood and how how high their walls are. So, I'm just having a touch of

Isn't Doesn't the um the fence code say something about the height of a of a masonry fence being six feet? It says that on residential properties you can have fences up to seven feet unless um I believe it says unless you can go higher with a requirement for a noise analysis but it doesn't necessarily have a minimum. So that doesn't help us here. Um, and the uh the drive-thru fence, the drive-thru through masonry wall. Is there a height on that or is it just says masonry wall?

I checked and the the drive-through standard does say masonry wall. It does not have a height or other specifications.

Okay. Um, any major callouts in in looking at what Jennifer's just written other than what we're seeing here. I'm I'm comfortable with it. I think we're we're on a good we're on a good path. Um and again, just kind of going back to some original points, it's this is this is good. You know, when there's something alcohol related, I think it's important to be just careful and I think we're doing that. So, um I'm I'm good with it as it's written. I mean, if we're if we're moving and grooving here, I'm I'll look for a motion.

Um, I'd like to do it. Um, because well, I don't want to forget that we also made a change farther up in the Um, so let me see. Here it is. Um, I make a motion to adopt resolution number 26-009 recommending that city council adopt an ordinance to amend the Brentwood Municipal Code RZ26-2 by adding chapter 17.695 695 alcohol sales, which would add development standards related to on-remise alcohol sales and change the land use classific class classifications related to restaurants with or without the sale of alcohol citywide to be um amended with the changes that we see on the screen in front of us. Did I say I'll second?

All in favor? I motion carries. Jennifer, thank you so much for that. Okay, sorry. Moving on. Uh, let's see. Oh gosh. Sorry, my red line is Yeah. Um, let's see. Informational reports from committees and upcoming schedule. Commissioner Johnson with transplant. Can we please have you turn on your mic?

Oh, sorry. Unfortunately, I did not get um to make it to the transplant meeting, but they did meet, but unfortunately, I had a work issue related and I can get there. No, they'll be better next month. Yeah. Uh design review. I know you guys had a meeting. Yeah, we did have a design. Uh we had a design review meeting and we approved uh a building uh with their designs solar panel. Commissioner Jones. Yeah, it was a residential home um off of Wendy Springs Lane and um we took a look at the application and ultimately decided to grant the exception uh given uh just all of the facts that were presented and that was it.

Thank you. Uh moving on to land use. Uh had a meeting yesterday. Uh we talked through the uh funding for the priority projects. Uh it's everything from the holiday parade to um some of the uh funding of the harvest time uh trail maps and stuff like that. U couple of questions regarding what what will u what kind of requirements that will be necessary as far as like P&Ls and such but um yeah all in all good meeting and then uh municipal code I assume you guys probably didn't meet but

no no meeting. Okay, great. Request for future agenda items. Does anyone have a future agenda item at the top of their head for a future date? Seeing none, uh if so, I will move on to requested items. Uh this is for me. H21 future agenda item request from chairperson brand to discuss the possibility of modifying the notice of public hearing process. Uh, this is my request. Um, and uh, April, would you be able to share my screen? I don't know if this will go up here real quick.

I can't. No, but if you can email it to me or I can or email it to Eric and I can share his screen. Yeah, just his would be better because I'm the only person managing the meeting.

Um, okay. It's just a link so you can click it and open it and put it in slideshow mode, please. Oh. Okay. Thank you very much. So, uh my agenda item is mostly related to this idea of uh public notice. Uh as you all pretty familiar, uh we had originally started with 300 ft. Uh we pushed it out to 1,000 ft uh based off of uh some precedent that the FPPC has made uh regarding our uh as commissioners possibility of uh influence on within a thousand feet. So, it's uniform to that. The idea here is that um we would move to a bit more of a um a sort of a threshold or a dynamic breadth or width, excuse me, of um notifications to the public. Uh as you can see I I don't want to just sit here and read a slide deck but um essentially the idea here is it's like we want to give we want to share public uh public projects with a wide enough community that is uh essentially dictated by the size of the project. Now, when I use the term size, there's a number of uh uh considerations that I've uh factored in and I'm, you know, as as

I'm bringing it to this commission, I'm I'm certainly open to others. Um if you can go to the next slide, please. So, um, if you kind of see what I'm this is, this is the first pass of ideas that I had as far as how we might use different variables to kind of steer us as far as uh, what's important and what would what would size mean to a variety of different projects. Now, we've had a number that of these that have come across the DIS even in the last few years. I'm thinking stuff like big ones like Bridalgate or Costco or you know these they're massive projects and at the moment we only have this sort of 10,000 ft window that we present these things and to me at least from my standpoint we have a number of considerations that extend well beyond just a simple um um uh our our tradition it's I'm seeing this is a well beyond what we consider like a one-sizefits-all notification window. So as you can see here I'm calling out stuff everything from economic impact to a plausible circulation calculation which is great because then we would be able to denote what that circulation we don't have to use VMT we don't have to use LOS we can come up with our own methodology is it a conditional use sensitive adjacency these are things that we've just talked about um as well as stuff like environmental or some type of density if it relates to single family home use so this is the first pass at least from my perspective of things that we could use as a as as guideposts to def to define this. Uh I'm certainly not attached to anything specifically, but I I thought that this gets the um conversation started. Um there's a few definitions here that I think are important to bring out. You can see stuff like arterial location, um general plan density. If you go to the next slide, I have just a quick glossery that kind of goes through. This is sort of my quote unquote definitions of what I've brought forward here. So you know you consider

what I what I would consider here is that once a certain quantity of these conditions are made your threshold of communication would increase accordingly. So, uh, if you flip to the next slide, you'll see, uh, kind of like a, and this is I'm not attached to this, but this is just a a thought here is that once you, we start with this sort of default 1,00 foot radius, we then would move to like essentially a one a onem radius, and then our highest width, if it, you know, depending on what type of project would clear that, it would be a citywide notification. You know, one of the one of the most common questions I get as a planning commissioner is what is that thing on the corner of blah blah blah like and just they ask me because they just don't know or they hadn't heard about it or they live so far away from it that you know they didn't have a consideration for it. So, uh what I'd like this to do is hopefully expand awareness for um projects and in particular I know Mr. Dorman talked about it as well, but um projects in which we may or may not have much of a say, quote unquote, uh with respect to their approval or not. Um and so hopefully this would give us a bit more um breadth of communication options to the community so that they're aware of the origin potentially of these projects as well as uh how they may uh positively and negatively impact the community. Uh just to put this on paper that the next slide, that's the last slide I've got here. This kind of like ballparks it out as far as like what one mile looks like versus 1,00 feet. So, it's kind of a it's kind of a silly uh visualization, but as you can see, the thousand foot radius is very narrow. And so when you start to get out to one mile, you really you really start to see the the width uh especially across the uh the um Brentwood city limits as far like who would be pulled into projects that we may have seen uh previously and

may potentially see in the future and obviously citywide and uh would be the whole city. But um in this case the call outs of 1,00 ft to one mile, this is the general distance. It's about 20 uh different little sectors out to about compared to 10. Um that's the that's the bulk of my presentation staff report. I don't know. Um and so I offer this as a I think what this would look like and Britney you can probably help me out with this is this would be something that we would present to staff. staff could come back to us or to council with a proposal based off of this sort of direction with the appro I think it would approve I think it would approval of council to spend time staff and uh spend staff time and money to pursue um but uh like I said kind of curious as far as staff's perspective

well I'll I'll give it a shot and then ask Britney to sort of jump in as Well, um I think we've handled these future agenda item requests a little bit differently over time depending on the nature of the request. Um some of them have been required to kind of go on to council for that formal authorization. Um I definitely think this is one of those uh categories or types. um for tonight. I think after the commission kind of deliberates and comes to a consensus, um if the consensus is to move it forward, um we could either kind of present it as is with some tweaks that you talk about and say, you know, here's what happened at the planning commission meeting of April 21st, city council. Um how do you feel about it? or if you'd like sort of more time to study and fine-tune what you've kind of walked the commission through here, we could bring it back to another commission meeting before taking it to council if that makes sense. Whatever kind of the commission's comfortable with, but I do think it's going to require ultimately the council to weigh in.

Yeah, I that that was my figure. I don't know, Britney, do you concur? Yeah, generally I think there's a balance between, you know, developing specific, you know, policy or if we you wanted staff to spend more time and we brought it back to the planning commission versus, you know, city council directing staff to sp spend time and resources on it. So, just that balance. Understood. Um, well, let's um any any I'll move on to uh council uh sorry uh commission questions. any any questions of the material you just saw?

I would note that it's um it's all very preliminary and um I don't know if it's ready to send to council yet for consideration. Um my own view is that we're better off sending them a fairly complete package. I've been pretty clear about that the past. Um, so I was sitting here running through my head. One thing we could consider is maybe doing an ad hoc committee to flush it out, but that would require public meetings and there's time and expense involved um in staff. So, uh, I don't know how else to approach it to where we could, um, work through it or we can just discuss it in a meeting like tonight. we could start discussing it or um we could have it put on the agenda for us to discuss it as a as a committee of of the whole just something like that. But I I think it needs more before it goes forward would be my I I really love the idea by the way. I think it's great but um I just think it needs more.

Yeah. And I'm not opposed to going back to the drawing board, you know, kind of taking this another stab at this, but um yeah, I I would agree. I don't I don't think it's ready for council yet. I just I I wanted to make sure that this commission got a chance to look at it and kind of get a sense of what my intent here is. And then, you know, uh I'm I'm strongly encouraging and inviting your input on it so that we get a bunch of different perspectives that are uh unique enough to make sure it's, you know, crafted in a way that's a group effort. So, um if I I don't know, sorry, any other questions?

Um yeah, I I I like the idea, too. I mean, I think essentially we're the goal is is to open up the door for just more resident feedback and and to expand the um you know, the footprint uh when when when projects are being considered. Um I I would I would suggest I think yeah, I mean just having this be an agenda item at a future meeting and um having a discussion around, you know, what what this might look like and then being able to put it in front of uh the council once we think it is ready. Um, you know, because I mean like initial questions I'm looking at is when you see like you got uh holding town halls, things like that, like who runs that? What does that look like? You know, just kind of all those things that sort of stand out. So, um, you know, I I I would I would say let's just put this on a an agenda and let's let's hash it out. Thank you.

You did a lot of work, so you should be commended for doing all that work. That's number one. Um, I did have several questions about, you know, cost, time, who's going to do it, who's going to what what, you know, who's going to make sure the town hall was held, you know, was it held? Um, how are we going to communicate it? But I I think the the intent is very good and strong and I like that. Um, I do think we should put it on a I think it's going to take more time than we think to dig through. You had like some charts in there. I was just trying to follow along with the charts and all that sort of stuff. I think we need some more analysis. So, I think we need to spend some time on it. Um, if we're going to do it, you got to do it right. So, that would be my comments on it.

Yeah, I I strongly agree with that statement. Um, I you know, I Let's see. We um I think let's see. So, if we were to bring this back at a later date, um, we might need to work with Eric and staff as far as like I was thinking, let's see, today's the 21st, maybe like I want to say like the first meeting in June, maybe. I I don't know. Gives me another like six weeks to work on this. Um, I I have a couple of thoughts. Um, but can we go to see if we have any

public comment first and then that we can kind of wrap up with next steps? Yeah. Uh, yeah. So, we'll go ahead and open up to public comment. Anybody on Zoom? April, there's no one here. And on Zoom, if you'd like to speak on this item, please raise your hand. We have no one in Zoom. Okay, go ahead and close public comment. So, Eric,

yes. So, um it it sounds like there is consensus and interest from the commission to continue discussing the item. Uh to chairperson Bran's point, I do think um sometime in June would be appropriate. I would probably say the second meeting in June just to give us a couple of months. And what I would suggest, and I want um Britney to weigh in on this because I don't want to get a file of the Brown Act, but one thought I had was since the rest of the commission just got the benefit of the presentation quickly tonight, um I could send it, you send it to me via email, right? I could send it to the rest of the commission, including Commissioner Roberts, who's absent, and say, you know, this is the uh presentation that was referenced on April 21st. uh please review and provide me with um some initial feedback and then when we put it back on the agenda and we put the report together, I can kind of summarize, you know, some of the feedback that was presented so that it at least focuses the discussion a little bit and maybe makes that June discussion a little more um efficient. Does that

absolutely I want to know if that sounds okay. Yeah, that sounds good to me. Otherwise, without it, we might run into the same issue now that we don't know what to what to notice. So, and then the other thing if we um the staff reports of course get published with the agenda packet. So then at that point, you know, before the meeting, the public has the benefit of not only the presentation, but the feedback and all the summaries to date, and they might want to weigh in um more so than they did tonight, which was, you know, which was not at all. So, um again, just a thought, if the commission's comfortable with that, we can certainly do that, but I'm open to other suggestions as well.

No, I I agree. I think bringing it back at a later date with um you know obviously there's more work that needs to get done here but um providing it then to the public in advance that way they have a chance to weigh in before the discussion we take discussion notes that uh arise out of that uh presentation sharing and then we discuss at the end of June I think and do we I don't think we need a motion for that because I'm just going back to the drawing board. Yeah, I mean I guess we could just if the commission is getting comfortable with that direction, you could make just a quick motion. That's the way we have it set up on the agenda at least tonight for kind of just so it's documented that that's the formal consensus. I mean, that's what I've been hearing, but if you could just make a quick motion in that sense, that would help.

Okay. Um well, I'll make a motion to request that uh um you know, myself, Chairperson Brand will uh continue to work on this um this proposal as I will uh work with city staff to uh bring it back to this commission at a later date, presumably June, uh to then uh present again to the commission as well as to solicit public feedback. I'll second that. All in favor? I I Motion carries.

Okay. Uh let's see. The next regular planning commission meeting is scheduled for May 5th, 2026 at 7 p.m. and will be held here at the council chambers located at 150 city Parkway. Do I have a motion to adjurnn? Make a motion to adjurnn. Second. All in favor? I. I.