Brentwood City Hall

Our home pageContact UsPrevious Page

Central Park Gazebo


Meeting Date: January 8, 2002

Subject/Title: Public Hearing for the appeal of Conditional Use Permit No. 01-22 
4461 Balfour Road
(International Banking Technologies representing Union Bank)

Submitted by: Community Development (Oshinsky/Hill)

Approved by: John Stevenson, City Manager



The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council uphold the Planning Commission's denial of Conditional Use Permit 01-22 by adopting Resolution 02-__ denying the appeal.


On October 16, 2001, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider a conditional use permit application to locate a Union Bank branch within the existing Albertson's store at 4461 Balfour Road. The Commission voted 4 - 1 to deny this conditional use permit. The denial resolution was acted on by the Commission on November 6, 2001.

The PD-34 zone, in which this proposed facility would be located, requires a conditional use permit for financial institutions when less than three such uses are located in the Central Business (CB) zoning district. The CB zone is generally bounded by portions of Maple Street, Second Street, Chestnut Street, and Brentwood Boulevard and is considered the heart of the downtown.

The Planning Commission denial included 8 findings (see attached Planning Commission Resolution 01-80) relating to its concern that this banking facility would adversely affect existing downtown banks and decrease the number of people visiting the downtown to obtain financial services. There are currently only two banks located within the CB zone: a Bank of America branch at 241 Oak Street and a Bank of Agriculture and Commerce branch at 740 First Street. There are currently two other financial institutions outside the CB zone: two Wells Fargo Bank branches within the Brentwood Town Centre, one of which is located within the Safeway grocery store, along with a Bank of the West branch at 8157 Brentwood Boulevard. 

The downtown is a distinguishing characteristic of Brentwood; it provides a traditional pedestrian-oriented shopping experience, which has been lost in many communities which have approved auto-oriented strip commercial uses on the edge of their boundaries where shoppers are dependent upon automobiles to obtain goods and services. Banks are destination uses which generate a great deal of foot traffic which is essential for traditional downtown areas. Extensive public funds have been spent within the downtown area to maintain and improve its appearance. Protection and enhancement of the downtown has been a priority for many years. Cities often lament the loss of financial services in downtown areas and point to it as a factor, which can contribute to the decline of an active downtown. The Planning Commission voted to deny the request for the bank in large part due to the potentially negative effect the proposed bank would have on pedestrian activity within the downtown.

The appeal statement filed on behalf of Union Bank by International Banking Technologies listed several areas where they felt the Planning Commission had erred in their consideration of their conditional use permit request, as follows:

1. Increased employment. It is conceivable that the establishment of this facility will necessitate the need for several new employment opportunities.

2. Increased access to banking services, particularly for commuters. It is unlikely that the establishment of this facility within the Albertson's store would provide that much of an improvement to banking services within the City. Due to the close proximity of the Albertson's center to the core downtown area, there would be no significant improvement to services, particularly to commuters.

3. Increased growth and patronage of Brentwood-based businesses. Staff is unaware of any statistics which show the number of residents who maintain their financial accounts outside of the City limits. Logically, it is unlikely that residents would maintain standard accounts such as checking and savings at organizations outside of the City, as this would limit their access; i.e., no fee ATM withdrawals and deposits, which would be available to them by having their deposits at a branch within the City. As to promoting economic growth, it would also be logical that the accounts that would be established at this proposed facility, would be accounts moved from other banking operations within the City. Therefore, Union Bank's gain, would be existing banking facilities' loss.

4. Reduced congestion. Although the establishment of a Union Bank branch outside of the downtown core could potentially reduce traffic congestion downtown, it would also limit the number of trips to the downtown, which could potentially harm the vitality of the existing businesses in that area.

5. Improved business vitality through competition between the banks. Staff agrees that the establishment of this facility could spur the existing financial institutions to enhance services. It is also possible, however, that part of their effort to improve services will be the attempt to establish banking facilities at other locations within the City, creating somewhat of a domino effect, which could severely harm the vitality of the downtown. 

6. Increased convenience for residents. Staff agrees that the establishment of this facility within the Albertson's store could provide more convenient banking services.

There are options that the Council could consider as alternative actions in regard to applications of this nature. Both of these options would require an amendment to the municipal code. 

The Council may wish to consider allowing satellite branches of existing banking businesses outside of the downtown core provided they maintain their downtown branch. This action would allow, for example, Bank of America or Bank of Agriculture to open a branch at a location outside of the CB zone after obtaining a conditional use permit. In addition, this action should not pose any threat to the economic vitality of the downtown as these businesses already exist there.

Another option would be to consider allowing small banking facilities to be located within an existing business provided that the square footage of such a facility not exceed 500 square feet. This would allow some banking conveniences without detracting from the major full-range banking services found only in the downtown. 

Both of these options would provide the convenience of providing banking facilities to residents closer to their homes.

The request to establish banking facilities outside of the downtown will be occurring more frequently as the City continues to grow. The zoning ordinance is not consistent in its treatment of banking facilities. Some zoning districts allow them by right, others with a conditional use permit, and still others prohibit them entirely. It would be helpful to have specific guidelines regarding this issue in order to guide other financial institutions in the future. 

If the Council chooses either of the above options or others, or overrules the Planning Commission decision on this particular application, staff will prepare the necessary ordinance or resolution for final action at a subsequent City Council meeting.

∑ City Council Resolution 02-__
∑ Planning Commission Resolution 01-80
∑ Statement from Shaun Pond of International Banking Technologies date stamped received November 20, 2001
∑ Planning Commission minutes from October 16, 2001



WHEREAS, on August 20, 2001, International Banking Technologies submitted an application requesting a Conditional Use Permit (CUP 01-22) to establish a 472 square foot banking facility within the Albertson's store located at 4461 Balfour Road; and

WHEREAS, on October 16, 2001, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to review the request for compatibility with adjacent land uses, zoning and the General Plan; and

WHEREAS, following the close of the public hearing on the proposed project, and after considering all testimony presented to it, the Planning Commission denied Conditional Use Permit 01-22; and

WHEREAS, on November 6, 2001, the Planning Commission memorialized their denial action by formal resolution with the adoption of specific findings; and

WHEREAS, on November 20, 2001, International Banking Technologies appealed the Planning Commission's denial of CUP 01-22; and

WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing for said appeal was advertised in the Ledger-Dispatch on December 28, 2001, and mailed to property owners of record within 300 feet of the exterior boundaries of the site as required by City ordinance and Government Code Sec. 65090; and

WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on January 8, 2002, to consider the appeal request, review the Planning Commission's action, and accept all public comment; and 

WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the information provided to it by those testifying, the Planning Commission's action, as well as the information provided in the staff report and supporting documentation; and

WHEREAS, the General Plan includes policies to focus commercial services within the downtown and to accomplish this by retaining and encouraging high activity uses including banks in the downtown; and 

WHEREAS, the PD-34 zone lists financial institutions as being a permitted use, subject to City approval of a Conditional Use Permit, when less than three such uses are located in the Central Business (CB) zone; and

WHEREAS, there were fewer than three banks in the Central Business zone on the date the application for Conditional Use Permit 01-22 was filed, and there are still fewer than three as of the date of this appeal hearing; and

WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Brentwood has considered this request for consistency with the General Plan and Conditional Use Permit criteria established in Section 17.830.005 of the Brentwood Municipal Code, and finds that:

1. The proposed bank will be detrimental to the vitality of the downtown by making full-service financial services available outside the CB Zone at a time when the financial center of the community is not firmly established within the downtown; and 
2. The CB Zone has developable areas which would be appropriate for the location of a banking facility which would maintain financial services within the downtown core; and
3. The proposed bank will be in direct opposition to the General Plan policy to support downtown as the community's commercial, civic and cultural focus by lessening the need for people to visit the downtown area and redirecting them to other areas of the City; and
4. The proposed bank will be in direct opposition to the General Plan policy to retain and encourage high activity uses in the downtown area, including the Post Office, banks and other service uses; and
5. The proposed bank will be in direct opposition to the General Plan policy to encourage new development in the downtown and carefully consider the impact of new commercial development (outside the downtown) on the viability of the downtown; and
6. The proposed bank will be in direct opposition to the General Plan policy to facilitate the expansion of existing businesses and the attraction of new businesses that will draw additional shoppers to the downtown; and
7. The Planning Commission and the City Council have previously denied a Conditional Use Permit for a banking facility within the PD-34 zone; and
8. The approval of this Conditional Use Permit would establish a precedent for allowing banking facilities in shopping centers located outside of the downtown, thereby creating the potential for the loss of economic vitality within the downtown core.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Brentwood hereby upholds the action of the Planning Commission and denies the appeal of Conditional Use Permit 01-22, a request for a 472 square foot banking facility to be located within the Albertson's store at 4461 Balfour Road.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Brentwood at its regular meeting of January 8, 2002, by the following vote:






Michael A. McPoland, Sr., Mayor


John E. Stevenson, City Manager



WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Brentwood has considered Conditional Use Permit 01-22 establishing a 472 square foot banking facility within the existing Albertson's store at 4461 Balfour Road; and

WHEREAS, a Notice of Public Hearing was distributed to all owners of record of properties within 300 feet of the project and published in the Ledger-Dispatch on October 5, 2001; and

WHEREAS, a Notice of Exemption has been prepared for this project as projects of this type are categorically exempt from the requirements of CEQA; therefore, no additional environmental documentation is necessary; and

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Brentwood has held a public hearing, reviewed said Conditional Use Permit request, and has studied the compatibility of this request with adjacent land uses, and has considered this request in accordance with the Conditional Use Permit criteria established in Section 17.830.005 of the Brentwood Municipal Code, and finds that:

1. The project is consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance.

2. The location, design and operating characteristics of the proposed use as conditioned will not affect abutting properties and the surrounding neighborhood as this facility will be located within an existing commercial building.

3. The subject site will have adequate pedestrian and vehicular circulation and parking available.

4. Generation of traffic and the capacity of surrounding streets will be lessened by providing the opportunity for Brentwood residents to combine their shopping and banking needs at one location.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Brentwood approves Conditional Use Permit 01-22 to allow the establishment of a banking facility at 4461 Balfour Road within the existing Albertson's Store, subject to the following conditions:

1. The project shall be built substantially in conformance with the plans drawn by International Banking Technologies date stamped received October 2, 2001, unless otherwise amended by these Conditions of Approval.

2. All signage shall adhere to the City Sign Ordinance and the applicant shall obtain all necessary permits from the Community Development Department prior to installation of any signs. 

3. All conditions of this permit shall be complied with prior to occupancy or use of the planned improvements.

4. This permit is granted for the land as described in the application and shall not be transferable to another location.

5. All Building and Fire Codes shall be adhered to.

6. Prior to occupancy, the tenant improvements shall have received all necessary inspections and have final approval from the Fire District and City Building Division.

7. Any expansion beyond 472 square feet will require additional Planning Commission approval.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Brentwood at its regular meeting of October 16, 2001, by the following vote:



Ray Shipley
Planning Commission Chairman


Mitch Oshinsky
Community Development Director


Regular Meeting - 7:00 P.M. October 16, 2001
City Council Chambers 734 Third Street, Brentwood


Chairman Shipley called the regular Planning Commission Meeting to order at 7:02 P.M. in the City Council Chambers, 734 Third Street, Brentwood, California. Also present were Planning Commissioners Brockman, Kerchner, Mosser, and Padgett; Community Development Director Oshinsky, Chief of Planning Leana; Associate Planner Nolthenius, Associate Planner Zilm, Assistant Planner Hill and City Attorney Beougher.


There were no Public Comments. 


Commissioner Kerchner pulled Item 2 from the Consent Calendar for discussion.

M/S/C/U Mosser/Shipley Approve the Remaining Consent Calendar as Submitted. Vote: 5-0

1. Approval of the Minutes for the Meeting of October 2, 2001.

3. A Public Hearing for a Conditional Use Permit to Allow for the Construction of a 13,630 Square Foot Church Building with Fixed Seating for 550 Occupants, Meeting Rooms, Offices, a Kitchenette and 112 Space Parking Lot and a Variance Permit to Allow the Overall Church Height to Exceed the 30 Foot Maximum Height by 23 Feet Located at the Northeast Corner of the Intersection of Central Boulevard and Fairview Avenue.
Applicant: Immaculate Heart of Mary Church
File Nos.: CUP 01-08 and V 01-04 (Zilm)
At the request of the applicant, this matter will be continued until November 6, 2001.

The following discussion took place for Item 2. 

2. A Public Hearing for a Conditional Use Permit to Establish a Banking Facility Within the Albertsonís Store Located at the Northwest Corner of Balfour Road and Walnut Boulevard.
Applicant: Union Bank
File No.: CUP 02-22 (Hill)

Assistant Planner Hill reviewed the staff report dated October 16, 2001. 

Commissioner Kerchner stated that he had pulled the item to open the public hearing and to hear from staff and the applicant.

Shaun Pond, representing International Banking Technologies for Union Bank and Ann Cameron, Senior Vice President Regional Manager for Union Bank were present. Mr. Pond stated that they were in agreement with the staff report as outlined. He stated that they felt the bank would be of benefit to residents of Brentwood because it would provide a convenient place for them to do full service banking at the same time that they do their shopping.

Chairman Shipley opened the public hearing.

Ralph Strauss, SDR Architects, stated that he was in support of the permit and felt the City ordinance pertaining to three banks in the downtown area had done its job. People actively use the downtown area, not just because of the banking, because of the other amenities offered in the downtown. He felt the City needed to redefine the downtown core zone.

Chairman Shipley closed the public hearing.

Commissioner Mosser stated that he could see both sides of the argument, one from a financial need in the downtown area and also that bank branches in stores are wanted by the residents. He felt with the state of the current economy it would not be in the best interests of the City to deny the use permit only because of not having three banks in the CB Zone. There isnít a large enough parcel available in the downtown center zone for a large banking facility. He said due to the size and demographics of the growth of Brentwood this type of banking was needed and that a larger bank would come forward for the downtown area. Because of that he was in favor of the permit at this time. Since it was a CUP that was before the Planning Commission they wouldnít be breaking any rule but would be granting a CUP based on very sound principals that staff has outlined.

Commissioner Padgett felt that rules are rules and these were the same rules used in the past that there should be three banks in the CB Zone before moving farther out. Maybe they should revisit the ordinance or look at increasing the downtown zone to increase parcel options. He was in favor of denying the use permit based on history and what was proposed originally for the site. 

Commissioner Brockman stated that there is a desire for three banks in the downtown area. He agreed that maybe the City ordinance needed to be revisited or the CB Zone expanded because the City is changing. But, as of today, this use permit needed to be denied due to the lack of three banks in the CB Zone.

Commissioner Kerchner felt that the ordinance has helped maintain the downtown area but things have changed. Approval of this use permit would set a precedent for future CUPís. He felt that staff has sound principals for allowing this use permit. He encouraged a change in the Cityís definition of the downtown CB Zone or encouraging the City Council to find a third bank to go in downtown so that condition would be filled.

Chairman Shipley was concerned about the jobs that would be lost and how the banking needs of residents were changing. He agreed that the downtown area needed to stay vital but at the same didnít see where allowing the use permit would change that. He believed that there was a time when the City ordinance was needed but also agreed that maybe it needed to be revisited.

Ann Cameron stated that there is a need to have banks in stores at this time for the convenience of the residents. She didnít feel that having the permit approved would remove anything from the downtown. She also stated that to build a new branch bank in the downtown would be too expensive.

City Attorney Beougher stated that the City of Pleasanton has eight banks in their downtown area, three of which are brand new banks. Pleasanton has a similar ordinance, which hasnít deterred from the downtown.

M/S Kerchner/Padgett Deny Planning Commission Resolution No. 01-80 Approving Conditional Use Permit 01-22 Filed by International Banking Technologies on Behalf of Union Bank to Establish a Branch Facility Within the Existing Albertsonís Store at 4461 Balfour Road (APN 012-150-062). Vote: 3-2. Commissioner Mosser and Chairman Shipley cast dissenting votes. 

Chief of Planning Leana stated that staff would prepare a resolution denying Resolution No. 01-80 on the next agenda, which would then start the appeal process.


4. A Request to Reconsider the Planning Commissionís Action of October 2, 2001, Denying RZ 01-19, TSM 8539, and DR 01-29 to Create Ten (10) Lots at the Northwest Corner of Sycamore Avenue and Barbara Street (Chairman Shipley)

Chairman Shipley stated that he was one of the dissenting votes at the October 2 meeting. He was requesting the reconsideration of the item due to the applicant and City staff working together to resubmit a revised plan, which would address the potential problems mentioned by the Commissioners at the October 2 meeting. 

Assistant Planner Hill stated the conceptual layouts would be brought before the Planning Commission at a future meeting as a workshop item.

M/S/C/U Brockman/Mosser Approve the Request for Reconsideration of the Planning Commissionís Action of October 2, 2001, Denying RZ 01-19, TSM 8539, and DR 01-29 to Create Ten (10) Lots at the Northwest Corner of Sycamore Avenue and Barbara Street and to have the Item Brought Back with the Redesign as a Workshop. Vote: 5-0.

5. A Design Review to Construct an 84,600 Square Foot Enclosed Self-Storage Building and an 8,050 Square Foot Flex-Tech Retail Office Building Located at 6877 Brentwood Boulevard.
Applicant: Kristina Pizzagonni
File: DR 01-18 (Zilm)

Associate Planner Zilm stated the applicant, Kristina Pizzagoni-Reynolds, was requesting a continuance of this item to a future date.

M/S/C/U Kerchner/Padgett Approve to Continue Planning Commission Resolution No. 01-19 Approving Design Review No. 01-18 for the Design of an 84,000 Square Foot Enclosed Self-Storage Building and a 8,050 Square Foot Flex Tech Retail/Office Building Located on a 2.1 Acre Site at 6877 Brentwood Boulevard to an Undetermined Date. Vote: 5-0

6. A Public Hearing for a Variance to Allow a 15-Foot Encroachment Into the 20-Foot Front and Rear-Yard Setbacks, for a Proposed Duplex to be Located on the Property at 6917 Brentwood Boulevard (APN 018-180-009).
Applicant: Frank Martin III
File: V 01-20 (Nolthenius)

Associate Planner Nolthenius reviewed the staff report dated October 9, 2001. Mr. Nolthenius indicated that he had previously verified with the City Engineering Department that the minimum right-of-way required for a new residential project to accommodate the future widening of Brentwood Boulevard is fifty feet from the centerline. He stated with the location of the proposed duplex that staff feels there would be two possible options. One option would be to process a Lot Line Adjustment with the adjacent property to the west. But after speaking with the applicant, the adjacent property is owned and occupied by an elderly couple and the applicant does not want to trouble the elderly couple with this process. He stated that staff concurs with the applicant that the Lot Line Adjustment would not be feasible and would likely not accomplish much in the way of providing a larger setback for the proposed project.

Mr. Nolthenius stated the second option is to decrease the size of the duplex or reconfigure its design on the parcel. Unfortunately, the applicant is reluctant to modify the design because he feels it is the best one for the site and the units are already slightly less than 1,000 square feet in size. 

Mr. Nolthenius stated that staff agrees with the applicant that neither of the options would be very feasible for the project. Staffís opinion is that the variance as conditioned would not adversely affect the abutting properties or the surrounding area and the project would enhance the quality of the surrounding area.

Commissioner Kerchner asked staff in regards to the fence in Condition #8, if it would be a step down adjacent to the carport area as a safety measure. Mr. Nolthenius stated that a step down was not included but could be added to ensure adequate sight distance is maintained.

Commissioner Mosser stated his concern was that if the variance was approved then in ten years when Brentwood Boulevard needed to be widened this would bring the new lane only five feet from the property line of this project. Community Development Director Oshinsky stated that Commissionerís Mosser concerns are noted but the Commission needs to operate under the rules in effect at the time an application comes before them. If there were a need to widen Brentwood Boulevard in the future, which in the General Plan is shown as an arterial, they would then take the project into consideration. Commissioner Mosser stated that the right-of-way notes that are on the original site plan needed to be conditioned for removal before finalization.

The applicant had nothing to add.

Chairman Shipley opened the public hearing.

Chairman Shipley closed the public hearing.

Commissioner Kerchner stated that this is the same request that had been before the Commission previously. Due to the street alignment, there was not a lot that could be put on the parcel. He felt it was a good opportunity to put the property to use and felt the Commission should let the applicant move forward.

Commissioner Padgett stated that the issue before the Commission is the variance. At this time there is a twenty-foot setback required and he felt it would be a bad idea to set a precedent of wavering from that rule. He agreed that the property was a difficult parcel to build on but at this time he would vote against the variance.

Commissioner Brockman stated that he still hadnít seen anything that warranted the variance. One of his problems with the plans was the fact that this would more than likely be for rental property on an odd lot. He felt that if it was a private residence then the Planning Commission may have more flexibility, but itís not. He agreed that the use was needed in Brentwood and maybe by placing the duplex in another configuration on the lot they could be more flexible.

Commissioner Mosser stated he could agree with staffís findings on 1 and 2 but on findings 3 and 4 he felt it would adversely affect other developments, the character of development that is already in place and would be detrimental to the public welfare. Due to that he would deny the proposal at this time.

Chairman Shipley stated that he had visited the area and with all the truck traffic on Brentwood Boulevard, this proposal was too close and would be difficult for residents of this type of residence. He felt a commercial use was a more appropriate proposal for this property.

M/S/C Mosser/Padgett Deny Variance No. 01-20 to Allow a 15-Foot Encroachment Into the 20-Foot Front and Rear Yard Setbacks, for a Proposed Duplex to be Located on the Property at 6917 Brentwood Boulevard (APN 018-180-009) Vote: 4-1. Commissioner Kerchner cast a dissenting vote.

Chief of Planning Leana stated that staff would prepare a resolution denying Variance No. 01-20 on the next agenda, which would then start the appeal process.

Chairman Shipley recessed the meeting at 8:15 pm.

Chairman Shipley reconvened the meeting at 8:20 pm.


There was no New Business.


7. Workshop for Proposed Walgreenís Drug Store and Shopping Center Located at the Southeast Corner of Balfour Road and Walnut Avenue.
Applicant: Tom Rocca
File No.: DR 01-27 (Leana)
Chief of Planning Leana reviewed the staff report dated October 16, 2001. He reviewed the changes made from the prior submittals as a result of preliminary comments from City staff and the Economic Development Committee. He stated the applicant would be requesting Design Review and approval of the entire center; as long as the building plans submitted for the individual buildings are substantially in compliance with what the Planning Commission ultimately approves, additional design review of the buildings would not be required. He asked the Planning Commission for their comments and direction as to the desire on the proposed site layout and proposed retail-shopping center. 

Jim Heilbronner, architect of the proposed project, said that staff had done a good job of explaining the project. He stated that there was approximately twenty eight percent of the commercial site in landscaping. They are suggesting a heavily landscaped berm instead of a screen wall behind the buildings of the residential areas, twenty feet of landscaping from the buildings and the street. The buildings have siding both back and front and Victorian fish tiles on the banding. He reviewed the architectural plans of the buildings and landscaping for the entire site. He stated that with the style of the buildings they would be requesting the use of shingles instead of cement tile. He presented a shingle board to the Planning Commission. He feels that they followed all the PUD conditions, City design guidelines and hopefully would bring some residential styling on a non-residential use.

Chairman Shipley asked the applicant where in Danville was the center that has similar type of roofing? Mr. Heilbronner stated that there was a large center on the back of Main Street on Railroad Avenue.

Commissioner Mosser asked the applicant what was used as a baseline to develop the elements to the proposed project and had they done any research in Brentwood? Mr. Heilbronner stated that they had mostly gone by the PUD conditions and City design guidelines.

Chairman Shipley opened the meeting for public comments.

Bill Hill, Brentwood Councilmember, wanted to remind the Planning Commission to really look at the future buildings because they would be approving the whole project not just the first phase or adding a timeline on the pulling of permits for the project. He would also like the Planning Commission to send the revised plan to Teri Flynn, the Cityís consultant architect, for her review.

Chairman Shipley closed the public comments.

Commissioner Padgett thought this was a great looking project and liked the way they considered the location and the surrounding development. He liked the landscaping but felt the back of the buildings could be enhanced, especially on building one. The entryway at Hudson made a statement with the sunburst design but they could be made bigger for more of a statement. He would like to see bigger planters in the front area of the buildings. He was okay with the comp shingle roofing. He would like the landscaped sitting area moved for more use. He felt getting out at Walnut would be difficult and needed to be looked at more. He would like additional screening on the east side of the Walgreenís building, enhance the backs by Balfour and add dressing end caps on building three.

Commissioner Brockman would like to see a walkway go all the way through on the berm. He would like to see the lighting locations that are being proposed. He was okay with the comp shingles for the roofing due to the materials and styling being proposed. He felt there could be a problem with the truck traffic coming off of Walnut because of the location and a problem with the double drive thru off of Walnut causing traffic problems and would like both items re-looked at. He felt that the building on the Rockwell side needed a decorative look and the end caps were needed. He liked the project and liked the center in Danville.

Chairman Shipley had concerns about traffic with the left turn from Walnut for the trucks. The back of the buildings on Rockwell and the entryway at Hudson needed to have windows for display to help break up the buildings. The buildings with the four or five doors needed to be more creative. He liked the end caps. Heíd prefer the tile roofing not the comp shingles.

Commissioner Kerchner stated that he agreed with the other Commissioners comments. He saw a circulation problem and problems with the drive thru as far as circulation. He felt that it was a good project but would like to have front planters and agreed that the roofing should be tile.

Commissioner Mosser felt that with the current site plan there is a traffic flow problem throughout the whole project. Maybe the Walgrenís building could be moved to increase the traffic flow. He agreed with Councilmember Hill in regards to a timeline on Phase II development. The seating area was a good idea but needed to be relocated. Thirty-percent of landscaping seems high and he suggested reducing some of the landscaping to the east of building one and reworking some of the lot layout to incorporate more traffic flow. He felt there should be a walkway between buildings one and three which needed to be an enhanced paving material. There should be a rear service or dress up some way on the back of building one and three. But he liked the design and didnít really have a firm answer at this time on the shingles. 

Mr. Heilbronner stated that there was not a cost issue in regards to the roofing but with the design of the buildings, they felt that the shingles would be a better look. As far as the traffic flow there is enough room for the turning radius of trucks off of Balfour in Phase I and there will be another entrance from Hudson in Phase II. The rear service on building three would wipe out the berming and this building would be occupied by small retail where most of their deliveries would be by Federal Express, UPS and maybe a panel truck. They agreed to work on the seating area.


a. TRANSPLAN (Kerchner/Brockman)

Commissioner Kerchner reported that the last TRANSPLAN meeting was canceled and would be meeting next month.

b. School Subcommittee (Shipley/Padgett)

Chairman Shipley announced the next meeting was scheduled for October 19, 2001 at 2:00 PM.

c. Subdivision Design Review Subcommittee (Shipley/Padgett)

Chairman Shipley reported that there had only been one design review.

d. RGMP Committee (Shipley/Brockman)

Chairman Shipley announced the next meeting was scheduled for October 18, 2001 at 9:00 AM.

e. Economic Development Subcommittee (Shipley/Mosser)

Chairman Shipley announced the next meeting was scheduled for October 18, 2001 at 8:30 AM.


Commissioner Kerchner requested that the Planning Commission review the December meeting schedule at the next meeting. 


There being no further business before the City of Brentwood Planning Commission, Chairman Shipley adjourned the meeting at 9:30 PM to the next scheduled Planning Commission meeting on Tuesday, November 6, 2001.

Respectfully submitted,

Lynn Reichard
Recording Secretary

Top of Page