After a 4.5 hour discussion, the Brentwood Planning Commission approved a Conditional Use Permit and Design review for Popeye’s.
Commissioners Anita Roberts, David Sparling and Gerald Johnson in support. Kristopher Brand and Rod Flohr were against. Conditions of approval included a shorter drive-through, more amenities to the community area such as grass/turf, along with more seating and shade.
Overview
The proposed Popeye’s drive-through restaurant and site improvements sits on a 3.4-acre parcel located at 7820 Brentwood Blvd and would bring 20-30 jobs to the city–updated, there will now be a community courtyard incorporated into the project (see vision)
At its April 16 meeting, the commission did not approve the project and opted to direct the applicant to work with staff and bring the project back without a drive-through feature—this was due to concerns over the proposed 21-evehicle drive-through component. The commission also wanted to improve the open space with additional seating and vegetation.
According to the staff report, the applicant has indicated the drive-through component would be retained as removing it would make the project financially unviable.
On June 11, 2024, the applicant submitted an updated set of plans (attached) with the following changes:
- Addition of three benches and four tables in the open space area.
- Addition of approximately 147 square feet of landscaping within the open space area
Summary of the 4.5 Hour Meeting
Charlie Brown, CC Planning and Permitting, who works for the developer, explained
“We’ve tried to address as much as we could the issues that were brought up, obviously we couldn’t touch the drive-through lane. That is something that would make this project impossible if we were to remove it. We understand there are some concerns and we are hear to work with you and hope to bring this project to completion,” said Brown. “We want to become a member of this community through this project.”
Mel Young, managing property owner for the shopping center, said this Popeye’s project would be a much-needed catalyst that they need to help “spruce up” the property. He understood the concerns over traffic, but the opportunity this project would provide them to upgrade the entire shopping center.
David McIntyre, in charge of the shopping center, shared that his center is older and the traffic impact is not going to be anything different than it is now, but the traffic flow is being developed and done correctly.
“People within the city, wanted us to do this. We agreed to do it, “said McIntyre. “Code enforcement or anyone from the city, every time they ask me to do something, its been done. Every single time. The landscaping in front of the center, you got what you asked for. I didn’t pick it out, the city person did. Told me what to put in, we put it in. So I don’t understand why it’s gone kind of a negative direction. Its not a bad thing for the city, it’s a good thing.”
Commissioner Kristopher Brand asked for more explanation from the applicant on why the project was brought back the way it was.
Brown explained the goal was never to have the courtyard be just an open concrete area and called it a misrepresentation at the April meeting. He said they had every intention to fill that space in making it friendly to customers and public—they tried to express better the intention of the space. As for the drive-through lane, it the best design they can do and called it a non-starter, aside from making it shorter, but hurts the lane and problems with stacking but noted the drive-through is never anticipated to be full.
“We really didn’t feel there was anything we could do to the drive-through lane so we brought it back as is,” said Brown.
Brown confirmed about 70% of sales comes from the drive-through.
Commissioner David Sparling called the layout of the building and landscaping was much better this time. He called it much clearer in this plan versus the original.
Sparling confirmed the Que would not be greater than 21-vehicles and the average order-time is approximately 4-minutes, with some locations even quicker.
The Popeye’s applicant confirmed 70% of sales come from drive-through, 25% delivery and walk-in is single digits. They noted due to technology, people are ordering from the apps and simply using the drive-through for pickup. It will create 20-30 jobs at $20 an hour.
Commissioner Gerald Johnson asked about total cost of the project. Popeye’s estimated over $3 million. They also generate $2.3 to $3 million in annual sales.
Chairperson Anita Roberts asked about the courtyard noting its been 100-degrees and originally they brought the project without use of umbrellas.
Brown explained they wanted to create as much shade as possible with trees and a trellis. Other features could also be included—ideally this will be used more in the evenings after the sun goes down. He said it may not get a lot of use, but it will be there.
Roberts again expressed concerns about staffing and the 21-vehicle stack and had concerns over turnover with staff that could cause issues that could arise with the long drive-through.
“It’s not about Popeye’s, its about its location,” said Roberts. “Why are you Que that many cars in the drive-through?”
Popeye’s addressed staffing noting they are a large corporation and can bring in staff or transfer staff if needed and they do not have huge turnover. They explained when they purchased the Antioch store in 2021, the average time was 18-minutes. After 6-months, the time is down to 5-minutes. They said they would not let cars go 18-minutes waiting in a drive-through. They also said Pittsburg was the top sales performer.
Commissioner Johnson asked the Mel Young (managing owner of the shopping center) how many people have come to the center over the years wanting to develop or invest in the property. The property owner stated “not many” but they also hadn’t put it on the market.
Johnson asked the Young if Popeye’s would improve the center and draw more business to others in the center. The owner said “absolutely”. The property was also remodeled in 2013 when Dollar General came in.
Commissioner Sparling rephrased Johnson’s question asking if anyone else had come in to develop this pad. Young responded it had been 20-30 years and there was a building there in the 1960 where Popeye’s is being proposed. Popeye’s is the first one to move forward as no one else had inquired, but it wasn’t also actively marketed.
McIntyre also said they moved forward with Popeye’s because someone with the City of Brentwood, who is no longer with the city, said to go with Popeye’s—that is why the money has been spent. City person said Popeye’s was a good fit so they went forward.
The commission was also informed by the realtor for Young that sit-down restaurants are not expanding and it was highly unlikely a sit-down restaurant would build up from the ground versus going into an old space and simply remodel for cheaper.
Assistant City Manager Darin Gale clarified comments made by McIntyre stating someone from city staff pushing Popeyes. Gale said economic development hasn’t had a conversation with this project, but you do have a project that is zoned with a drive-through with a CUP… very frequently we talk with a user and confirm its an appropriate use.
“I don’t know what the exact conversation was, but I would tell you at this location two years ago would say why is there no food in this location,” said Gale. “People would say why do I have to travel all the way to Lone Tree Way just to get some food. That was solved in the last two years.”
He said now they have Chipolte, Denny’s, Wendy’s, Panda and Starbucks and Grocery Outlet because there has been investment.
Commission Discussion
Commissioner Rod Flohr brought up the General Plan and Specific Plan which nowhere showed a fast food restaurant on Brentwood Blvd.
“I am not happy to see this come forward. I am not happy to hear the applicants were encouraged to do this kind of development in this spot,” stated Flohr who said he would love to see this business in a location where its zoned for.
Commissioner Kristopher Brand explained they have had an explosion of growth in these two square miles from this location to Lone Tree Way.
“I think we have turned on the hose for institutions of this nature to come in, set up shop and do business. Its been flowing pretty well,” said Brand. “There are 8 within a square mile of this area… 500-ft away there is a KFC.”
Brand stated they need a drive-through to operate given 5% of revenue is walk-in.
“All I hear day in and day out from people with young families is they are tired of fast food restaurants,” said Brand. “Especially in this region, it’s a double-stack because of the concentration and my biggest issue is they are all here…. I can’t in good conscious say lets just put another one there because lets be honest, you have Taco Bell, KFC, Chipotle Jack In the Box, Starbucks, Wendy’s, Panda Express and McDonalds. I think we should think twice about density to business diversity.”
Johnson referenced the Brentwood Boulevard Specific Plan and its goals which was to encourage revitalization and improve existing land uses.
“I think we all want as a commission is irrelevant because they cannot determine who is going to be there,” said Johnson noting the Cheesecake Factory is not going to come to that pad because they will do a study to determine a feasibility study on the pad. “Maybe someone else will come there, but we have to evaluate the project before us and the landlord and the lease has come forward to project down. We can’t say I would prefer Vic’s Stewarts there… we have conflicting objectives. One objective is we want to upgrade the area by spending some money in the area so other businesses would invest in the area which would grow the area so next time we can get more beneficial. But I don’t know if we are going to get it with the current demographics.”
Johnson questioned how do they build up the area, that would take money and investment to possibly entice future investors saying it met the goals.
“I don’t know that we are the arbiters of what goes there,” said Johnson. “We can evaluate the current business, the design, does it look good, does it fit the zoning, does it meet all the recommendations. But its hard to say I want something better because I don’t know that it is going to come.”
Flohr objected, noting there were 10 goals and combined they were the goals; one could not take a single goal.
Roberts took issue with the project noting residents who live in this community did not want another drive-through—while highlighting a community survey.
“I for one am saddened it’s not more walkable. That it is one drive-through after another after another and we do have an opportunity to do something different that begins to address what is in the document,” said Roberts. “We do have a commitment for folks who live behind that area and to stick with that.”
She said her recommendation was to cut down on drive-throughs and that there were many Popeye’s in nation without a drive-through who do “quite well”.
“I think we can do something else in that. I understand we have someone in front of us willing to spend the money, I appreciate that,” said Roberts. “If we were tasked with saying yes to everything, I don’t know what kind of city we would have. Better for Brentwood, there is something to be said about that. Not everything that comes before this commission is going to be box checked to say no problem.”
Commissioner Sparling, noting he had read all the Brentwood plans, stated they were not being consistent and what the Brentwood Specific Plan says is this kind of establishment can go here.
“All of the other things are important, but it says that this kind of restaurant can go here,” explained Sparling and if they wanted to treat sit down vs. fast food with drive-throughs differently then they needed to change the zoning. “But today, there is no differential in the zoning codes. So we can’t hope the zoning changes, we have to use the zoning in front of us.”
Sparling continued noting if they turn it down, they are turning down significant investment in the area at $3 million to build, 30-35 jobs and turning down tax revenue the city is going to need because the development fees for homes is going to end.
He continued by highlighting sit-down restaurants are struggling and that if one wonders why developers want to place fast food restaurants on Brentwood Blvd. its because that is where people are going and they can get a return on their investment—saying “we are in a capitalistic society”.
“For everyone who says they don’t like drive-through’s in Brentwood, the drive-throughs are awfully busy in Brentwood,” said Sparling. “Its not our job, I don’t care that there is a KFC down the road, its not our job to pick winners and losers. Its our job to make sure that this project fits the zoning codes. And it does. We are putting our economic development team in a hard place where we have the zoning its coded for and we come up with some very tiny reason to reject a commercial development for this. This is going to help revitalize the area. The landlord said if this passes, he would reinvest in the shopping center which is what we all would love to hear. Where is he going to get that money, from the lease from Popeye’s. So it all fits together. This is a good project, the design is a good project.”
Sparling also thanked Roberts for her references to New York and Houston, but she was also talking about major metropolitan areas that have millions of people and Brentwood has 60,000 people with 80% commute. He also added this was California where we don’t walk, but we want to drive everywhere.
“If you say no to this, you are saying no to jobs,” said Sparling who shared that the people complaining about drive-through, that is what people want after COVID because they want to grab it from a window calling it “simple facts”.
Both Roberts and Flohr disagreed with Sparling.
Brand questioned if this goes in as a restaurant, how does this turn into a commercial building in the future adding that if they want something other than a drive-through they have to bulldoze and start over. He also believed they were seeing more advocacy for businesses without drive-through than with.
Johnson questioned Flohrs comments noting they were not creating anything because there was already a strip mall in place. Johnson said he believed this project would create other economic development opportunities—referring back to Brand’s chicken vs. egg question.
“We are not the arbitrators of what goes there. We cannot go decide that. We look at projects that are put in front of us,” said Johnson. “We don’t get the choice of what goes there or doesn’t unfortunately. If we did, it would be easy. But we don’t get that choice, we deal with what is in front of us.”
Sparling added this restaurant also has an opportunity to sit-down as well as use the drive-through which came back to zoning. He raised a hypothetical question if this were a Starbucks or another coffee place with a drive-through, would you feel different because if one did, that is not consistent.
“If you ant to talk about density, we have three coffee shops in the Streets of Brentwood,” said Sparling again referring to capitalistic society where maybe someone doesn’t make it but also said if this was a project without a drive-through it would have already been build with simply staff approval. “They do qualify as a sit-down restaurant; they just have this feature of a drive-through.”
Flohr shot back noting its 70% drive-through and 30% sit down and said their job was too deny projects that were “not appropriate” and not rubber stamp projects.
“This project does not belong because we are supposed to be prohibited based on wording right in front of us,” said Flohr.
Sparling acknowledged he and Flohr would not agree with one another.
“Its up to the consumer whether they go through a drive-through or sit down. They have to have a sit-down or they would just build a nice shack you can drive through. Instead, they are building a nice facility that you would drive too,” said Sparling.
Roberts said she wanted a more community set-up in the parking lot area where they possibly remove parking spaces in favor of grass or fake grass to bring families.
Flohr said he preferred they take a vote on the Resolution in front of them rather than tinker with the current design by also adding eh would rather see an updated design come before them.
“I don’t see any way how we are going to sit up here and design our way out of this one,” said Flohr. “There is too much wrong with it.”
City Attorney Christie Crowe chimed in after Flohr was getting off topic and noted the commission was voting on the CUP and that they were clear this proposed restaurant use was allowed in the zone and the drive-through is conditionally allowed in the zone.
Roberts advocated for less of a drive-through and wanted a smaller que and wanted more “community” by more grass, tables outside, an invite for children. She wanted more green space along with a swing set.
Flohr again stated it was a “terrible idea” and the community space has already been identified in the application. He called for a redesign and the drive-through to be deleted.
Crowe urged the commission to take a vote on the CUP for the drive-through which then means they would not need to discuss about the design-review. She explained the design is proposed with a drive-through.
The commission then went into discussion on the design of the building.
Flohr wanted the building of Popeye’s to be on Brentwood Blvd versus on the side—the idea was the building would be more visible. He also argued the design did not meet standards with its main entrance being on the side and not facing Brentwood Blvd.
Staff disagreed saying it met requirements as outline (page 34).
Flohr again disagreed calling the building non-compliant with the Brentwood Boulevard Specific Plan. Brand agreed stating KFC, Taco Bell and Jack in the Box all have a frontage to Brentwood Blvd.
Staff disagreed with Flohr regarding what was considered the front of a building and that it previously was just a wall—but was up to the commission. Saff also said they were not making “subjective decisions” and there had been discussion and redesigns over the past year with the applicant to meet standards. They also agreed with Flohr there is no true definition on a rectangular building on what is the front or back—the applicant came back and it met the intent of the Brentwood Boulevard Specific Plan.
Sparling shared he understood Flohr’s concerns, but the plan met the requirements and the issue was better definitions to address Flohr’s concerns.
Planning Manager Erik Nolthenius shared that to address Flohr’s concerns, it would require dramatic redesign of the project.
Johnson stated at the last meeting they had on this, everyone thought it was a nice building (minus Sparling who was absent).
“Everybody on this dais said this was a wonderful looking building. Right now, all we are trying to do is pick, and pick, and pick and find a scab that will rip this thing open and get it to what we want it to be,” stated Johnson, but the problem was the drive-through.
Johnson urged the commission to consider Roberts request to shorten the drive-through instead of trying to nit pick and find a way to get everybody deny the project and why he had to listen to 15-minutes of a diatribe about the dictionary definition of the corner of a meeting.
He called Robert’s suggestion was a possible outcome by shortening the drive-through, expanding the community area and moving forward to invest in the community.
Roberts jumped in attempting to get the commission back on track and urged the commission to bring forward a motion if there was no other discussion.
Flohr chimed in stating with design review, they have not compared it to the Brentwood Boulevard Specific Plan and got into landscaping.
Roberts then called for a motion.
Johnson made the motion to approve the CUP and Design review with shortening the length of the drive-through, including more community area (tables, artificial grass) and improving landscaping along Brentwood Boulevard. Sparling seconded.
Flohr offered an amendment seeking a complete design review in committee of the structure and make proposals to improve the shape of the building.
Legal counsel said full changes to the design review cannot be deferred to the sub-committee, only components. Staff agreed with assessment by legal.
Ultimately, after more discussion, Johnson rejected Flohr’s amendment.
Popeye’s was approved in a 3-2 vote with Brand and Flohr dissenting.
ANALYSIS
Except for the above mentioned changes, the resubmitted project is the same as the original (as described in the attached April 16, 2024 staff report), including the drive- through feature. The Planning Commission previously stated that it could not make the required BMC Section 17.830.005 CUP findings with the drive-through and directed the applicant to redesign the project without the drive-through. Since the applicant has not done so, staff has prepared a resolution denying the proposed CUP with draft findings for the Commission’s consideration. It should be noted that if the Commission still intends to deny the project with the drive-through as proposed, the Commission would need to provide additional evidence to support denial of the project due to failure to make the finding required by BMC Section 17.830.005.A(ii)(a)(3) and possibly 17.830.005.A(ii)(a)(5)
Previous Stories:
- Aug 5 – Popeye’s Proposal Returns to Brentwood Planning Commission
- April 17 – Brentwood Planning Commission Punts Popeye’s Decision
1 comment
Great! No quality dining in Brentwood! This city wants low quality fast food handled thru a car window! We don’t even try to spend our food money here! Thanks Brentwood! We will dine and give revenue to other cities!
Comments are closed.