Brentwood City Council Approves Lazy Dog Restaurant

After years of attempting to come to the City of Brentwood, Lazy Dog Restaurant received its approval from the Brentwood City Council in a 5-0 vote Tuesday night.

Although the planning commission did approve the project on August 15, they placed certain conditions on Lazy Dog which nearly caused Lazy Dog to walk away from the city—however, the item was pulled by Councilmember Jovita Mendoza for review in an effort to get to “yes”.

The project site is located immediately south of Sand Creek Road, west of the Sand Creek Crossing commercial center, east of State Route 4, and north of San Jose Avenue.

According to the staff report, after the item was pulled for review, the applicant (Lazy Dog) requested the that the City Council consider a change to the conditions of approval that were adopted by the planning commission by removing certain conditions:

As noted above, conditions 8, 12, and 13 require that the parapet walls to be at least six inches above all rooftop equipment and if the parapet walls are to be raised, then the tower and accent walls shall be

raised in order to keep the proportionality between these and the parapet wall. Condition 11 was re-written by the Planning Commission requiring the applicant to add additional details to all the windows similar to the drawings that were submitted with the original application.

Instead, the applicant requests that the Council consider and adopt conditions of approval that would approve the building as proposed without having to raise the height of the parapet walls if all rooftop equipment is hidden from view. The applicant has submitted a sight line study (attached), demonstrating that all rooftop equipment will be hidden from the view of an average person standing 226 feet away. If, during construction it turns out that the rooftop equipment is visible, then the applicant would accept a condition of approval requiring that the rooftop equipment be screened with materials that are of the same design as the parapet walls. Lastly, the applicant asks that the Council remove condition 11 since the applicant contends that condition fashioned by the Planning Commission was “too vague.

The replacement condition proposed by the applicant would read:

If during construction of the building it is found by the Director of Community Development that rooftop equipment is visible from any adjacent development at street level or from any portion of the Sand Creek Road right-of-way, the applicant will develop a screening plan to be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development.  The screening materials shall match the primary building colors and materials, be integrated into the design of the building and shall not appear to be an “added on element”, to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development. Screening shall be installed and inspected for compliance prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy for the building.

The proposed condition is not included in the attached design review resolution as it is only a proposal from the applicant for the Council’s consideration. If the Council were to adopt this condition, then conditions 8, 12 and 13 would need to be removed from the attached design review resolution.

After public comments, which multiple members of the public offered support for Lazy Dog and urged the council to approve the project, the council offered comments.

Councilmember Jovita Mendoza said there were things the planning commission did that she did not agree with—including condition 11 which were window requirements.

“I don’t think that is necessary for our city,” said Mendoza. “Its your window and you should decide how it looks and I am fine with removing it if the council is.”

She was also okay with removing conditions 8, 12 and 13.

Councilmember Pa’tanisha Pierson said she was okay with removing the condition on the windows.

“It’s no dig on the planning commission but it was too much of a snippety detail,” said Pierson. “I want to personally thank you all for coming back with language to replace 8, 12 and 13.”

Vice Mayor Susannah Meyer called the building attractive and the response from the public has been very strong in support of Lazy Dog.

“I do support the plans as presented today,” said Meyer.

Mayor Joel Bryant appreciated Lazy Dogs willingness to come back and his concerns were met. He said he had faith in the staff and the wording proposed covered his concerns.

“You have gone above and beyond to bring this to the city,” said Bryant.

The council then voted 5-0 to approve the proposal.

Staff Report Documents:

Previous Stories:

• Sept 25 – Brentwood City Council Could Save Lazy Dog Restaurant Proposal
• Aug 21 – Brentwood Looks to Salvage Lazy Dog Application After Planning Commission Vote
• Aug 11 – Brentwood Planning Commission to Talk Lazy Dog Restaurant