MINUTES OF THE REGULAR BOARD OF ALDERMEN MEETING
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.
CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF
THE AGENDA OF THE REGULAR BOARD OF ALDERMEN MEETING OF JANUARY 3, 2005
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.
CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF
THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR BOARD OF ALDERMEN MEETING OF DECEMBER 6, 2004
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
HEARING OF ANY MATTER OF PUBLIC INTEREST UPON
REQUEST OF ANY PERSON PRESENT
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.
INTRODUCTIONS, READINGS, AND PASSAGE OF BILLS AND
RESOLUTIONS
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.
City Attorney Murphy gave Bill No. 5262, AN ORDINANCE
APPROVING A SIGNAGE PACKAGE DETAILING PROJECT AND MERCHANT IDENTITY SIGNAGE FOR
2511-2521 S. BRENTWOOD BLVD.; PROVIDING THE CONDITIONS OF SUCH APPROVAL; AND,
ESTABLISHING THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS ORDINANCE, its first and second
readings.
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
City Attorney Murphy gave Bill No. 5264, AN ORDINANCE
APPROVING A PLAT FOR SUBDIVISION OF PROPERTY NUMBERED 8127 FAWN AVENUE AND
ESTABLISHING THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS ORDINANCE, its first and second
readings.
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.
City Attorney Murphy gave Bill
No. 5265, AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 14 OF THE REVISED CODE OF ORDINANCES OF
THE CITY OF BRENTWOOD, MISSOURI BY ADDING A NEW PARAGRAPH TO SECTION 14-1038,
SCHEDULE LL, NO PARKING EXCEPT BY PERMIT; PROVIDING FOR THE CURRENT MAINTENANCE
OF THIS CODE; PROVIDING FOR THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS ORDINANCE; AND,
PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF ALL CONFLICTING ORDINANCES, its first and second
readings.
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
City Attorney Murphy gave Bill
No. 5266, AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF BRENTWOOD FIRE DEPARTMENT TO
BILL ALL PERSONS TRANSPORTED BY THE CITY’S EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES; AND,
PROVIDING FOR THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS ORDINANCE, its first and second
readings.
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.
ACCOUNTS AGAINST THE CITY
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.
Appointment
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
Parks
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.
MLP
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
UNFINISHED
BUSINESS – None
NEW BUSINESS
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.
Recess
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.
Adjournment
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
Attest:
Chris Seemayer, City Clerk