Brentwood planners present draft residential design guidelines and recommended zoning text changes; no vote held

Tim Bridal, the city's planning consultant with h3 Studio, presented the final draft of citywide residential architectural design guidelines to the Brentwood Planning and Zoning Commission and the Architectural Review Board on May 14 and said the full draft “has been circulated to P and Z and the Architectural Review Board.” The meeting was informational only because the commission lacked a quorum and no formal votes were taken.

The guidelines are intended to guide review of new homes and additions across Brentwood and to clarify what projects the Architectural Review Board (ARB) reviews versus what staff may approve administratively. Bridal said the guidelines would be considered as “an addendum to the city's comprehensive plan” if no major issues arise, and that city planning staff expect to present the recommendations at a joint meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission and the ARB on June 11 for formal consideration.

Why it matters: the draft pairs design guidance with suggested zoning-code text amendments intended to make review outcomes more predictable for applicants, ARB members and staff. The document addresses house massing, roof forms, window and porch details, permitted and prohibited materials, mechanical equipment placement (including solar panels), and site features such as retaining walls and significant trees. It also recommends concrete zoning changes intended to align setbacks and driveway standards with prevailing neighborhood conditions.

Key provisions presented

- Administrative review thresholds: The draft says certain small projects may be handled by staff rather than ARB, including open-air structures without roofs (pergolas, trellises), manufactured sunrooms and screened porches installed on a home's rear façade, and other additions not visible from the public right-of-way so long as they are not fully enclosed and air conditioned, do not have a full foundation and are less than 200 square feet. Bridal said staff may still refer any project to ARB at staff discretion.

- Garages and massing: Guidelines state that a garage entrance may be flush or recessed but “should not project forward to the front facade,” and that the combined width of all garage doors should not exceed 40% of the front façade, with specified exceptions. The guidelines recommend architectural garage doors, window and door trims, and porch treatments intended to reduce the visual dominance of front-loaded garages.

- Materials: The draft lists permitted materials (stone, masonry, wood or fiber-cement siding, certain shingles, traditional applied stucco) and lists prohibited materials including concrete masonry units (block), EIFS and other panelized stucco systems, architectural precast panels, fiber-cement panels used as large panels, plywood/OSB panel siding, thin-set glued thin-brick veneer and asphalt shingles on walls. It identifies other materials (vinyl, aluminum siding, architectural metal panels, glass block) as allowable only with ARB approval.

- Zoning-code text amendments proposed: Bridal summarized five recommended code changes intended for the single-family A and B districts and corner-lot rules: 1) replace the fixed 25-foot minimum front-yard setback with a relational “build-to” line equal to the average front setback of the two homes on either side (four homes total) plus or minus 2 feet; 2) similar relational side-street setback language for corner lots (average of the nearest two homes on the side street, plus or minus 2 feet); 3) driveway width limits for front-access garages and rear/side-access garages (language raising allowable allowance to allow 48 inches at the opening in one provision and allowing driveway width up to the garage width plus 8 feet for side/rear access garages); and 4) clarifying yard/setback sections (specific code citations were named in the presentation). Bridal said the steering committee and public input informed these drafts.

- Floor-area ratio (FAR): Bridal said h3 Studio is not recommending an FAR limit at this time. He argued that dimensional standards and design guidance better predict building form than a blanket FAR, and that issues such as floor-to-floor height, ground-floor elevation and roof pitch — which the guidelines address — are more relevant to perceived “overscale” houses.

Debate and concerns raised

- Enforceability vs. guidance: Carl Carlin, who serves on both Planning and Zoning and the ARB, said he was concerned by “unenforceable language” in parts of the draft and asked how the ARB would apply recommendations that are framed as guidance rather than requirements. Tim Bridal and others clarified the document mixes both “advice and requirements,” and that some items (for example, explicitly prohibited materials and the administrative review thresholds) are intended to be enforceable while other parts remain advisory for ARB deliberation.

- Materials and construction quality: Members discussed thin-brick veneer and stucco installation quality. Carl Carlin and others noted that modern fully adhered masonry and properly installed stucco differ from older “lick-and-stick” systems; commissioners urged language that allows ARB review of certain material systems rather than blanket prohibitions where code-compliant construction can be demonstrated.

- Addressing “overscale” houses: Commissioners and Bridal agreed that massing and perceived oversize relate more to floor-plate heights, first-floor elevation and roof pitch than to gross floor area. Bridal pointed to guideline language recommending that sill plates, floor plates and eave lines be within about 1 foot of the comparable elements of the immediate neighboring homes to preserve proportion and context.

Next steps and action taken

Because the commission did not have a quorum the May 14 session was informational only and no formal action was taken. The presentation author, Tim Bridal, and city staff said they expect to collect final comments, refine the draft and bring the package — including the proposed zoning text amendments — to a joint Planning and Zoning Commission and ARB meeting on June 11 for formal consideration. City staff (Miss Kelly) said staff and the city attorney have reviewed the draft and will continue reviewing the proposed text amendments before the June meeting: “Completely eliminating a front yard setback might be difficult, but allowing for some variation with the existing form … would be nice,” she said.

Who spoke on the record

Speakers who participated in the discussion included the presenting consultant and multiple Planning and Zoning and ARB members, plus city planning staff. No votes or motions were made at the May 14 informational session.

The presentation package and draft guidelines will be the subject of further staff review and the June 11 joint meeting; applicants and residents are advised to monitor the city planning office for the formal agenda and final drafts.