Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Brentwood hears plans for T‑Mobile retail at Hanley Station and a sign‑plan amendment; aldermen defer action
Summary
The Brentwood Board of Aldermen heard a public hearing on a Conditional Use Permit and site development plan for a T‑Mobile store at 1201 Strassner Drive and an amendment to the Hanley Station Comprehensive Sign Plan. Planning staff outlined building alterations and sign-code conflicts; the board took no action on the second readings that evening.
Mayor David Dimmitt opened a public hearing on Jan. 5 for a Conditional Use Permit and site development plan for a proposed T‑Mobile retail store at 1201 Strassner Drive. Planning Director Whitney Kelly presented the application, submitted by Zach Brown of Perspective Architecture + Design on behalf of T‑Mobile, describing plans to convert an existing 3,966‑square‑foot building to retail use with hours of 10 a.m. to 8 p.m. daily and exterior changes that include removing awnings and brick knee walls, reducing a south patio area formerly used for outdoor dining, replacing two south doors with glazing, and adding an 8‑inch‑thick black metal awning on the north elevation.
Director Kelly also described the related request to amend the Hanley Station Comprehensive Sign Plan so T‑Mobile could install larger branded tenant signs on all four elevations and branded window graphics. Steve Behrens of Warren Sign Company presented the sign proposal. Kelly summarized the existing Comprehensive Sign Plan (Ordinance No. 4051), which permits signs on the front and rear of retail buildings only, restricts sign cabinets/fascias, limits individual illuminated channel letters to no more than 7.5% of the wall area and to a height between 18 and 24 inches—standards the application’s proposed box panels and fascia‑style signs appear to conflict with. The Planning & Zoning Commission recommended the sign‑plan amendment by unanimous vote on Dec. 10, 2025.
Board members asked questions about parking and consistency of window coverings and logos. No public commenters were listed in the minutes. After discussion, the Board did not act on the second readings of Bill No. 6582 (site plan/CUP) or Bill No. 6583 (Comprehensive Sign Plan amendment) that evening; both remained pending for future consideration.
The matter will return to the Board for further review; meanwhile Planning staff have documented that the proposal departs from certain sign‑plan restrictions in Ordinance No. 4051 and that parking for the site relies partly on adjacent garage spaces rather than on‑site stalls alone.
