Board of Aldermen - Regular Meeting

Good evening and welcome to the February 17th, 2026 Board of Alderman meeting. Could everyone please join with me in saying the pledge of allegiance to the flag of the United States to the God.

Roll call, please. Altman PFA here. Aldwoman Gold's absent. Aldwoman Sims, absent. Altman lock miller here. Altman Gold here. Alderman Harter here. Alman Urgger is absent. Mayor D is also absent. Auto Mati

here. Thank you. Um, next we have agenda approval. Does anyone have any changes or amendments to the agenda? Anyone have an objection to having it approved by acclamation? Seeing none, it will be so approved. Uh, it does not appear that we have any announcements, appointments, proclamations, or recognitions which takes us to um the first public hearing we have tonight. I will gave in the public hearing which is considering a text amendment text amendment regarding flood hazard controls. Good evening. Um we are making this request uh based upon feedback from FEMA and uh to increase the overall buildings that are within a flood plane to 2 feet above base flood elevation instead of our current or ordinance of one foot and it also is to be a cumulative of 10 years versus on a case-byase basis.

Great. So, uh, our, uh, advice from our, uh, city attorney, the last time we had a public hearing was that we, as elected officials, would comment later during the, uh, bill portion, but if there are members of the public who would like to comment about this particular text amendment, now is the time to do so. I'm not showing any interest on

Okay, great. Seeing none, I will gavvel close this public hearing. Uh, next I would gavvel open a public hearing regarding a text amendment uh about construction projects uh that could be approved by staff. Yes. and followup of the adoption of the residential design guidelines. And in order to lessen the load at the architectural review board, we are um proposing a text amendment that would allow staff review of those minor projects that are at the back of the building and not visible of from the public rightway to be and are consistent with the design guidelines to be reviewed at staff level versus going to the architectural review board. and the architectural review board and the planning and zoning commission recommended approval.

Great. Are there members of the public who would like to comment on um this issue? I'm not showing interest on mine. Okay. Seeing none, I will g close this public hearing. And that takes us to citizen comments. And this is the time that citizens can come and approach the podium and uh give us your name and address. And you have up to three minutes to talk about any issue. And if you're online, you may do the same. Not online.

Okay, seeing no one coming to the podium. Uh, next it's Mayor and alderman report uh on behalf of uh uh Mayor Demit. He is down in Jefferson City representing the city at the Legislative Conference of the M Missouri Municipal League, which is why he is not here. Uh, and I'll go ahead and do my uh alder manic report. Uh looking ahead into March, the March 10th um Ward One meeting is uh coming up and we will have uh the civil engineer Shantel from SWT talking about water runoff uh from the new Mount Calvary Park. Uh there was lots of interest in that at our last ward meeting and so just wanted to get that out there. Uh Alderman Puffka,

thank you. We have the public safety meeting for February is set for February 25th here in these chambers at 5:30. Uh, Alderman Lockchmeer, no report. Uh, Alderman Gold. Yes. As a reminder, the because of this meeting needed to be shifted, we we moved our communications committee meeting, which will now happen um on February 24th, so next Tuesday, a week from today, at 6 PM in these chambers. Thank you. And then, Alderwoman Harter, um, Brentwood Forest meeting has been cancelled for this month. that it'll be the end of um March. So other than that, that's

Thank you. That takes us to the city administrator report and it looks like we have a something from Bola. Thank you, Alderwoman Ty. At the February 2nd meeting, we had two War II residents in attendance, Allison Michael Gleason, who live on Rosalie. They spoke during public comments regarding light pollution from the industrial court off of Lisser. They also talked about construction material that have been stockpiled on a property also in the industrial court. Would you care to give an update or should I do John? Oh, okay. Um, so um John Bennis, our chief building official, met with Carbaline and Kandiva on Wednesday following the meeting and they say that Amron put up the lights approximately six years ago. Um, and Carbaline was going to talk to them about adjusting the lights. So just to manage the timeline in talking to Dan Gmershimer, the city's public engineer, he says this is not a a project that where they have a quick turnaround. It takes weeks if not months before they resolve that. But we will we've shared the contact information with John. So we will be calling periodically to find out the status update on that. Um they also talked about a chainlink fence around the property. John took a look at that. It appears to be in good shape. Um there is construction trailer and material. They said apparently that property owner is allowed to keep um their storage or park outdoor equipment and supplies on their lot. Um there lastly there is a wood fence that is in poor shape. We think it needs to be removed. However, it is in the flood plane. So we will be working with the property owners to ensure that they do minor repairs to fix that. But we will going forward we'll put updates in the city administrator weekly report and then contact the um residents that came to the meeting to

give them a status update on where we are with what they brought to the meeting. Great. Thank you for that update and it's a great example of how when you come and speak um you get some get some attention. So thank you very much. Um next up is the consent agenda. We have three items on the consent agenda. Would anyone like to remove any items or do you have questions about anything on the consent agenda? Seeing none that motion to approve consent agenda. Is there a second? Second. Roll call, please. Alman Lock Miller, yes. Alman G, yes. Autooman Harter, yes. Ty, yes. Motion pass.

That takes us to old business. Uh, first up is bill uh 6588. Mr. City attorney, could we have a second read of that bill? Bill number 6588, an ordinance granting site development plan approval for a new building at 350 Hanley Industrial Court. Is there any additional discussion about this item? Not the chair would entertain a motion to perfect bill number 6588 into ordinance form. So moved. Roll call, please. Aman PCA, yes. Lock Miller, yes. Alderman G, yes. Autooman Harter, yes. Aldwoman Ty, yes.

Bill number 6588 is hereby passed and now becomes ordinance number 5214. Right. That takes us to old business. We have three item. Excuse me, new business. We have three items. Uh the first is uh bill number 6590. Could we have a first reading of that bill, Mr. City Attorney? Bill number 6590, an ordinance amending sections 400.450 4550 400.920400.930 in division 4 and division 8 of chapter 400 relating to building permits for residential buildings and construction projects and declaring when approval of the architectural review board is required.

Oh, I I'll start with one question, Wendy. Um, so it it I I noticed in the materials in the packet that this wouldn't be for a room edition, correct? But what kind of uh things would this would staff be allowed to approve? And then are they things that a res a neighbor would the neighbors be noticed?

They would not be noticed if it's staff review, but it would be them like a sun room addition um small sun room. Um, if we've gotten a few projects that were changes from closing up a window to and then making a new doorway, those are things that could be approved at staff level. Um, larger room additions that or anything that's clearly visible from the public right away would still require public notice and architectural review board. Are there other questions from the from the board? No questions. We will uh hold this over and have a second reading uh in March. Uh our next item of new business is bill number 6591. Could we have a first read of that bill, please?

Bill number 6591, an ordinance amending sections 400.2900, 400.2910, 2910 and 400 3020 of division 8 of chapter 400 of title 4 of the code of ordinances of the city of Brentwood regulating flood hazard controls. Are there questions from the board? Alderman Lock Miller.

Bendy, as far as understanding this level, if for instance a building is going to be built in an area that had a 6 in uh flood plane was in a 6 in deep flood plane. So now they would have to raise it two and 1/2 ft above ground. The ground level would have to be 2 and 1/2 ft taller than it is the first floor. Yes. um not including the basement for and then they say a re it's a FEMA FEMA recommendation. What if you don't do it?

What's a recommendation mean? I mean is there no flood insurance stay at the one foot that we have now? Um flood insurance could be impacted. Um a lot of the cities have moved to the two feet and that's why they recommended that we do so. All right. Thank you. There other questions,

can can you clarify in and maybe it's not in the ordinance, but in it's in in the description about building buildings in a flood way. Now, I didn't think that you could build in a flood way. You could build in a flood plane. So, can you clarify how that's there? There are some, excuse me, there are some instances where you can build in a flood way. Okay. Uh, typically you're not going to have residential in a floodway. Um, but there there are some non non-residential buildings that can go into it.

Okay. And then you talked about the BA the I'm just trying to get a sense for why FEMA and SEMA think that two feet up. Is it just because of the It's not to mitigate um less runoff. It's it's more to mitigate loss in and correct insurance payments. Correct. Okay. Thank you, Alderman Lfield.

Getting back to my example, when we look at the 50% improvement, so if someone improves adds on to their building more than 50% the current value of the existing building, that building now has to be raised. It's it's not that it has to be raised. They have to take measures to either flood proof it or or dry proof or wet proof. Uh dry proof would include securing like floodgates at the doors to help protect the interior from any flooding. Um like a two you could do a two in my example a two and a half foot high flood wall around the property.

Correct. That could be it. Uh if you take example Carboline, they put in floodgates that will automatically go up when the water starts coming in. It actually pushes the floodgates up and shuts that off. Shuts those openings off. So all the openings would have that. And then you know take for example down in our Manchester road corridor. If we have someone come in want to build an apartment building down in that area, they could still stick in a garage at ground level as long as the water can pass through. Correct. All right. Thank you.

Further questions. Second read of this. March 2nd. Um, our third item of new business is bill number 6592. Mr. City attorney, could we have a first read of that bill, please?

Bill number 6592, an ordinance amending sections 375.010 010 through 375.150 of chapter 375 of title 3 repealing sections 34100 and 340.107 of chapter 340 of the code of ordinances of the city of Brentwood regulating the use of alternative vehicles in the city of Brentwood Missouri and amending section 225.040 040 of chapter 225 of the code of ordinances regarding park rules.

And um Jim, I understand you are presenting on this.

I am. Um due to the advent of many new types of motorized and some non-motorized vehicles often used by children, um the city deemed it appropriate to look at its regulations u to ensure that we're properly regulating the use of all these newly created vehicles. So recognizing that there are a bunch of different types of new vehicles, electric powered vehicles, mini motorcycles, um go-karts, motorized scooters, recognizing that we have both miners using those um on streets and sidewalks and in parks, as well as licensed adults using certain uh alternative vehicles such as the 49cc or under Vespa like scooters or even stand upon motorized scooters that they use on streets for their own transportation purposes. We tried to revise the uh the code sections to properly address regulation of all of those. What we did is we took chapter 375, left lots of it the same. You'll note in the ordinance it's not a redline version because the changes are too significant to it'd just be a redline mess if we uh gave you a redline version. But uh we added some new definitions um uh identifying um alternative vehicles um electric scooters, motorized alternative vehicles etc. Then we left a number of sections unchanged. Um, and then we really got into the meat of it in uh, basically section 375090

where we talked about motorized alternative vehicles where they can be operated. And again, the goal was to ensure that young children are not operating these motorized vehicles upon the streets, regulating uh some of our main streets like Brentwood, Hanley, um parts of Litzinger, Manchester, etc. to ensure that no alternative vehicles are operated there. and uh and then recognizing that we still want to allow licensed adults to use vehicles where they should and are permitted to do so. Also understand we really did not change the regulations regarding ebikes. Ebikes are regulated by the state. You can operate an ebike wherever you can operate a bike. The only limitation is on class three ebikes. They have to be operated by people who are 16 or older. and we have the ability to prohibit class three ebikes on sidewalks and we did that. The last thing about the uh revisions or two other things about revisions to uh chapter 375 instead of stating specific penalties, we incorporated the general general penalty provision like we do with most ordinances. We also added a parental responsibility provision such that if we have a minor who has been given a mini motorcycle and they're riding it upon the streets in violation of the code, we do have the ability to hold the parents responsible for that. That's found in section 375140. Then lastly in the amendments to three chapter 375, we have a table. Uh it makes it a little easier for the the residents to understand what's permitted and where for the police officers who

are enforcing it. Um check marks check marks and X's indicate where it's per permitted or prohibited. Lastly, the amendments to chapter 340. We just took two sections from 340, moved them over to 375 because they made more sense there. And then in chapter 225, which are the park rules, we wanted to make sure our park rules corresponded with our street rules regarding where you can operate those vehicles. That's it. Thank you. Um I know there are several members of the uh public safety committee who worked really hard on this um this bill. Did do any of you want to Alderman Mluffka?

I I just wanted to um to to to say thank you to the public safety committee. We spent I think the better part of three or even four separate subcommittee meetings on this topic uh revising and revising again. Um I really appreciated the way all the members of that committee weighed in on this. We had members of the public weigh in and provide their uh input. Um, I I want to thank um the entire police department, but I want to thank Officer Sullivan specifically for all his work. And I want to thank Jim uh Hetler, our city attorney. This was a lot to do, a lot in just identifying the various classifications that we're trying to regulate. Um, and then and then trying to get some guidance from our committee as to what exactly we want we want this to look like in general terms and then applying the specifics um to the changes. And I I also want to thank Michelle for putting together the communications effort which is going to be equally important. Um depending on the debate at the next meeting by this board um if this should happen to become an ordinance uh it's going to be of great importance that we get the message out to our schools and to our residents um uh so that they know exactly what um what these regulations do.

Right. Thank you. I want to thank you. Thank you. Other Alderman Gold,

the only thing I would add to that is that this this is really complicated. This is a lot of, you know, when you look at it, you're thinking, "Oh my gosh, it's a lot of regulation." And this is not about regulation for regulation's sake. This is about keeping children in our community safe. And and you know, I've had several uh residents express to me and and and Steve, I know you've you've heard it the same that they're really scared that one of these kids is going to tragically end up, you know, on the on the wrong end of of of something like this. And so, you know, this isn't, you know, we never want to overregulate things, but this is this is about public safety. This is about keeping kids safe. Um, so I I do thank everybody who's put input into this um because I think this gives our law enforcement the at least the ability to start a conversation and and engage the community in the right way where whereas right now there's nothing on our on our uh ordinances to allow them to even have a whole whole bunch of conversation. So this is a very good uh start and I'm glad glad we took the time to go through it. So thank you.

I would echo at our W one meetings I think probably for the last nine plus months people come and every meeting they bring this up. So this is a concern for the for the community. Uh Major Sullivan or Chief Spe, do you all have anything to add?

Okay. Okay. Okay, if you couldn't hear that, the chief expressed thanks to um to our city attorney and to Major Sullivan. Um any other um comments on this? Oh, yeah. Alderman Locker.

Well, there's a lot of verbiage in this ordinance. It's so easy for a parent that's thinking about getting their child a vehicle to just look at the definition and like you said, Jim, go to that chart and it just says right then and there in the columns where they can take it. If it's it can be on a trail, if it can be on a sidewalk or what street. So, I appreciate the people like me. It's almost like pictures and follow the pictures discussion. Okay, seeing none, we will uh discuss then this again in March. Um are there this is the second opportunity for citizen comment. Is there anyone in the room who would like to speak or anyone online with the hand raised?

I'm not showing interest online. Okay, great. Well, seeing no further business, this meeting is adjourned.