Planning and Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

Uh, I will do a sound check to make sure that Mr. Nolan can hear us as well and that we can hear Mr. Nolan. Thank you, Mr. Nolan. My apologies. It is a little late starting. It is 6:31 now. And I'd like to welcome everyone who's with us this evening to the Wednesday, May 14th, 2025 planning and zoning commission for the city of Brentwood. Um, we do not have a quorum tonight, so this will not be a meeting where we can conduct official business. uh and that does include taking votes on things as simple as uh our agenda and our approval of the minutes. But in the interest of making good use of the time of the folks here, we would like to hear uh at least a little bit of informative um uh not testimony, but just some information on some of the uh reports and recommendations that are coming forward. Again, we won't be able to take any action on this tonight, but hopefully we'll familiarize the commissioners and others, anyone watching about what these plans are. So with that, I will however say that we can do the pledge of allegiance. So I'll call us to order and we'll do that. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, justice for all. I do believe we can still call the role. All right, Jessica, would you mind since I think it's important for you to have that rather than me, but uh Chair Hart Nelson here, Jeff Hunt here, uh Mr. Brian Nolan here, Carl Carlin here, and that is roll. Thank you very much. Again, as I mentioned, we won't be able to approve the agenda, the minutes um or citizen comments. We have no old business and moving forward to new business as aformational only. We'll be looking at the presentation of the draft residential design guidelines by H3C

studio. If you could sir, please give us your name and we uh have the presentation. We look forward to hearing about this. Uh thank you chair. My name is uh Tim Bryan with H3 Studio. Uh we are the city's uh planning consultant on the architectural design guidelines uh project. So, um, what we'd like to present, what I'd like to present to you tonight, um, we have, uh, developed the, uh, final draft of the residential, uh, architectural design guidelines for the city. And, um, we'd like to share sort of a a brief overview of the project um, including some of the engagement activities that have been uh, undertaken to complete uh, this draft. Um the the draft the full draft has been um has been circulated to uh uh PNZ and the architectural review board is my understanding. And so we'll kind of run through a um the contents and organization uh of the guidelines. not necessarily every single guideline one by one, but just kind of give an an overview to show what the what topics the guidelines are covering um with a a little bit of a more in-depth presentation on a few issues. And then uh another piece of this uh from the outset of the project um the city asked us to in addition to developing the guidelines um also to identify uh recommended zoning code text amendments um that would help to uh further the um the successful administration of the guidelines uh in in terms of um realizing the the the types of physical form form of development uh in the city that are desired based on the community input. And so we've uh we've developed some uh some draft language around recommended

uh zoning code text amendments um that are included in uh in this deliverable this draft deliverable for uh consideration at a future date. Um and Whitney, I don't know, do you want me to talk a little bit about what the anticipated next steps are or do you want to deal with that? Okay. So, um, so what, uh, what we've discussed, um, in fact, we had a meeting earlier this afternoon, uh, with, uh, with Whitney and and Jessica. In terms of the next steps, um, we are hoping to get any sort of final uh, uh, comments or or input after tonight's presentation. And assuming that uh there are no major issues with uh what's been uh developed to date, um this is essentially ready to go forward for uh consideration uh as uh for adoption as a as an addendum to the city's comprehensive plan. Um, and I believe that uh Whitney is uh is planning to uh call a joint meeting uh of the uh uh plan zoning commission and ARB on June 11th uh at which point that would be uh presented for consideration. So if I could also to note uh that we do have and I apologize for not doing this earlier, Mr. Paul Turner who represents one of the members of the RB as well as Mr. Carlin who has dual duty on both PNZ and with the ARB. So my apologies for not mentioning at the start. Um so the overall objective for the project um is to develop citywide um uh residential architectural design guidelines for all residential properties in Brentwood um as well as commercial architectural design guidelines for uh Brentwood Boulevard and the West uh Manchester corridor. And the guidelines are intended to provide uh consistent direction uh to ARB in the review and approval of projects. Uh clearly define the review and approval process uh

between what the ARB reviews and approves and what city staff can review and approve administratively. Uh provide legal backup to the review and approval decisions of ARB and city staff. uh clarify requirements and expectations of property owners and developers and addressed address persistent uh design review issues faced uh by city staff and and ARB. Um so uh for the residential guidelines specifically uh the community engagement activities that have contributed to the development of these uh include two uh meetings with the project steering committee uh for their review and input uh plus independent review by the steering committee members of the draft residential design guidelines. Um we also uh met with um uh several of the boards and commissions and and uh gaveformational presentations on the process and information gathering early on. Uh that included a meeting with the sustainability commission uh the planning and zoning commission and the architectural review board. And finally, uh, back in December, we had, uh, a public open house, um, that was dedicated to the residential design guidelines where we were able to get, uh, feedback from, uh, from residents and other stakeholders in Brentwood. Just for, uh, uh,formational purposes, this is the roster of the uh, project steering committee. So, it consists of some key city staff, uh the mayor, and then uh representatives from the sustainability commission, uh ARB, and planning and zoning. So, I know for some of you here tonight, you'll this is uh you've seen this multiple times so far. Um, starting out of course in the project, we we looked at um at some existing conditions uh analysis citywide um including uh the the current uh

zoning districts uh focused on the single family residential A and B districts. Um and then obviously also the the the commercial districts uh in in light of the commercial guidelines. Um and and fundamentally there are some other some other kind of uh special overlays that that impact these um from a residential standpoint. Um there are several subdivisions of course which have uh indentures or deed restrictions which guide building design. Uh typically these are more restrictive than the architectural uh design guidelines for for residences. Uh but of course those are not uh administered or enforced by the city. Um we've also looked at for the commercial side uh the Manchester corridor uh MC zoning district design guidelines as sort of a or an organizational model. And then moving back to the commercial side um the the Brentwood 2020 comp plan focus areas uh which include um Brentwood Boulevard south of uh Straner Drive and the West Manchester corridor are the primary focus of the commercial study. Um coming out of the analysis, there were a number of consensus issues and opportunities that were identified uh which these guidelines uh seek to address. Um that includes a lack of a defined checklist for residential submitts uh which increases difficulty and uncertainty for owners, staff, and the ARB. Um we heard from ARB that they don't always feel fully empowered to deny projects because of a lack of defined guidelines. Uh commercial projects today are not required. uh to be reviewed by ARB uh only the planning and zoning commission. Uh there was some talk about looking at floor area ratios uh within the zoning code to govern building size that currently does not exist in Brentwood. Um it is expected that Brentwood will continue to

experience tearowns and rebuilds uh due to increasing property value which uh highlights the increasing need for the guidelines. Um some more specific issues. Uh currently only uh replacement in kind and installation of solar panels can be administratively approved by staff for residential projects. So that was something that the guidelines are going to address. Um the subdivision and dentures and redeed restrictions again are more restrictive but there's no defined process for enforcement of these requirements and we understand that that is not unique to Brentwood. That is just a that is a legal reality. Um and finally we heard that there is a lack of uh clear direction about sustainable building systems and site treatments uh and and when and where those uh can be employed in projects. So that's sort of a summary of some of the topics uh that both the residential design guidelines and the commercial design guidelines are going to be addressing. So moving into the residential design guidelines and sort of the overall contents and organization. So they start with um a section on the purpose and administration. Uh the purpose being defined as um to not prescribe specific architectural styles, materials or required details, but rather to encourage and facilitate homeowners and developers to design homes that are compatible with the existing homes around them. So, we wanted to be very clear upfront that, you know, this is not about um making every home in Brentwood look the same. Uh we feel that and and the ARB feels that that freedom of design uh is important uh in the community, but that um that compatibility of design is equally important and so that is what um what these uh guidelines are intended to achieve. uh in the administration section um there is a detailed section

dealing with uh ARB review procedures and then one of the things that is that is new to this um is our definitions around administrative review. So the guidelines currently state that the following project types uh can have administrative review by uh the department of planning and development. That would be open air structures without roofs including pergolas and trelluses either freestanding or attached to a building. Uh manufactured sun rooms and screened porches as long as they're installed on the rear facade of a home. And any other additions that are not visible from the public rideway which meet the following conditions. Uh it's not fully enclosed and air conditioned. Uh it does not have a full foundation and it's less than 200 square ft. So any projects falling within those um requirements and then also meeting specific uh design submitt requirements which are outlined uh in the in the draft uh can be reviewed and approved by city staff. And of course the guidelines are also explicit that at city staff's discretion they can always refer any project to ARB for review if if they feel it it requires ARB review. You may get to this. Can I ask a question? Um, and it's showing my ignorance here. Would decks be included in this? Are those included now? We've had those are not included right now. If it doesn't have a roof structure, that's just staff review. Okay. So, yeah. So, it's it currently is just staff review. Yeah, that's what I wanted to check on. Thank you. Um the the second section um talks about some some general architectural design principles that the uh guidelines themselves provide more requirements on. And so this section I'm going to run through this in a little bit more detail because this does contain some of the specific um uh requirements of the guidelines

themselves. So, starting with roof forms, uh the roof form should be compatible with the architectural style of the house and harmonious with other homes on the block and overly complex roof forms should be avoided. Uh front garages are a big issue in Brentwood. Um and the guidelines state that the garage entrance may be flush with the front facade or recessed back, but should not project forward to the front facade. um and that the combined total width of all garage doors should not be more than 40% of the total width of the front facade. Um subject to a couple of exceptions that are outlined um in the in the guidelines themselves which I I I can go into if you have questions about that. And then a requirement to use architectural garage doors with windows and carriage door style hardware uh compatible with the overall design architectural style of the home. So, we want to make sure that if a garage is located on the front facade that it is actually a u it's not an overwhelming feature to the home and it's designed in a way that that does not in any way detract from the overall style and design of the home. Uh window and door trims, another big issue. Um the guidelines talk about how all windows and doors should have exterior trim. Uh trim boards on houses with siding and brick mold on brick houses. Uh porches porch design should be compatible and harmonious with the architectural style of the home. Uh porches may be located on on any facade. Um open wood or composite planks used on decks are not appropriate for porch floors. Fixed screen panels should not be permitted on front porches. And in general in general, wood porches should be finished uh in in opaque paint. Um there are again some exceptions uh to that based on materials. if someone wanted to do a a stained front porch for example or stained front porch columns uh which are detailed in the in the guidelines themselves. I ask one more if I could back going to to garages again showing

that I'm not the architect Mr. Turner and Mr. Carlin knows that well uh is this a conforming diagram with that front garage because that does not appear to be flush with the facade. Uh no that that is a good point. Yes. and we we we found uh we modeled a an this is an actual house in Brentwood. Um a new a new construction home. I don't remember the address offand. Um it was it was one of the uh one of the better examples that we could find of a front garage house. The one thing that I will point out about this one, um the fact that the porch roof extends out to the front uh garage, that is uh listed in the guidelines as something that is um that is a desirable feature to have uh in order to minimize the presence, but you're you're you have a keen eye that you pointed out that it does uh in fact extend beyond. I'm not sure it's a keen eye. I'm learning something. So that's good. I appreciate it. Thank you. Just to feel um add to that, Paul, you may want to typically at ARB if there's a dis a portion, I mean, if there's a garage in front, this is how they look. They've revised drawings to minimize the appearance of that garage. So, that's why we're just including it here, too. Yeah. a lot of times. I mean, to me, this one is not one of the ones that we we we don't try to encourage this. I mean, to me, if it had a I wrote some notes on the copy I have, you know, one of the things I would have said was if you have a full second floor above that garage, that's a front face. And that could be that would be considered somewhat acceptable. Uh, a lot of times when we have one like this, a lot of the ones we've been seeing and we try to encourage the developers to do is to make that roof of the porch

continuous across with a window to the bedroom upstairs rather than it being a proud gable end. I mean, because that then just continues to push it up. And since we have no guidelines right now, you know, this is not to me my preferred in seeing in the neighborhoods. I would pre prefer to see a more generous porch, probably a proud porch. I mean, I think Carl might have an opinion one way or the other. There's a number of other things that I've seen. Uh, but that's Thank you, Mr. Turner. Okay. Thank you. So um then uh uh eaves. So all homes with gabled or hip roof should feature eaves. So that's an overhang of the roof. Uh and they should be compatible and harmonious with the design and architectural style of the home. Uh freeze bands, another uh another facade feature um which are highlighted there. Um those are encouraged on the wall at the eve line. Um they should be proportional uh to the depth of the eve and the height of the building. And it is recommended that the height of the uh freeze extend from the horizontal projection of the eve down to the top of the uppermost uh uppermost floor window openings uh as this example does illustrate. Um and then finally uh sills and water tables sometimes referred to as like a um it's it's sort of compatible with like you would think of ways coating on the interior of a home. uh those are encouraged and when present um they should uh generally the the the the the table lines uh should generally align with the sill and water table lines of neighboring homes. So then uh then we move into the actual content and I'm just going to sort of run through the major headings of the topics uh that are addressed in the in the guidelines. So the the first

major section of the guidelines deals with new home massing and placement. So again, we have uh we deal with garages first. Um and we separate guidelines for side and rear access garages which are a little more permissive because they're not visible from the street or at least not primarily visible from the street uh with front access garages which have more uh restrictive guidelines. Um building massing or building configuration and massing rather deals with uh building orientation uh building height as it relates to neighboring buildings. Uh street facing facades uh homes located on corner lots uh the primary entrance to the home and the roof forms. Uh then the next section uh deals with additions to existing homes. And so we've basically looked at this in in three different types of additions. So the first being uh additions uh that are part of the side andor rear facades. So that deals we have guidelines dealing with their design and form uh the roof form and the materials. Uh then second story additions. So this would be basically adding a second story onto an existing one-story home. uh design and form of those and then additions that are part of the street facing facade. Um and this also deals with design and form also with placement uh roof forms and materials and again uh additions that that are part of or extend the street facing facade of the home are treated with more scrutiny in terms of the guidelines uh than those that are part of a side or rear facade. Um then we have the next section deals with architectural details and features. So uh specific guidelines uh pertaining

to windows, doors, porches, decks. Um and I realize there's a typo there in the presentation. I do apologize for that. Uh I just want to make sure what that is supposed to be. It's just a duplication. And there's only six items and this is not seven. So decks, architectural details and then utility services and mechanical equipment uh which includes uh guidelines dealing with uh solar panels. Um the next section uh materials. So, uh we have a section on permitted materials which include uh face brick, stonemasonry, um siding either wood or fiber cement board like Hardy board um shingles uh either wood, fiberglass or cement or fiber cement. Uh and then stucco or cement plaster uh which uh does not include uh panelized or ephus systems but only traditional uh applied uh stucco. So those are materials that are permitted in residential construction. Uh prohibited materials include um concrete masonry units, concrete block, uh whether they're split face or not. Um ephus, exterior insulated facade systems and other panelized stucco systems. Um architectural pre-cast panels uh which are typically made of of concrete composite. Um fiber cement panels. Uh so these are basically it's the same material that the fiber cement sighting is made out of but it's in large panels. Uh plywood or oriented strand board sighting panels uh thin brick veneer the stuff that's glued or thin set onto the uh onto the facade and asphalt shingles on walls. So those are listed as prohibited materials. And then other

materials that that can be approved but are subject to ARB approval um include vinyl siding, aluminum siding, architectural metal panels, or glass block. And so the the understanding here is that these materials may be appropriate to some buildings. Um but they're not they they don't just have a blanket permission uh on any building. If we could just real quick, Mr. Turner, I believe you had a question. Oh, so You know, I had a couple of question. Well, well, let me if I can backtrack all the way to the beginning. I just want to clarify as a me I'm a member of the ARB. So, I will be looking at this document and I've also designed buildings, residential ones in Brentwood. So, I also end up using the document. So, a lot of it is uninforceable language. So, and you've said it's guidelines for us as the ARB to use. And so, how do we enforce it if it's not in enforcable language? I I understand that you don't want it to be a prescriptive statement of how to do things, but how do we get to enforce it if it's not enforcable? Does that make sense? Because when you say we would like this or we recommend this use, it is not actually to me an enforceable language. Well, I think that part of the provisions are going to be enforceable such as these types of materials are prohibited. So then you're going to deny any application with those mater. So, um, usually if you put in guidance that, um, you know, if you if if you have, let's say, a front-facing garage that protrudes from the house and if and it it's not otherwise prohibited, but that if you're going to approve that, then

they need to add some other architectural features and then so you look for those. So, if you're going to do this, then we should also be seeing, you know, something else. So this as a guideline will be enforcable under the purview of the ARB for anything over you know the prescripted size of 200 square ft and there's a couple of other stipulations earlier on right so so I don't that may be in there in the language already but I didn't catch it originally and if that's the intent that's fine and I can live with the uninforcable language that's elsewhere because it's a guideline for us to use. Mhm. And then for everybody else to understand that that's what we're doing, too. So, it's for us to review as professionals because right now we're strictly a professional board review, meaning we're all licensed professionals to do work in architecture and construction. And I would point not being an attorney, so I will preface that as I do frequently surrounded by many attorneys and on the call. Uh these guidelines provide both advice and requirements. And so that's the language and that's in the beginning that I think I would look to is there is some that is advice and you're looking at the totality of what is being put in front of you saying does it meet the advice or is it conflicting with the advice regularly and requirements and that's one of the things that I probably missed and that's why I wanted to clarify that that's what the intent is. Yeah. Um so back to the specific right now. So, a lot of your prohibited ones I would actually shift down to for ARB review. Okay? Because the building code requires exterior insulation as we get further forward. So, for reference as well, I have been a committee member at ICC for the past five code cycles. And

so, I watched this on the development side. I was just at the 2027 adoption hearings. And so as these requirements come into the code, this contradicts them. So I would not exclude all materials outright. Uh I will agree that concrete masonry units and plywood oriented strand board panels are not appropriate or asphalt shingles. Uh the other issue is thin brick is a veneer. So, is that also supposed to be encompassing all fully adhered masonry systems? Um, well, this this was specific and the and the because this was uh added based on feedback from the public and from the steering committee. Um it was referring specifically to the um for lack of a better term I'll call them the the the brick tiles if you will that are either glued on or attached with thin set to uh so again that's kind of a misunderstanding of the actual architectural technology and when you look at a lot of buildings that are going up right now we get a lot of fully adhered masonry and most of that masonry is actually pre-cast and would be classified under the concrete category. It looks exactly like stone. And when it's put up properly, that's the caveat. If it's put up according to the building code and not put up in the old style of what people are afraid of, which we used to refer to as lick and stick, I mean, that's the way it was put up. Slap on some and put it up there. That's inappropriate. and it's a construction issue, not necessarily a finish term. Does that make sense? Sure. And I think that we've

we've had that. And Mr. Carlin, I can't remember if it was you or Mr. Foreman, but I recall a case that came before PNZ um a while ago uh where there was a great deal of discussion about that construction case, which I would worry my concern there is is that enforceable, right? Is it better to have it in a prohibited or as you're suggesting, hey, ARB needs to look at it, right? Because when it gets to the construction phase of if they do it wrong, it's going to look awful. Is that enforceable? I think is the concern there because it's already built at that point. I would say some of it for us to review. Now, if you get lay people on the A or B eventually and decide to go that route, it's probably not I mean, you might have to go back, but you should clarify what you mean one way or the other because thin brick actually has ways to be adhered properly, but it can be poorly done and it's more of a longevity issue, I think, than anything else. And the same thing with stucco. So, sorry to interrupt there. There I've been I've been following the the process obviously um right as a member of the steering committee and and also sharing sharing you know Paul's tenure on the ARB. So, and I agree with um much of what's being said. I I do think um you know the comment was just made about the the sort of you know licensed professional architecture nature of the those of us who serve on the ARB which I have always been in favor of not not in the interest of excluding anybody else's opinions but more just from the point of view of knowing the similar training and experience that we have in that capacity to be able to make these these sort of determinations. So, I appreciate the documents, you know, leaving some of of those decisions to to that, you know, and it won't it won't always be me and Paul. It'll be other people in the future, you know, other architects. We hope so. Yeah. Right. So, so but having I appreciate the document providing that

guidance not just to us but also to the people who are going to apply because um you know in the beginning discussions you I'll keep comments brief in the beginning discussions for this process you know many of us noted you know as architects applying to other jurisdictions that had similar documentation um local ones come to mind and you know those those were helpful in terms of just you know sort of setting expectations. Um I feel this document as currently written from my understanding of it you know with some you know discussion we're having now to help um does leave room for interpretation both for the ARB and for people who might apply and I think it's at least my tenure the three of us that I've known there's been four or so but um you know it's not our it's not our goal to sort of tell people no it's not our goal to you know determine the style of a building necessarily. It's more as Paul said, there's a contextual argument. There's some um property value concerns. You know, there's other other ways that the board has been empowered um by the city, you know, to because our power eventually comes from the board of alderman and the mayor. Um and so, um I guess my my point is that, you know, leaving some of that to interpretation. No, for instance, within Brick, it's a detailed discussion we can go into, but there's there's some which are the panelized kind which I believe we would we would not like to approve. there's others that you know is essentially the exact same brick sheared off and applied you can never tell the difference right so so I think there's there's some room for that kind of discussion and as long as the document protects that discussion um and allows for a range of styles and approaches appropriate to the context then I'm in favor of it if that makes sense right so Carl am I correct in that some some of these pieces that I would say just move them down for us to review uh I wouldn't mention I that I've changed the phrasing on some of these to what are more contemporary standards one

way or the other uh rather than it being and exclude this material which is a lay person's thought versus what are we actually using nowadays. So could we do a small technical change if it's possible to adjust Mr. Carlin's volume down a bit is at full blast. It's your microphone. I thought Zoom could do that for each individual if we're the host. Got you. Miss Kelly, if you could take a look. We don't want to mute him. That would be not what we're trying to accomplish, but just turning it down a working on it at this end. I'm working on it. We will do a belt and suspenders approach. Thank you, Mr. Carla. Apologies if please. Miss Jer, any more questions? So, no, I I mean I tried to refrain from a lot of the questions I would ask, but this was kind of a section when you get into the actual uh what I call enforcable language. And now that I understand the methodology of the preferred standing and it being a guideline for us as a board member, that's also fine. I mean, I'm fine with the way it's presented from that standpoint. I Carl, do you have an opinion on that? I mean, you've been in all more meetings than I have. Oh, now he's got you really quiet. Did it work? You're really quiet. It did, but you could probably go up two notches. All right. But we can hear you. We can hear you. Perfect. Good for me. Yes. Yes, Paul. And just I don't I don't want to I don't want, you know, because we're on the ARB, we could probably hijack the whole thing. I don't want to do that. Oh, yeah. But um but I I will say yes. I think the goal is to um just to you know to help the citizens and the applicants better understand the sorts

of things that we are impanled you know by by code to look at right so I think having having some understanding of that it does it would definitely save some time for all involved and that's not the main goal but it would just be I think helpful to staff to applicants um to have those goals to understand you know where they're headed many of the things that have just come up um the garage front issue, the um the the trim issue. Many of these issues come up, you know, almost every meeting, right? You know, and and and again, it's not to be prescriptive or to to to, you know, have the to say no to things. It's more just to say, you know, there's a there's a level of detail that's that's common among the other houses, you know, of whatever vintage neighborhood, you know, in order to maintain, you know, a sense of context and property value. We'd like you to maintain that level of detail. you know how they do it is sometimes to be interpreted. Right? So my feeling is that this is as much a way to give a heads up to all involved as it is to be be prescriptive for to be respected. So, and I'll put forward as well that we're going from zero to a document that we can refer to. And just as we'll entertain um text amendments or text changes uh as we do here at PNZ, um we have the opportunity to correct this if we're off base on a few things as we go down. So, I appreciate that. Uh in the interest of time, I think appreciate we can go back to the presentation. Okay. And knowing that again we unfortunately we'll probably have to call back to have this conversation again when we have a full quorum. But thank you very much. Yeah. Um so then uh the material section concludes with uh section on materials for buildings on corner lots. Basically specifying that if a building has two street facing facades, both of those streetf facing facades should use the same materials. Um material transitions between street facing and side or rear facades. Um this was actually a subject of a lot of input at the public uh

openhouse. Um there there were many uh many folks said that uh that you know having brick on the front of the building and siding on the sides of the building should be totally prohibited. Um that's not always realistic, but what we did say is that the it's always preferred to use the same materials on the rear and sidefacing facads as on the street facing facade. Uh but we've we've come to uh sort of a compromise that when um when that transition occurs, the material on the street facing side should extend a minimum of 5 ft past the corner on the adjacent facads. And then finally, there is an exemption for material requirements for uh prefabricated structures. Um and then finally, the last section of the guidelines um deals with site features and landscaping. So that includes uh guidelines related to retaining walls, um fences and significant trees. Um then uh the last piece that I would like to share tonight are the our recommended uh zoning code amendments. So early on in the process um there were uh there the issue came up about um placement of buildings of of of particularly infill residential buildings uh relating to their their existing uh neighboring buildings. And so we had initially um written some guidelines around that and the the uh steering committee determined that again to that enforcability issue that those would be more appropriately handled as a zoning uh code text amendment. Um and then after the public workshop or the public openhouse rather uh a a question came up um regarding driveway widths um which we also um drafted some language

for. So, so the first um the first recommended zoning code amendment um would apply to sections um 400 uh.1320 uh D3 and 400.1330.D3 which uh are the yard and setback requirements in both the A and B single family zoning districts. Um, currently the uh the code states that the minimum front yard uh is uh 25 feet. Um, however, as I'm sure most of you know, most of the building the existing buildings uh in Brentwood have a fairly consistent alignment on the streets. And so we are recommending um that the the minimum front yard be actually changed to a a um a relational build to line. Um which would state that uh uh is measured perpendicular to the front lot line uh equal to the average distance of the setback of the two existing homes on either side of the subject property. Um so the average front setback of four existing homes in total plus or minus two feet uh with the exception that if there are less um than two existing homes on one side of of the uh subject property an additional building on the other side shall be included in the average. So the average front setback of four existing homes is achieved. So that would um that would be a fairly significant uh text amendment because you are fundamentally changing uh the definition of the front yard of the minimum front yard or front yard setback and you're changing it to a relational um uh build to line uh strategy. Um the next uh recommended amendment deals with uh front access garages. Um, and so this would apply to sections uh 400 1320 D5 and uh 1330D5 uh which again apply to the A and B single family residential

districts. And so this adds some language uh dealing with driveways and off- streetet parking. Um so for front access garages um the uh the language is changed to state that the driveway may not may not be wider than uh 48 in as measured at the main opening uh uh width of the door. Uh but in no retaining in no event shall the driveway exceed 40% of the front or rear yard in which the driveway is located. So that's uh the the amount of uh distance that the driveway may be wider uh than the garage door is increased from 24 to 48 in. That was uh in response to some specific um uh input that we heard from residents uh relative to uh driveways that have retaining walls uh and and a desire for residents to be able to park and still uh open the doors comfortably next to the retaining walls. Um and then uh the uh through the uh steering committee process um it was we heard input that um for side and rear access garages um the the driveway a an even more uh flexible um uh range should be approved so or should be considered. So, there's drive uh language added that says um that for uh side and rear access garages, the driveway may be not wider than the width of the garage plus 8 ft uh is measured at the main opening. So, again, for a side or rear access, you could essentially get a a parking apron next to the garage door. Um and then finally um there we uh in in sort of the same spirit as the first amendment uh for the relational build to line for the front yard. Um we developed language uh for section uh 41870B which is the yard requirements

dealing with corner lots. So, it's um it's revised to state that any corner lot uh shall have a side street setback equal to the average distance of the setback of the nearest two existing homes running on the side street plus or minus 2 feet. So, again, um changing it slightly from the minimum front yard setback of any adjoining lot to actually keying it to the existing um the the location of the facade of the existing buildings. So those uh so so that would constitute uh five total sections of the zoning code um that are recommended for amendment uh based on input that we received uh throughout the planning process. The final thing I'll mention um is floor area ratio limits. So this did come up um early on in the process and as I'm sure you all know floor air ratio you take the total occupiable floor area of the building sometimes with exceptions divide it by the total area of the lot as a means to limit building size. Um we are not recommending establishing an F limit um either in the guidelines or as a zoning text amendment. Um we always recommend that if there are is a desire to limit building size it be done through dimensional standards uh because the dimensional standards can result in predictable building forms and F limits do not result in predictable building forms. It's simply a mathematical calculation. It does not really deal with um the the the form or the shape of the building or where the mass is located. Um so we did not feel that given the other uh design guidelines and the recommend recommendations for zoning code updates that an F limit would be would be useful. Um we think that that the the the issues of of overscale buildings are addressed uh through other means. So, um, that of course is something that we can reconsider, but we

were asked to consider it and and in our opinion, it's it does not make sense just due to the lack of predictability. Think Mr. Turner has a question, but just one thing real quick. Uh, Miss Kelly for staff and we obviously not voting, but the equivalent of staff report. Uh, has staff and city attorney reviewed the uh, text amendments and are you uh, you know, is what's what's the general take on those? See, I'm getting better at it. Turn off my camera. Um, I have looked at them. Um, I do have some questions that would certainly be further reviewed and discussed at the time we look at this text amendments. Um, completely eliminating a front yard setback might be difficult, but allowing for some variation with the existing form, especially for non those a lot of the pre-existing non-conforming homes would be nice. Yeah, we're creating a different problem sometime. Mr. Turner. So, one of my questions was going to be kind of a combo of Whitney question versus maybe this showed up in your uh public survey system. How many times have you had a problem with the front yard setback? Uh, not really at all except for those homes that are pre-existing and they had to require a variance. Okay. Um, which required prior to review at the ARB. Um, so it hasn't been a mu a lot, but there are a few pre-existing non-conforming homes. Um, so I mean from the ARB standpoint, we've had an issue with front yard setback maybe once or twice and it's usually has to do with somebody wanting to put a porch in front of the setback, which there are requirements which I think are perfectly reasonable. And I see no need to change that

particular issue one way or another because this adds a lot of extra front-end work for the surveyor to do which the owner then has to pay for. So I don't see any benefit or need out of it. I mean I just that's my opinion from being on the uh side that reviews and uses it at the same time. Uh the Go ahead. Oh, I was just going to add that for your knowledge, uh, ARB does look at where the existing homes are. So, if someone's placed a home at the 25 foot setback, but the existing homes are more at 30 feet or or 28 feet, they kind of look to push it back to be more consistent with that. Um, we can look at at the time we get into any text amendments, we can certainly look at clarifying that and I'm fine with that being a relational statement in the architectural guidelines rather than a zoning change because again I understand what you're saying about the F and that was the second part of my question or secondary question that I had which is what are your recommendations on how to address the oversized house because that is a number one complaint we get from the public on buildings we review of which there's one on my street right now which is the largest house on the street and is the smallest lot on the street and towers over its neighbors. But as a board we say it's allowed by zoning. It was never addressed by the subdivision covenants ahead of time because they never expected anybody to build that big of a house. So that's I I would love to hear what you guys recommend. So So what um you

know what what has come up or or what came up through the discussion um with the primarily with the steering committee um and also uh at the public open house. A lot of the a lot of the issues relating to oversized buildings um seem to come down to issues of either the the first floor elevation above existing grade is noticeably higher than the neighbors. Um so maybe you have a you know 4 foot projection of the basement as opposed to a two and a half or three foot projection. um or the the the floor the floor heights themselves of the building are much taller. You know, you're on a street where you've got eight or eight and a half foot floor to floor or floor to Yeah, floor to floor and you coming in with 10. Um or probably in a lot in most cases the roof pitch and the the thing is the F an F limit would not address any of those. Um so the guidelines include language um that basically tasks the ARB with looking at um Florida floor heights uh ground floor elevation and roof pitch in relation to neighboring buildings um and that that they should be uh compatible with with neighboring buildings. So that that's in for instance in um oh pardon me in section C new home masking and placement uh building configuration and massing building height um the height above grade of the new home sill plate floor plates and eve line should be within one one foot of those of the one

existing neighboring homes on each side. um street facing facades, massing roof line eaves, there's recommendations for that. Um so it's it's it's really it becomes a it's really a design issue as opposed to a gross floor area issue. And so that's why we didn't feel that the floor area uh floor ratio limits would be particularly helpful. uh but we wanted to provide some specific guidance in the guidelines themselves um to the ARB and as well as to applicants of what is what is expected and and and how new projects will be reviewed. So the height though is that I mean when I read this I was strictly reading it as the first floor plate. Does this apply to the second floor plate as well? And then what do you do when your neighboring house is a one-story house? So, is this on page eight? Um, let me scroll down to the bottom here. Yes, it is on page eight. Yeah. So, so basically, so it's sill plate, floor plates, and and eve line should be within one uh one ft of one foot of those of the one existing neighboring home on each side. So, um, so yeah, so if if you were building a two-story building next to a one-story building, um, you know, generally speaking, the the second floor plate of the new two-story building should be roughly in line with the eve line. You know, if it's a if it's a if it's a a 9- foot floor to ceiling height of the one-story building, should be looking at a roughly 9 foot floor to ceiling height, nine, you know, of of the new building on the on the first floor. So, not to say that you can't have two-story buildings next to one-story buildings, but it's more to keep the proportion of the building elements in line with the prevailing conditions on the on the street or on

the block. So, I mean, as a clearer guideline for the end user, I mean, I think I mean, I know how I will approach it, which will be not what people will be happy with. So because we do we have we run into one of the bigger issues we run into a lot of the original homes uh the indentures called for minimum of 7 foot6 second floor height and a lot of them have a 7 foot6 second floor height. And so when you have a 7 foot six on the second floor and 8 foot on the first floor and it's got a possibly a 2x10 or 2x8 floor framing which is seldom used nowadays, it's a much lower house, right? And so we build houses with 10ft first floors and 9 foot second floors. And if there's a little way, a little clearer way to explain to developers and new homeowners or renovators that we want that size brought back down and to address the houses next door. I would like to see it a little clearer. Yeah. I mean, uh, probably the clearest way to do it would be, and again, this would be a question of whether this is part of the of a zoning text amendment or whether it's part of um the architectural design guidelines would be to just specify a a ground floor and upper floor height limit. You just say that, you know, ground floors cannot be any taller than x number of feet in upper floors. And I mean, that that would be probably the most straightforward way of doing it. Um, I'm trying to think of I mean I I personally would think that a relational system would be better and maybe the language is not clear enough. Um, but yeah, I mean it's just to me it just needs a little bit to represent that there's it's more than the first floor and its relationship of the overall height in relationship to the adjacent property

and its ridge lines. I mean, if you happen to run into a once a flat roof house, which we don't I don't know that we have any, but we might. Yeah. you know, and you're how how do you address that in infill? I mean, obviously, if you're all new construction, you tear down five houses, which we've had, it's a different issue, but um I do think it does address roof forms for that particular one. But yeah, I I I agree. What I see here is first floor and then I see that anything else would be conforming to the height limitations of the zoning code. So, I think that second floor does matter. I mean, it's okay. Wall-to- wall building. We'll we can address that clarify that language. I would I know um one of the one of the go I'll be quick I promise. One of the goals for um having the guidelines Whoa, that is so trippy. One of the goals for having for having the guidelines um was because some of these discussions like is happening tonight get really extremely detailed and nuanced and and sometimes you know not everybody you know needs or wants to get into that level of detail. However, you know, we as you know, architecture professionals, that's kind of what we do. So, we have to do that appropriate for the discussions at the ARB. So, the thought is that these guidelines would help streamline some of those discussions. And then just I'll leave this here relative to the to the F. Um, you know, it is a zoning issue. So, it is a planning and zoning issue. So, it maybe doesn't have to be fully discussed in this context any further. I would say that in addition to the dimensional requirements you're describing, the F as I've had to deal with it in other jurisdictions and honestly in almost every other jurisdiction that I've worked in, there's been an F requirement, right? And so I understand the logic that you're spinning out about how they work. I think the thing that we're we've dealt with a few times, you know, is what I'd call envelope fillers, right? You know, so there's a set back on the side, a setback on the side, a setback in the back, and a setback in

the front. And then the building is just going to fill that envelope and and sometimes no matter what you do in terms of, you know, design detail or, you know, datam lines from other homes, it's going to be a massive construction, right? So I think we as a planning and zoning board, which where that would be handled, have to decide is that something we're okay with, right? And my my own personal feeling is F is actually a tool of flexibility. It's not a tool of restriction because you know how I fill the allowable space is then sort of up to me as an architect and an owner. Um but it does preserve you know the sense there might be some space around the building and that we just have an envelope to envelope like an urban condition, right? We we have a primarily suburban condition. We could have this discussion in a different forum, but you know, envelope filling buildings tend to be ones you just would think of an urban situation, right? Like, you know, and and so there's I think other other restrictions that are similar. There's permeable paving percentages, right? There's um tree removal, you know, rules and things. So, you know, I've traditionally thought that we're actually quite lenient here in Brentwood relative to things like F. So I I maybe think it's still on the table but not necessarily for this discussion. Thank you. Appreciate Mr. Carlin. Uh Mr. Nolan, Mr. Hunt, any questions? Recognizing we are up about an hour and I do appreciate the taking the time tonight uh since we are in a non-b businessiness meeting, but I think this was really useful. I appreciated getting more of the background. I will say a couple of things there as well. And then obviously I apologize because I called you out and then started talking. Um from a lay person's perspective, I appreciated the examples. I believe all those were from Brentwood. recognized some of the homes there. I appreciated that. I think that makes it clearer in those spaces. Uh and, you know, reiterate the fact that just like we do with text amendments, we want to get it as close to right as we can. And I appreciate the input on that, recognizing that there'll be some change down the road as we fill out some of those details. But Mr. Hunt, Mr. Nolan,

any comments or No, no comments. I've had had my say in some other discussions. Appreciate it, Mr. Nolan. No comments, but I echo what you said. I appreciate the uh presentation and that uh one house is on St. Clair. It's just down the street. No naming and shaming, Mr. Nolan. Uh thank you very much. Really appreciate your time this evening. Appreciate the presentation and look forward to hearing some of it again. Although we will shortcut that for our members who weren't able to make it tonight a little bit. So, thank you very much. Thank you. Any non- business for us, Miss Kelly? Um we do have several applications for the June 11th meeting. So, please mark your calendars. They are rather larger projects. A conditional use per couple of conditional use permits reviews. I like projects. All right, good deal. Uh since we're not officially meeting, we probably have no need to officially adjourn. But anyway, uh thanks everyone for their time tonight. I appreciate it. appreciate the discussion and I look forward to seeing you on July 11th.