Home » Brentwood Planning Commission Agrees to Revisit Deer Ridge Clubhouse Permit

Brentwood Planning Commission Agrees to Revisit Deer Ridge Clubhouse Permit

by CC News

On Tuesday, the Brentwood Planning Commission agreed to move forward with a future discussion over the Conditional Use Permit for the Deer Ridge Clubhouse.

According to Commissioner Rod Flohr, he says a concerned resident, brought up the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and believed there may be issues with the original approval (00-04) back in 2000 on the 9,000 square foot clubhouse.

This request for review comes as in April,  Sean McCauley confirmed he  closed on his purchase of the Deer Ridge Country Club located on Foothill Drive in the City of Brentwood and was beginning to upgrade the property into a working restaurant and possibly a bar. He has since posted several videos on social media showcasing the progress being made within the current Conditional Use Permit. The building has been vacant, an eye sore and often vandalized since closing.

On Tuesday, at the request of Commissioner Rod Flohr, the commission agreed to bring it back in a 4-0 vote with commissioner David Sparling recusing himself from the item.

However, it did not come without both confusion and discussion as Flohr accused staff of not hearing his request properly for all documents associated with the CUP be included (Note — since this was a future agenda item, the commission first had to agree to bring it back, then staff would bring back all associated documents).

When Flohr was asked directly by Commissioner Zeigler on why he was bringing the item back, Flohr declined to answer even after Zeigler asked him a second time to “dumb it down” for him on his reasoning.

“As you know I cannot answer most of those questions at this time,” said Flohr.  “I want to have that discussion with you. I desperately want to have that discussion with you. You have no idea. I have people who are angry with me…. I am extremely disappointed we are going to have to slow walk this now because the staff mistake because its going to take longer, which means its going to be longer until we can have the full discussion. But I so want to have that discussion with you.”

Full Recap:

Commissioner Rod Flohr provided an explanation for his request highlighting he requested this review of the Conditional Use Permit (CUP)  for the Deer Ridge Club House—the CUP govern how properties can be used and states the conditions.

Flohr shared while the property owners can change from time to time, the CUP stays with the property.

“The CUP are the rules, the rules don’t change when the owners change. That is the brilliance of the CUP,” stated Flohr. “Staff has advised the owner that he can renovate the clubhouse and open it up as a restaurant based on staff analysis.”

Flohr said some concerns have been raised as to whether this CUP is sufficient for this use.

“In order to ensure that the restaurant, if opened, is not exposed to any risk, we need to review the CUP to see if it is sufficient,” stated Flohr. “If it is not sufficient, we would need to understand what it means and what insufficiencies need to be addressed.”

Flohr said this was not a request to review the restaurant or referendum on the owner but runs with the land.

Flohr, who wanted to talk about other CUP’s, was stopped by City Attorney Damien Brower stating the only one on the agenda was Deer Ridge Clubhouse (Conditional Use Permit No. 00–04). Flohr disagreed stating he asked for all of them and suggested they go back and play the tape.

Brower stated the CUP 00-04 was the only thing in the agenda and the one they could discuss and anything else would have to come back at a future meeting.

Flohr called that determination “unfortunate” and continued to argue with Brower.

“For the record, I just want to say I am very disappointed that my item was not properly recorded by staff because I can show you that I did mention specifically that there was another CUP,” said Flohr. “It’s unfortunate because the people who are waiting for us to do this are very stringent that they do not want any delays in this project. We need to get it done. If we have to come back in 2-weeks and review all CUP’s because of a staff recording, its disappointing to me and the community.”

Chairperson Anita Roberts asked why they could not get into the weeds.

Brower said tonight they were simply being asked if they want to come back and review the CUP at a future meeting and would not be getting into the weeds.

Flohr suggest, “I don’t know how we can do a full review if we do not know the external factors and the validity of the thing we are reviewing.

Roberts said they could not discuss this openly before being cut off by Flohr who said he was still presenting.

Flohr then asked a series of questions he would like addressed:

  1. Is the clubhouse severable from the golf course. If the golf course is not part of the facility is it still a club house?
  2. Is a club house the same thing as a restaurant? There are variances to how a club house operates vs a restaurant?
  3. Does deleting some uses and using that space for a restaurant require an amendment to the CUP?
  4. Does operating a club house as a restaurant change the use enough to require amending the CUP?
  5. Does operating a restraint create a need for more conditions of approval?
  6. Do the findings in the actions section… conflict with the usage of a restaurant?
  7. Do all of the “whereas” clauses in the CUP remain true for the use of a restaurant?
  8. Have all conditions of approval been met?
  9. Were all supporting documents met to ensure conditions of approval were met?
  10. Has the CUP been superseded?
  11. Does the CUP allow the owner to meet all their goals for the property? If not, any options available to the owner to amend the CUP or otherwise to meet their unmet goals?
  12. What options are available to mediate potential negative findings if there are any. I would like to know everything that could be done and how long each thing could take?
  13. For each option, how can we minimize delays and solutions—keeping in mind the owner is moving forward with the project.?
  14. If there is a negative finding after the restaurant is open, will there be any consequences for the restaurant and steps to minimize risk to restaurant operator.?
  15. Flohr asked if there was anything legally the planning commission could not do during a review? He wanted to know ahead of time.
  16. Is there any aspect of the CUP that they would otherwise not be able to discuss for lack of notice that they need to include on this list so they can be noticed, and if so, include them in the motion or include wording in motion to allow flexibility.

Addressing staff, Flohr continued.

“I don’t want to come back in two weeks and hear I can’t discuss something that I asked to discuss because staff did not write it down,” states Flohr.  “That is a concern I have and I think it’s a fair concern I have. I do want to speak with you offline about what happened here and I think you will agree that there needs to be steps taken to ensure it doesn’t happen again.”

Victoria Sanberg spoke during public comments sharing there is support for the project by Sean McCauley and has counted 192 unique comments in support—members in their community in Facebook groups.

“These people are not all going to come down here to speak to you or write emails. But they do count,” stated Sanberg. “We feel like we have won the lottery after some pretty bad hands dealt to us… I am so happy with the improvements and please allow the progress to continue under the current CUP because it is sufficient for the project as the former clubhouse could have been open for a dinner and could have events or dinner.”

Karen Nunez spoke in support of the project and there is a lot of enthusiasm about the project calling it time to move forward versus over-analyze everything given the current CUP said there would be a restaurant and bar.

Marisol Valles thanked Flohr for bringing it forward requesting other CUP to be brought forward and bring up other items at a future meeting saying they need to think about worse case scenario. She also called Sandbergs data misleading and skewed based on the question being asked about keeping it a vacant building or turning it into a restaurant—she asked to safeguard the neighborhood.

Roberts stated the planning commission has received 21 comments via email regarding the agenda item.

Commissioner Dirk Zeigler asked Flohr why he was exactly bringing this up such as a golf course typically closes when it gets dark because golfers will no longer golf at night and maybe the clubhouse stays open a little later. He asked if he was looking to figure out what time it would close—say 10pm.

“I am trying to find the reasoning on this,” said Zeigler. “The overwhelming majority are in favor of this… I just want to understand a little more on why and dumb it down for me at what you are getting at.”

Flohr stated he wanted to answer all those questions which is why he was asking for the item.

“As you know I cannot answer most of those questions at this time,” said Flohr.  “I want to have that discussion with you. I desperately want to have that discussion with you. You have no idea. I have people who are angry with me…. I am extremely disappointed we are going to have to slow walk this now because the staff mistake because its going to take longer, which means its going to be longer until we can have the full discussion. But I so want to have that discussion with you.”

Assistant city manager Darin Gale interjected stating if the direction was clear to bring back the items related to 00-04 they would bring back related items—including packet of materials relevant to 00-04.

Commissioner Kristopher Brand asked if they were to move forward, what would be the time impacts on the owner.

Ziegler agreed asking if they move forward would this prohibit the owner and delay him.

Flohr assumed the owner could continue moving forward with work while they discuss the CUP.

Roberts said she wanted the item on the next meeting to discuss due to the urgency.

Erik Nolthenius, planning manager for Brentwood, said he didn’t believe there was a “hiccup” and that staff was preparing to bring two large development were coming to the commission with reports already drafted.  He called it difficult to pull everything together not knowing how the commission would vote and would not make a commitment to it being placed on the next agenda.

Flohr asked if McCauley could keep working.

Staff replied “yes”.

Roberts called for a motion to either not propose, move forward or table the item.

Flohr made the motion to have the planning commission review the conditional use permit associated with the Deer Ridge Clubhouse and to answer the questions that were listed and to reflect the wish this request does not impede the progress being done.

“I just want to state publicly that I have no intention of using this as a device to stop anything. I am trying to find out what would happen. I am trying to find out what all the options are to protect my neighborhood. I am exploring options that may even benefit the owner,” stated Flohr. “Or, whatever happens, it happens. I want to get to the bottom of it. I want to see the truth but I have no ill will to anyone and things that have been said about me online, these are not true.”

Flohr continued to defend himself against online commentary stating he has never provided an opinion on the project or approve or disapprove of Sean McCauley doing the project. He said he just wanted to get to the bottom of the CUP.

The planning commission voted 4-0 to bring the item back within the next 1-2 meetings.

You may also like

1 comment

Bryan June 8, 2023 - 8:02 pm

Rod Flohr’s a mess and has zero business deciding anything on behalf of our city’s residents. Case in point, “I am trying to find out what all the options are to protect my neighborhood”. Protect HIS neighborhood?! This is a good thing for the community. He’s all about himself and always has been. Man, I wish he’d just go away. Sadly, don’t think we’ll be that fortunate.

Comments are closed.