Planning commission approves design review for 8 homes at St. James Court after weeks of neighborhood objections

The Brentwood Planning Commission on Jan. 21 approved a design review application for eight semi‑custom single-family homes on St. James Court, north of Bristow Middle School, after extended public comment from nearby Carmel Estates residents worried about privacy, drainage and a new brick wall.

Staff presented the project as a long‑entitled subdivision returning to active construction after multiple state and city timing extensions. The application covers eight lots: five single‑story homes and three two‑story homes on a privately maintained street off Minnesota Avenue. The developer, Bianchi Tillett Development, and applicant-builder team said the homes are semi‑custom to meet an original condition that no two homes have the same floor plan.

Neighbors from adjacent Carmel Estates and Randy Way attended in force to oppose the proposed two‑story houses that will back onto their yards. Speakers described grade differences and fill placed on the development site, concerns about sight lines from second‑floor windows, and the visual impact of a new brick wall and retaining system between the properties.

"When you sell a home of this caliber ... you don't get that dollar amount without privacy for the people that you're building for," said Mike Moreland, the project's on-site representative. "We'll do whatever it takes in order to get the privacy for our the people that we sell these homes to, as well as to our neighbors."

Neighbors asked when retaining walls, a concrete swale and new fencing would be built, whether existing backyard fences would be removed, and how the tiny, 4‑foot maintenance strip between the new brick wall and private fences would be maintained. Alan, a city engineering staffer, said approved grading and improvement plans direct drainage to Minnesota and that the city will require wall plans showing sufficient access to allow future HOA maintenance. "We will make sure there's sufficient access to the area so that the HOA in the future can maintain it," he said.

Project designers showed a 3‑D model and sight‑line imagery to commissioners and residents; the model indicated most adjacent yards would see roof ridgelines and a brick wall rather than direct views into living spaces. The applicant also told commissioners it has already staged underground storm-drainwork and said it would build the retaining wall, place the fence on top of the wall and complete the drainage conveyance prior to vertical construction.

Commission discussion focused on two issues: whether limited deviations from the interim objective design standards should be permitted for three lots (two garage‑setback exceptions and one lot where a garage is forward of the house); and how to protect neighbor privacy where three two‑story homes back onto existing single‑story neighborhoods. Commissioners asked the developer for binding commitments.

Before the vote the developer agreed to multiple staff‑drafted conditions: require a continuous brick wall to match existing wall segments, require replacement of perimeter backyard fences along Randy Way with the city's standard "good neighbor" fence in coordination with affected property owners, and plant trees along the rear property line of the three two‑story lots. Staff specified the tree requirement as 48‑inch box trees with species, spacing and placement to be determined by the parks director and the community development director and maintained in perpetuity through the project's CC&Rs enforced by the HOA.

Commissioner Spalding moved to adopt Resolution No. 25‑001 approving Design Review 22‑010 with staff modifications (including changes to conditions 10 and 13 and the newly added condition 18). The motion was seconded and carried by recorded vote. Staff recorded the approval and will finalize wall plans, CC&Rs and the landscape plan before issuance of building permits.

Key technical clarifications recorded at the meeting: - The project was originally entitled in 2007 and was extended via state and city time extensions until on‑site improvements resumed in 2023. - The site is in Planned Development (PD) 26 Subarea 16; the applicant also referenced PD 35 Subarea B for a separate CUP item earlier in the meeting. - The project complies with most Interim Objective Design Standards (ODS) but requires exceptions for certain front‑garage setbacks; staff included conditions that would otherwise modify lots to meet ODS if the commission declined the exceptions. - Drainage from Randy Way yards historically flowed toward the site; the approved grading and storm plans direct that runoff into the new project infrastructure and out to Minnesota Avenue.

Commissioners closed public comment after lengthy discussion and voted to approve the design review subject to the conditions adopted at the meeting. Staff will return final wall plans and CC&R language as part of the building permit review and will track HOA maintenance requirements for the drainage swale.