View Other Items in this Archive | View All Archives | Printable Version




City Hall                                                                                               January 3, 2005

Council Chambers                                                                                 7:00 p.m.


The Mayor led with the Pledge of Allegiance.


Present:            Mayor Kelly, Alderwoman Jepsen, Alderman Marshall, Alderman Leahy, Alderman Kramer, Alderman Robertson, Alderman Wynn.


City Attorney Murphy, City Clerk/Administrator Seemayer, Zoning Administrator Wolf and Director of Economic Development Shelton.


Absent:            Alderman Golfin, Alderman Cross and Executive Secretary Williams.




Motion was made by Alderman Wynn, second by Alderman Kramer to approve and adopt the Agenda of the Regular Board of Aldermen Meeting of January 3, 2005.  Roll call:  Alderwoman Jepsen, yes; Alderman Marshall, yes; Alderman Leahy, yes; Alderman Kramer, yes; Alderman Robertson, yes; Alderman Wynn, yes.




Motion was made by Alderman Leahy, second by Alderman Robertson to approve and adopt the Minutes of the Regular Board of Aldermen Meeting of December 6, 2004.  Roll call:  Alderwoman Jepsen, yes; Alderman Marshall, yes; Alderman Leahy, yes; Alderman Kramer, yes; Alderman Robertson, yes; Alderman Wynn, yes.


BIDS – None




Chief Knight came before the Board and stated Steve Disbennett had filled the assistant chief of police position.   He celebrates 28 years with the Brentwood Police Department this month.  He has worked his way up through patrolman, detective, sergeant and lieutenant.   His most recent assignment was chief of detectives for the last couple of years.  He congratulated Assistant Chief Disbennett. 


In keeping with the feeling of promoting from within, a lieutenant and sergeant’s position was created as Mr. Disbennett was promoted.  Dan Fitzgerald was promoted to lieutenant.  He is a watch commander on the street.   Tom Zurheide was promoted to a patrol sergeant. 


John Suelthaus - Kingbridge Homes - 8412 Manchester Road came before the Board and stated his property at 9102 Lawn Avenue is probably the first property that will go through the architectural review board and he is concerned about the time frame.  You first go to the architectural review board and then you go to the Board of Aldermen, which takes multiple months.  This will incur costs for himself and his company in terms of overhead.  He asked if it is possible, once it is approved by the architectural review board, to proceed with the building of the house.  It is a full brick house, which meets and exceeds all the requirements of the Parkridge subdivision. 


Alderman Kramer stated that some of the members of the Board and audience might remember the proposal of an architectural review board refinement.  The City currently has an architectural review board.  However he was concerned about the lengthy time frame that they may have to go through if in fact there are no difficulties with the plans.  The proposal that he and Alderman Cross proposed which was reviewed by the Public Works Committee and currently under review by the Planning and Zoning Commission would shorten that timetable significantly.  In essence what Mr. Suelthaus is asking for is if the plans were acceptable by the reviewing members a permit be issued by the zoning administrator forthwith at that time and that would eliminate the lengthier process involved. 


Jeff Jones – 2621 Melvin came before the Board and stated he is concerned about the new homes at Melvin and Fawn regarding construction parking.  They have limited access on those streets for parking and site safety.  He asked about the construction time frame and the mess that will be on the streets.  The other concerns are with the grade and house elevations and if the construction will dump water on anybody’s property, mud on the streets and the hours of operation, including weekend hours. 


Alderman Kramer stated the construction guidelines for infill housing development for the City of Brentwood were put in place primarily as a way to protect the residents and the neighborhoods during the construction process.   A number of the items that are contained in that legislation, such as the hours of work during the day and on weekends, are very helpful towards what Mr. Jones is looking for.


Barbara Dories – 2610 Helen came before the Board and stated she has been before the Board before to talk about the storm water problems on Helen Avenue.  She reminded everyone that they needed to move forward and get something done.


Mayor Kelly stated MSD was contacted and they stated that due to the preliminary work done by the City with CDG Engineering the project will be paid for through their infrastructure budget.  It is scheduled to have final design done in May 2005 and be constructed in July 2005.  The sewer will be relocated from underneath residents’ houses.  The second phase of the Ruth, Helen and Cecelia sewer project will be funded and constructed with design work completed in 2006. 




Bills No. 5250, 5253 and 5260 will remain on hold.


Bill No. 5263 – 8300 Eager Road


Mayor Kelly stated the applicant for 8300 Eager Road is not present this evening.  They asked if Bill No. 5263 could be placed on hold.


Motion was made by Alderman Wynn, second by Alderman Leahy to place Bill No. 5263 on hold.  All in favor none opposed.


First and Second Readings of Bills


Motion was made by Alderman Kramer, second by Alderman Wynn to give Bills No. 5262, 5264, 5265 and 5266 first and second readings.  Roll call:  Alderwoman Jepsen, yes; Alderman Marshall, yes; Alderman Leahy, yes; Alderman Kramer, yes; Alderman Robertson, yes; Alderman Wynn, yes.


Bill No. 5262 – Signage Package for 2511-2521 S. Brentwood Blvd.




Mayor Kelly stated Bill No. 5262 is for the signage package for the Face and Body and Eagle Bank buildings.


Alderman Wynn stated he is concerned about the contents of the sign on Brentwood Boulevard, a main street.  It should be a much smaller logo with their entire name on the sign.  The sign does not fit the City he is used to. 


Alderwoman Jepsen stated she does not remember seeing the glass panels or the red roof silhouette on the building when the site plan was approved.  It was not on the drawings either.  She asked at what point did that show up. 


Zoning Administrator Wolf stated some time in the spring of last year he received an email requesting modification to the front elevation, that portion above the “e” by the addition of the red triangular gable.  It also included a large panel at the other end.  If he had to guess today he would say it was not identified as a potential sign.  They sought approval and it was granted.  He has since looked back at what was approved and it was a substantial difference.


Alderwoman Jepsen stated her concern is with the large backlit glass.  Warren Sign did a spectacular job on the rendering, but it does not show what is there.  That is a very crowded site.  The letters that are going to be put up will be illuminated from behind individually with neon tubing.   It is her opinion that when you have a 28x13 foot glass panel illuminated at night, the whole sign becomes a boxy backlit sign and it is huge.  She realizes the drawing is a Matisse but there are people who will find it offensive.  If you include the backlit glass panels particularly at night it will come across as a large sign.  If you do that with the lettering then they are over their coverage limit. 


Alderman Leahy stated he would like to hear from the applicant concerning possibly changing the size of the sign and what would be involved in doing that.


Bill Peick – representing the applicant came before the Board and stated it is true that the facade of the building was different when the Board approved the site plan.  In the building permit process the architects had recommended some changes that they proposed to the facade.  The way they explained that facade today and when it was presented to Mr. Wolf was that they were changing the shape and the materials for the facade and it was part of the building.  His understanding was that signage was for the front facade of the building.  They were not in any way trying to create anything that they were misrepresenting.  They were simply changing materials and the shape of what that facade was, expecting that there would be signage on it.  It was approved and they went on.   The facade is made of building materials approved by the City of Brentwood.  It is a bonafide, approved trademark with a copyright, and has been used in all their facilities, etc.  The front rendering was a good representation of what it looks like from the street.  The signs that were approved in this package are the monument sign and the Eagle Bank sign.  They are now asking for approval for the signs for the former Essen Hardware building.  The conditions under Section 1 of the ordinance were worked through with the Planning and Zoning Commission and they are totally in agreement with the conditions. 


Alderman Leahy stated the logo is a 7x9 feet logo.  It is on the front of the building of their current establishment in Clayton.  Clayton does not have any record of anybody creating an issue over the image that is there.  When Face and Body first moved in there were some concerns that had to be addressed.  On a long-term basis it has been accepted with the Clayton community.  He has received a couple of calls regarding the proposed sign that Face and Body are looking to do in Brentwood.  He understands the image that is being portrayed and the trademark issues.   He asked if the logo could be moved to Face and Body’s door, instead of a 7x9 feet sizing.  The limit is that you have a very large panel on the south corner of that section of the building that by right calls for something to be there.  The residents will probably object to it initially, but over time it will become an acceptable type of issue.  He asked if Face and Body and the developer would consider making an adjustment. 


Mr. Peick stated they would consider anything. 


Alderman Wynn stated that in the evening the backlit glass will look like a bar sign with a nude scene on the front.  He is opposed to it.  He suggested making it smaller or putting it on a door, etc.  He just thinks the wrong thing would be highlighted to kids, etc.


Alderman Kramer stated going back to the conversations that took place at the Planning and Zoning Commission level there was a comparison or contrasting with the Walgreens signage.  He asked Zoning Administrator Wolf if it was his opinion that the glass on the front of the proposal that is currently backlit with no logo is an architectural element or is it part of a sign.


Zoning Administrator Wolf stated two issues were raised on the subject of Walgreens.  Walgreens has two street frontages, so their size restriction is considerably different than a place that has one frontage.  The symbol is on the inside of the building.  It happens to be visible through a glass atrium style lobby.  What you can see through a window is not regulated by signage unless it is obscene or emulates a traffic signal of some kind.  There is a percentage of glass that can be used for signage as well.  You can come in with a poster that is 2x3 feet and stick it on your glass window and that would be acceptable without regulation or without a permit.  Initially his recollection was that he would have viewed it as an architectural element back in March, April or May.  However when they told him what they were going to use, there was no question in his mind that it was a logo and that it was part of signage.  In Brentwood’s code if a logo is four square feet it becomes an advertising device. 


Alderman Leahy asked for clarification if the Board makes a recommendation to change the sizing and location of the sign would that require Bill No. 5262 to go back to the Planning and Zoning Commission for review.


Mayor Kelly stated no.   The bill went through the Planning and Zoning Commission and it received a favorable recommendation.


Zoning Administrator Wolf stated the Board could make any changes, but if they are going to override the Planning and Zoning Commission recommendation it requires a ¾ vote to pass.


Alderman Marshall asked if the box with the logo is considered part of the signage.


Mayor Kelly responded according to Zoning Administrator Wolf it is.


Alderman Marshall stated with that and the Face and Body signage they exceed greatly their signage space.


Zoning Administrator Wolf stated in the “PD” District they have the opportunity to present a sign package to the Board.  It is legal to approve it the way it is drawn.  It is also legal for the Board to change the size and approve everything but the logo and keep it at 2x2 feet.


Mayor Kelly stated in the “PD” District the builder has the ability to come before the Board, bring a package, and ask for its approval.  To a certain extent the codes are thrown out the window.  They can adjust that for what they deem necessary or not necessary. 


Alderman Leahy asked if Face and Body would be willing to take another look at the logo issue and propose a change in both sizing and location.


Mr. Peick stated he would be happy to discuss that with the applicant.  Whether or not they would be willing to do that in the end he does not know.  They might ask for the package to be considered as it is. 


Alderman Leahy requested Bill No. 5262 be placed on hold for the second reading, long enough for a discussion to take place prior to the Board of Aldermen voting.


Mayor Kelly asked if it would be appropriate to approve the sign package without the logo being approved. 


Alderman Kramer stated at the Planning and Zoning Commission level they had a conversation about the “do not enter” sign on the egress, which is the northern most curb cut.  The “do not enter” signs were going to be a low-rise type sign rather than a post to try to minimize the clutter from the street into the development.  He could not tell from the rendering if that had been included or clarified. 


Mr. Peick stated he thought they were going to be of that style and size.  Why they were not in the rendering he does not know.  It would simply state enter and exit. 


Alderman Kramer stated it has been brought to his attention from a few Planning and Zoning Commission members and some constituents that there was a time when the Promenade signage was looked upon as disfavorable, as well as the Best Buy sign.  In comparison this particular sign may not be looked upon the way they are considering it tonight.


Motion was made by Alderman Leahy, second by Alderman Marshall to approve and adopt Bill No. 5262 to exclude the 7x9 feet logo that’s on the south end of the Face and Body building as amended until further discussion and agreement is reached.


Alderman Leahy stated in the monument sign this same logo, which is smaller, is present.  He asked if that could be allowed which is the registered trademark for the business.


Zoning Administrator Wolf stated a logo under four square feet is not considered an advertising device.  The 7x9 feet logo is. 


Alderman Kramer asked if the “do not enter” sign should be included.


Zoning Administrator Wolf stated that kind of accessory signage is not a permit kind of item that is why they are not included.


Roll call:  Alderwoman Jepsen, yes; Alderman Marshall, yes; Alderman Leahy, yes; Alderman Kramer, yes; Alderman Robertson, abstain; Alderman Wynn, yes.


The Mayor thereupon declared Bill No. 5262 duly passed and signed same into approval thereof.  Said Bill was given Ordinance No. 3961.


Bill No. 5264 – Subdivision of Property Numbered 8127 Fawn Avenue




Alderwoman Jepsen stated the first paragraph of the bill states “ . . . fronting on and access from either Melvin or Fawn Avenues . . .” She asked if that meant that the corner house could be facing 90 degrees away from the other houses.  In essence having the back of the corner house and the sides of the other houses along side each other.


Mike Bruning – 9386 Tilles came before the Board and stated the three houses will be facing Melvin.  They may have a side entry garage on the corner lot.


Alderwoman Jepsen stated the bill as it is written states fronting on either side.


Mayor Kelly stated technically if they wanted to turn the house to face Fawn Avenue they could.


Zoning Administrator Wolf stated yes.


Alderwoman Jepsen asked if there is anything in the zoning code that restricts turning the house to the side and to the back of two adjoining houses.


Zoning Administrator Wolf stated it is legal if they were and is very unlikely.   To face the corner lot to Fawn Avenue they would have a very large side yard and crummy back yards.  The only way they will build it is with the front yard facing Melvin. According to code they have to have a front yard on both streets because it is a corner lot.  Therefore if you have a front yard, technically you can face your house that way. 


Alderman Leahy stated the issue before the Board is whether or not they can do the subdivide.  As he understand it in dividing the current lot into three separate lots, all three lots come into code acceptance in the way of lot size. 


Zoning Administrator Wolf stated they all satisfy code requirements.  It is important to point out that construction plans do not normally come before the Board of Aldermen.


Alderman Kramer read a synopsis of Bill No. 5264 into the record, which is attached to the minutes.


Motion was made by Alderman Leahy, second by Alderman Robertson to approve and adopt Bill No. 5264.  Roll call:  Alderwoman Jepsen, yes; Alderman Marshall, yes; Alderman Leahy, yes; Alderman Kramer, yes; Alderman Robertson, yes; Alderman Wynn, yes.


The Mayor thereupon declared Bill No. 5264 duly passed and signed same into approval thereof.  Said Bill was given Ordinance No. 3962.


Bill No. 5265 – Resident Permit Parking Only


Mayor Kelly stated that Alderman Cross requested her name be added to sponsorship of Bill No. 5265.




Alderman Kramer read a synopsis of Bill No. 5265 into record, which is attached to the minutes.


Alderman Marshall stated most of the students at the high school are residents of the City.  Will they be able to park on those streets?


Mayor Kelly responded not the way the bill is written. 


Alderman Wynn stated when you block off blocks for resident parking only, people will move to the next block.  There are football games at the high school and Friday night activities where people are going to need places to park.  He cannot see why it would be necessary to go all the way to High School Drive if someone felt the parking was a problem they needed to correct.


Alderwoman Jepsen stated that the bill is designed to work between 4:00 p.m. until 6:00 a.m. in the morning.  Anytime but game night the students would be gone by 4:00 p.m.


Alderman Kramer stated the bill was discussed in the Public Safety Committee meeting.  The Committee tried to replicate the exact same language in ordinance form that was put in place for the OB Clark’s parking situation on Lawn Avenue.  Lawn Avenue precludes resident parking from Brentwood Boulevard to High School Drive.  He understands their may be some difficulties with the timing of some of the ballgames at night, but the 4:00 p.m. start time was meant to ease that concern during the day and have only occasional problems at night. 


Alderman Wynn asked how many people complained about the parking on the street.


Alderwoman Jepsen stated she received five or six phone calls.  Alderman Cross received about seven or eight.  People enjoy the Karaoke so much they come out at 2:00 a.m. still singing, so at times there are noise problems, crowding, etc. 


Alderman Leahy stated he is not in favor of the bill as written or with the concept.  You are taking public streets and limiting the usage of them, yet it is paid for by the residents, businesses and the patrons through taxes in order to maintain those streets.  The couple that attended the Public Safety Committee meeting raised the issues they have to deal with.  Each example they cited, the City has ordinances in place to address them, such as blocking driveways, illegal parking, disturbing the peace and theft off properties, etc. 


Alderman Robertson stated the Public Safety Committee considered limiting it to what seemed to be a likely distance that patrons of the bar might use which is hard to predict.  They felt that it was much more consistent to have the same kind of guidelines that OB Clark’s has.  While it might be extreme in some cases, he doesn’t think that the police officers are likely to get somebody who is at the corner of Bridgeport and High School Drive, 500 feet away from the bar when they can recognize that is not a bar patron.  On football nights there is rarely anybody parking on those streets.  The parking demand is so high that it is going to cause a problem with students and families.   


Donna Wideman – 8905 Moritz as well as the owner of Double D Lounge came before the Board and stated they live in a very small community that was constructed when automobiles were smaller and less plentiful, etc.  They have had attendants since last March manning the street and detouring people from parking in those areas.  Until recently they did not get any complaints.  All of a sudden it went from nothing to a huge problem.  As far as the trash is concerned they have picked up the trash, which is not all coming from their location.  Their doors are manned at night and people are not allowed to carry out liquor.  It is against the law to take an open container out.  Patrons are stopped at the door.  The trash that is picked up contains things that they do not sell.  They have made an effort to clean up parking lots, alleyways and the street.   


Motion was made by Alderwoman Jepsen, second by Alderman Robertson to approve and adopt Bill No. 5265.   Roll call:  Alderwoman Jepsen, yes; Alderman Marshall, yes; Alderman Leahy, no; Alderman Kramer, yes; Alderman Robertson, yes; Alderman Wynn, no.


Bill No. 5265 failed.


Bill No. 5266 – Emergency Medical Services




Alderman Kramer read a synopsis of Bill No. 5266 into record, which is attached to the minutes.


Alderman Marshall stated that any ambulance charges not covered by insurance would be picked up by the City for the residents. 


Alderwoman Jepsen asked what is the difference between this bill and the one that was passed previously.


Mayor Kelly stated it was the City’s practice under the previous ordinance to collect the money from insurance companies.   Most residents who have health insurance have ambulance coverage.  Under that policy, if they had a deductible that they needed to pay to the City as a portion of that fee the City would give that back to the resident.  The concern was that under some insurance policies that would not be a common practice, so there were some concerns with putting it into ordinance form.  Over a year or so since that was enacted they found a modeling ordinance, which makes it a benefit to the residents and makes it legal for them to pay that deductible to their insurance carriers.  This bill will allow them to let the residents know that it does not cost them anything.  If they do not have insurance they do not pay.  If they have insurance the City takes whatever their insurance company pays.  The average cost per call for the ambulance is about $600.00. 


Alderman Marshall stated one of the things they look at when figuring premiums is ambulance charges.  Those are built into the cost of the premiums.  If the ambulance charges are built into cost, all Brentwood is doing is getting what is available. 


Alderwoman Jepsen asked Mr. McCarthy as the Director of BTV-10 to let people know what is available to them with the emergency medical service.  She also suggested the information be put into the newsletter.


Director of BTV-10 McCarthy came before the Board and stated they plan to feature the new ambulance on the Band-Aids and Beyond health report show.  The emergency medical services certainly can be included.  The revamping of the schedule for the new year will include a lot more personal items for the residents.


Mayor Kelly suggested sending out letters to the residents informing them of the changes.


Andy Truss – 2825 Brazeau came before the Board and asked if that would apply to the caller that calls in for the ambulance service or the person actually receiving the service. 


Mayor Kelly stated the caller would not be liable.  It would be the person that is being transported. 


Motion was made by Alderman Marshall, second by Alderman Kramer to approve and adopt Bill No. 5266.  Roll call:  Alderwoman Jepsen, yes; Alderman Marshall, yes; Alderman Leahy, yes; Alderman Kramer, yes; Alderman Robertson, yes; Alderman Wynn, yes.


The Mayor thereupon declared Bill No. 5266 duly passed and signed same into approval thereof.  Said Bill was given Ordinance No. 3963.




Alderman Leahy asked if the amount for CDG Engineering is the continued billing for the Helen and Ruth Avenues area.


City Administrator Seemayer stated the $5,120 portion is.  The other amount is for the fire department for updating of the fire hydrant maps, locations, etc.


Motion was made by Alderman Marshall, second by Alderman Wynn to adopt the warrant list dated 1/3/05.   All in favor none opposed.


Mayor’s Report


Executive Session


Mayor Kelly announced an executive session real estate matter would be held following the meeting.




Mayor Kelly requested the Board appoint Kathy O’Neil, a Brentwood Forest resident to the Comprehensive Plan Committee.  Betty Morgan the representative from Brentwood Forest resigned. 


Motion was made by Alderman Kramer, second by Alderman Leahy to appoint Kathy O’Neil to the Comprehensive Plan Committee.  All in favor none opposed.


Storm Water Projects


The Parkridge/Parkside project is in MSD’s budget proposal, which needs to be approved by their board for next year.  If it is approved they plan to start the design work in 2005.  It will take about a year for the design work and the property acquisition for the right-of- way to be completed.  They hope to have the construction started and completed in 2007. 


The City has applied for a grant that could be used for things like property acquisition in a flood plain and also flood proofing in Hanley Industrial Court.  The funds would have to go to MSD but it would be used for that area.


Alderman Leahy asked if it is possible for MSD to go into the drainage basin between the YMCA and Hanley Industrial Court through the Promenade area and clean out the sediment that is collecting in there to keep that open and free flowing.


Mayor Kelly stated that would be possible.  The last time it was done the City did it.   It was his understanding from talking with them that they want that kind of growth in the creek because it tends to slow water down.


Mayor Kelly stated MSD is still working on the reports that were requested of them.  They are having problems putting the information together because their districts are much larger than the City of Brentwood. 


Coffee with the Mayor


Mayor Kelly encouraged the public to attend the Coffee with the Mayor on January 28th at 9:00 a.m. in the Council Chambers.  The guest speaker will be Charlie Dooley, County Executive. 


Storm Water Projects


Alderman Kramer asked for clarification on the MSD item relating to Helen Avenue.  There was some information that came up in the Public Works Committee meeting regarding the expenditure of CDG funds.  The Public Works Committee was charged with a $50,000 budget and a prioritization goal to determine which projects were going to receive the funds first.  The majority of the early funds were spent on grinder pumps and so forth.  His remembrance was that Alderman Leahy was not upset at the actual preparation work, which seemed to have been very fruitful, but that it did not go through an opportunity for them to prioritize with the other items they were charged to prioritize with.


Alderman Leahy stated if he understands the process correctly they have overspent the $50,000 that was allocated in last year’s budget and have never come back to the Board for an amendment to the budget.


City Administrator Seemayer stated that he believes it went over the $50,000, but they were committed to getting several things done in the storm water area, so they went ahead and preceded. 


Mayor Kelly stated it is important to know where the funds are going and why they are being spent.   One of the questions brought up at a meeting was who made those the top priority projects.  At that time, he stated that he had made them priority, but the overriding authority that made them top priority from the City’s standpoint was MSD.  When they said that they might have money to do the projects, facilitate them, and move them forward, that meant that the City had to do everything in its power to see if that was the case. 


Alderman Leahy stated that the only issue he brought up was the Board is challenged with monitoring the projects and monies to make sure that they stay within the budget limit.  He would agree that getting MSD on board and getting the preliminaries done so that MSD could help the City is a financial benefit to the City.  The Board also has to watch where they are with the budget. 


Public Safety Committee – No report


Public Works Committee – No further report


City Engineer – No report




City Administrator Seemayer stated that with the help of Bob Shelton and Craig Strohbeck, the Parks Department applied for and received a grant for the reworking of the field lights at Brentwood Park.  Total cost of the project is around $160,000 of which the City will be getting about $152,000 through a grant, so the City’s portion will be around $8,000.


Zoning Administrator


Alderman Kramer asked what is the update on the awarding of the contract for Wrenwood.


Mayor Kelly stated they asked for a couple of refinements to the plans in order to make sure the fire trucks, etc. can get through there.  The bids that they had solicited came in high.  It will be put out to bid the first part of this year.


Ways and Means Committee


Alderman Marshall stated he has been working with Mr. Shelton for a couple of months on things that people ask about the City financially.  They want to know compared to other communities how does Brentwood fair.  They have been working on things like the tax base, services the City provides, etc.  They will be putting that information in the Pulse and the newsletter. 


Planning and Zoning – No report


City Attorney – No report


City Clerk/Administrator – No report


Director of Economic Development


Manchester Road


Director of Economic Development Shelton came before the Board and stated that the

Board should have received a letter Mayor Kelly sent to the Director of MoDOT referencing an overlay that MoDOT is anticipating for Manchester Road.   They call it the safer, smoother road based on Amendment 3.  It is a five-year patch.  Brentwood and neighboring municipalities have some concerns about them doing a five-year overlay that would probably sit there for 15 to 20 years.  As everybody is aware they would like to do some nicer things like curbs, gutters and real improvements.  They would like to meet with Brentwood’s Board and the City Council of Maplewood on January 10th at 7:00 p.m. at the Recreation Center.


Comprehensive Plan Update


Director of Economic Development Shelton stated the aldermen should have a status report in front of them on the Comprehensive Plan.  However it did not give a specific date for the February visioning meeting.  They are going to have in lieu of the regular steering committee meeting on February 16th at the Recreation Center that visioning meeting.  He is not certain of the times, but notice will be put in the Pulse, the newsletter, B-TV10.  The meeting is opened to the public.


Alderman Kramer asked if the Board would be able to attend the focus groups as well. 


Director of Economic Development stated the Board will probably be a focus group of its own or individually interviewed.  Typically, they like a focus group to be free to speak.  The results would not say who was in that group but comments that came out of the focus group.  




Director of Economic Development stated that MLP had their closing on December 20th on the Murphy property.  They have a January 11th closing date on the Serta Mattress property. 


Excise Commissioner


Temporary Liquor License – St. Mary Magdalen


City Administrator Seemayer stated that St. Mary Magdalen has their annual casino night on February 5th.  They are requesting a beer and wine license for one night from 6:30 to 11:30 p.m.


Motion was made by Alderman Robertson, second by Alderman Marshall to grant the temporary liquor license to St. Mary Magdalen for the annual casino night on February 5th.   Roll call:  Alderwoman Jepsen, yes; Alderman Marshall, yes; Alderman Leahy, yes; Alderman Kramer, yes; Alderman Robertson, yes; Alderman Wynn, yes.


Library – No report


Municipal League – No report


Waste Management Commission – No report


Storm Water Management – No report


Communication – No further report


Insurance Committee – No report


Historical Society – No report






Architectural Review Board


Alderwoman Jepsen stated they are getting ready to review the plans for Kingbridge Homes.   It seems that the City does not have a legal architectural review board in place.  From the criteria she read there is supposed to be two aldermen, one planning and zoning member, one citizen and the zoning administrator.  Based on a letter she was forwarded, two members are on the board and they are supposed to have five.  It would seem that Richard Emery or Al Cross cannot legally be on the board and they need a quorum of three to vote on something.   


Alderman Leahy stated the current ordinance that the City has in place allows the building commissioner to decide whether or not building plans for residential homes need to go through an architectural review board.  It is conceivable that the building commissioner could review the plans.   Unless he finds an exception to them, they could approve or disapprove the plans as they are submitted.  Thus they could save the contractor some time and free up the issue while they put together a board with the criteria they know. 


Mayor Kelly stated the residents in the Parkridge subdivision felt when the home was being built on St. Clair that some of their concerns weren’t being looked at.  His letter in asking the architectural review board to look at this application in Ward 1 at the request of Alderman Cross was to look at the specific issues that had been raised at the Board of Aldermen level.  Specifically the exterior finish of the building, like the side yard setbacks and the garage location.  His understanding was that the chairman of the Planning and Zoning Commission was a member on the architectural review board and that there was another alderman on there as well.  The concern is to make sure that these issues were taken into account with the construction of any home in Ward 1. 


Alderman Leahy asked Zoning Administrator Wolf if there were any issues in the plans that would constitute the building commissioner requesting an architectural board review. 


Zoning Administrator Wolf responded no. 


Motion was made by Alderman Leahy that the plans continue through the regular building commissioner review for acceptance or denial and postpone going to the architectural review board, giving the City time to structure the architectural review board so that the City is in compliance.  


Alderman Kramer stated he was the chair of the non-meeting architectural review board.  He and Alderman Cross had proposed a version, which is now going through the Planning and Zoning Commission that shortens the process considerably.  If the architectural review board reviews the plans and no problems being agreed upon then a permit is granted forthwith and there is no meeting of the Board of Aldermen that has to take place.  If there is an appeal and they do not agree with the process then there would be a lengthier situation.  However even though he is not currently on the architectural review board he has worked on potential legislation with his fellow Alderman Cross and she is very passionate on the topic.  Since Alderman Cross is not present, the Board should postpone making a decision since her ward would be affected and being the one that requested this to take place. 


He believes the plans had been viewed by Richard Emery and Al Cross and they did not see any difficulty whatsoever with them.  They suggested that it was a very nice home and it would go on a pretty fast track.  To shortchange the process and Alderman Cross from her request and the possibility of this process being short anyway would be a mistake.


Mayor Kelly suggested the Board grant Zoning Administrator Wolf the authority to approve the plans if there are no major concerns with the architectural review board.  The Board has the right to do that.  If for some reason an unforeseen issue develops then he could bring it back to the Board. 


Zoning Administrator Wolf stated there is not going to be a problem with the architectural review board findings if everybody agrees with what they find.  If somebody does not agree under Cross/Kramer proposal the item would still have to go to the Board of Aldermen for resolution.  Mr. Suelthaus was saying that because the third Monday meeting is cancelled it forces him to wait a full month before he can get an approval.  There are six months that this situation occurs.  He does not think you are going to find very many of the plans that are submitted are going to come in full conformance with the concerns of those people.   This happens to be a corner lot that is why the garage is not a problem.  It happens to be proposed as all brick which is rare.   The side yard setback is not a big problem in this case because it is a lot and a half and the buildable width of the lot is not a big factor.  This particular home happens to be an unusual one.   Of all the new ones that have been filed so far, there have only been three that have not been a problem.


City Administrator Seemayer asked if the motion is to send it to the architectural review board this Thursday evening, but not bring it back to the Board of Aldermen.


Alderman Leahy stated the motion that was made was to allow the building commissioner to continue with the review process according to ordinance without having to go to the architectural review board.  The question that Alderwoman Jepsen made was that the makeup of the current architectural review board members is not in conformance with the ordinance, which would make the meeting that is scheduled a problem. 


Motion was made by Alderman Kramer, second by Alderman Marshall to allow the scheduled architectural review board meeting to stand with the members that are currently in place and assuming the outcome of that meeting with the residents and the members attending find in favor of the plans as Zoning Administrator Wolf predicts. That they grant permission to Zoning Administrator Wolf to be able to issue forthwith the requested building permit. 


Alderman Leahy stated his motion has been made but no second, so it dies due to lack of a second.


Alderman Wynn stated one ward is different from another ward in some ways.   Some of the things that may be strict in one ward may not work in another ward.   There are areas where they may not care whether they have siding next to brick just to get another nice home built.  He does not want them to become one-sided, thinking of so many restrictions that they cannot get houses built.


Mayor Kelly stated he agrees, but the application that has been presented to the City meets all of the concerns of those residents.  


Alderman Leahy asked if the motion would need a simple majority to pass.


City Attorney Murphy stated it is not an ordinance, so it would pass on a simple majority. 


Roll call:  Alderwoman Jepsen, no; Alderman Marshall, yes; Alderman Leahy, no; Alderman Kramer, yes; Alderman Robertson, yes; Alderman Wynn, no.


Because of the tie vote being three for and three against, Mayor Kelly voted yes.  Motion carries.


Mayor Kelly stated the concerns consistently brought to the City have been taken care of in this process and made sure of in the application.   When the architectural review board is restructured they need to make sure they have a process that works for everybody not just considering residents but builders and people that want to invest in the community because new home homes are needed.


Alderman Marshall stated people are very passionate about the architectural review board.  They want some kind of say as to what is placed in their neighborhoods.  The Planning and Zoning Commission meetings held for the past couple of months have been well attended because of the issue.  He does not think anybody can minimize what the importance of that is.  It is the Board’s responsibility to look at all avenues and come up with a solution. 


Zoning Administrator Wolf stated that if you are going to be in conformance with the current code then two aldermen and a planning and zoning commission member needs to be appointed on the architectural review board.


Mayor Kelly stated he would appoint John Geppert and two aldermen that would like to volunteer.


Alderwoman Jepsen and Alderman Wynn volunteered to be on the architectural review board. 


Alderman Kramer stated that the aldermen received a copy of his resignation submitted on December 10th.  That resignation was in anticipation of a reformatting of the architectural review board.  He spoke with city counsel preceding the meeting for clarification on whether he presently has a conflict of interest on voting on any matter regarding the architectural review board.  His opinion was presently he does not have any conflict of interest. 


Motion was made by Alderman Leahy, second by Alderman Robertson to add Alderwoman Jepsen, Alderman Wynn, and John Geppert to the architectural review board.  All in favor none opposed. 


Ward 3 Meeting


Alderman Leahy stated a Ward 3 meeting would be held on Tuesday night January 25th at 7:00 p.m. in the conference room. 




The meeting was recessed at 9:10 p.m. for an executive session real estate matter.


Executive Session


Motion was made by Alderman Leahy, second by Alderman Marshall to enter into executive session on a real estate matter at 9:16 p.m.  All in favor none opposed.


After discussion on a real estate matter, motion was made by Alderman Leahy, second by Alderman Marshall to return to open session at 9:41 p.m.  All in favor none opposed.




Motion was made by Alderman Leahy, second by Alderman Wynn to adjourn the meeting at 9:42 p.m. All in favor none opposed.




                                                                                    Pat Kelly, Mayor






Chris Seemayer, City Clerk