Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/24/2005 AGENDA CITY OF MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD Tuesday, May 24, 2005 6:00 P.M. Council Chambers. Maplewood City Hall 1830 County Road BEast 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Agenda 4. Approval of Minutes: April 26, 2005 Minutes 5. Unfinished Business: None Scheduled 6. Design Review: a. Lexus Auto Service Center, Northwest Corner of Co. Rd. D and Hwy 61 7. Visitor Presentations: 8. Board Presentations: 9. Staff Presentations: a. Sign Code Revisions b. May 9, 2005, City Council Meeting c. Discussion of CDRB Representation at City Council Meetings d. CDRB Representation at June 13. 2005, City Council Meeting 10. Adjourn MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD 1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, MAY 24,2005 I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Longrie called the meeting to order at 6:03 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Board member John Hinzman Board member Matt Ledvina Chairperson Oiana Longrie Vice chairperson Linda Olson Board member Ananth Shankar Absent Present Present Present Present Staff Present: Shann Finwall, Planner Lisa Kroll, Recording Secretary Andrew Gitzlaff, Planning Intern III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Board member Ledvina requested an addition to the agenda to discuss CORB Rules of Procedure. Board member Ledvina moved to approve the agenda as amended. Chairperson Longrie seconded. Ayes - Ledvina, Longrie, Olson, Shankar The motion passed. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of the CORB minutes for April 26, 2005. Chairperson Longrie moved approval of the minutes of April 26, 2005. Board member Ledvina seconded. Ayes ---Ledvina, Longrie, Olson, Shankar The motion passed. V. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. Community Design Review Board Minutes 5-24-2005 2 VI. DESIGN REVIEW a. Lexus Auto Service Center, Northwest Corner of County Road D and Highway 61 Ms. Finwall said the Ryan Companies, on behalf of Bloomer Properties, is proposing to develop the northerly commercial lot of the Trout Land Development south of Sparkle Auto with an auto-service center for Lexus of Maplewood. In the staff report it states areas in the building design that should be improved. At the May 16, 2005, planning commission meeting, Mr. Lee Coppy, of Ryan Companies, presented revised building elevations for the proposed building. The primary changes are that windows and a door were added to the west elevation. Additional EIFS is shown on the north, south and east elevations as well as the extension of the first-story roof fascia on the north and south sides. The original elevations and revisions have been included in the staff report for comparison. Staff finds the new changes are certainly improvements. Staff is still of the opinion, however, that more should be done to enhance the building, particularly on the westerly elevation for compatibility with the future townhomes located across the new County Road D. Therefore, staff still recommends additional architectural detailing and non-block materials to break up the rather large facades of concrete block. This building is in a highly visible location and staff finds that attractive design and materials are imperative. For these reasons staff recommends that the applicant submit further revisions for approval by the community design review board. Board member Olson asked which landscaping plan the board should review. Ms. Finwall said the board should review the landscaping plan in the 8Y:. X 11 plans date- stamped April 11, 2005. Chairperson Longrie asked the applicant to address the board. Brian Teeters, Ryan Companies, 50 South Tenth St., Suite 300, Minneapolis, addressed the board. Mr. Teeters gave revised building elevations to city staff and to each of the board members during the May 24, 2005, CDRB meeting. He displayed a color and materials sample board to refer to. Board member Olson asked if the lower level windows were decorative or functional? Mr. Teeters said the windows would be glass block and would allow natural light in but would not be functional windows. Board member Shankar asked if there were two colors of EIFS material? Community Design Review Board Minutes 5-24-2005 3 Mr. Teeters said there is one color of EIFS, unfortunately the colored maps don't represent the coloring correctly and he apologized for that. The EIFS material is the same color as the existing EIFS product on the Lexus of Maplewood building. Board member Ledvina said his concern is because of the grading the roof of the building will be visible. He is concerned about the visibility of the rooftop units from the street. Mr. Teeters said they are going to try to minimize the equipment on the rooftop and screen it with the existing parapet and would be working with city staff to make sure that is done properly. Board member Ledvina said he is also concerned about stacks and vents being visible on the rooftop as well. Mr. Teeters said they would try to screen anything visible on the rooftop as much as possible. Board member Ledvina asked if it would be possible to manifold those together into one? Mr. Teeters said depending on the location it may be possible but there is no guarantee. Board member Ledvina said the ABRA auto body building on Rice Street sits lower than the street, similar to this building, and the rooftop units and venting are visible and unsightly. Mr. Teeters said because that is an auto body painting facility there are many unsightly vents and piping on the rooftop that is necessary for that type of business. Lexus will not be painting cars in this facility. Chairperson Longrie asked if they had any building material samples to show the board? Mr. Teeters said no but they did bring a color sample board. He said many of the building exterior features would be the same as the current Lexus building that the board approved. Chairperson Longrie said she is trying to get a feel for what the building exterior would look like and what the actual colors would be. Mr. Teeters said Lexus has required building standards that they are following. Board member Olson asked if Lexus would have signs on both sides of the building? Mr. Teeters said yes if they can remain under the allowable sign square footage. They are not sure of the exact location of the signs but they could work with city staff on that. Board member Ledvina asked if they proposed a pylon or freestanding sign in addition to the wall signs? Mr. Teeters said not for this project. Board member Ledvina asked if it would be confusing to the Lexus customers having two buildings so close to each other and not knowing which building to go for service? Community Design Review Board Minutes 5-24-2005 4 Mr. Teeters said the signage would direct customers to the existing Lexus building. There would be no customer parking at the new facility. Board member Ledvina asked if there was even a need to have signage on the proposed Lexus building? Mr. Teeters said they want sign age on the Lexus building and it's also good advertising. Robert Katz, General Manager, Lexus of Maplewood, addressed the board. Regarding signage, this is not a public facility for customers to visit the building. There would be parts brought to this site and it's possible somebody would go to the building to pick up a part. Otherwise, the parts and vehicles are to go to the existing Lexus building and the employees would drive the vehicles and parts to the new site. Board member Shankar asked if the new building would be more of a vehicle maintenance building? Mr. Teeters said the building will serve basically as a service operation. Board member Shankar asked what the hours of operation would be? Mr. Katz said their current service hours are until 9:00 p.m. and he doesn't anticipate the hours changing at the new facility. Board member Shankar asked if there would be administrative offices on the upper level and what time the lights would shut off? Mr. Katz said the upper level is for offices and those people typically leave about 5:00 p.m., the lower level windows would have light showing through the glass block windows. Board member Ledvina asked what type of materials would be used for the rooftop screening and how high the parapet wall would be? Mr. Teeters said they would use some type of metal material or similar building material for the four-foot high parapet wall. But they would make sure it looks attractive. Board member Shankar asked what color window frame they propose to use? Mr. Teeters said they would use an anodized aluminum frame? Board member Shankar asked if they would propose matching the window frames with the existing Lexus building? Mr. Teeters said more than likely they would match the window frames on the existing Lexus building. Board member Olson asked if the south elevation was the main entrance to the building? Community Design Review Board Minutes 5-24-2005 5 Mr. Teeters said the entrance to the building is on the east. Chairperson Longrie asked if they could discuss the landscape plan. Peter McEnery, Landscape Architect, Ryan Companies, 50 South Tenth St., Suite 300, Minneapolis, addressed the board. He said they are trying to enhance the building with landscaping to give it more of a residential feel and soften the edges of the building exterior. Chairperson Longrie said staff has recommended the need for additional landscaping and trees and she asked how they plan to address that recommendation? Mr. Teeters said they would work with staff regarding where they would like the additional landscaping on the site for the better of the community. Board member Shankar asked who would be using the parking lot? Mr. Katz said the parking lot would be used to park and store loaner vehicles that Lexus customers would use while their vehicle is being serviced. They would also use the parking lot for vehicle overflow from the main Lexus building and the employees would use the parking lot. There is very little customer parking since this is really not a public facility. Chairperson Longrie asked what outlot B was going to be used for in the future? Mr. Teeters said outlot B is owned by Sparkle Auto and is not part of the Lexus property. Board member Olson asked if expanding the parking stall size and the width of the drive aisles was going to affect their parking lot calculations? Mr. Teeters said that should not be an issue. Board member Shankar asked if there was a large enough radius for garbage trucks or service trucks to get in and out of the facility? Mr. Teeters said there is a large enough turning radius for the garbage trucks. At this time they don't plan to have transport trucks coming to this site, however, should that change in the future, they would ensure the parking lot would be able to handle the turning radius and space that is needed. Chairperson Longrie is concerned about the landscaping for the south elevation. She wondered how the landscaping would affect the parcel shown as future automotive use and how the city would ensure that the landscaping is enhanced because the parcel would be looking at the back of the building. Mr. Teeters said they are in control of the future automotive use parcel and they would make sure that the landscaping would look as aesthetically pleasing as possible for the surrounding area. Chairperson Longrie asked what guarantee the city has that the landscaping would take place? Community Design Review Board Minutes 5-24-2005 6 Mr. Teeters said the future tenant would have a say regarding what type of building they would like to put on that parcel but they would also have to come before the planning commission and community design review board just as they did to get this proposal approved. Chairperson Longrie asked how the city could go back and request additional landscaping in the future if parcels south of this development were developed? Mr. Teeters said there is not a lot of room between the two lots to plant additional landscaping but they could maximize the landscaping as much as possible along the south foundation. Chairperson Longrie asked if they wanted to discuss the lighting plan for the parking lot? Mr. Teeters said they are not at that point yet but they could work with city staff regarding the lighting standards for Maplewood to ensure they are using acceptable lighting. Mr. Katz said because this is close to residential they have planned to use a down cast light so the light does not cause light pollution into the residential areas. Mr. Teeters said one of the benefits of this site is that it is built lower into the ground so that residents across the street wouldn't have light overflow. Board member Olson asked if they were proposing to have a retaining wall along outlot B because of the grading on the site? Mr. Teeters said yes. Board member Olson asked what type of product they proposed to use? Mr. Teeters said it would be a keystone block similar to the earth tone color on the building. Chairperson Longrie said looking at the variety of trees it appears there are only four conifers in relation to the deciduous or ornamental trees. She asked if they planned on increasing one variety of trees over another type of tree? Mr. McEnery said when he creates a landscape plan he likes to mix different varieties of trees together in case a disease wipes out one species of tree, such as Dutch elm disease. Chairperson Longrie said she prefers a mixture of trees on the site. Board member Ledvina likes the changes that have been proposed by the applicant and he thinks the additional detail for the building elevations are a nice improvement. Board member Olson thinks the staff and the applicant have brought more interest to this structure and this is a nice improvement. Regarding the rooftop units, if the venting and rooftop equipment were the same color this would help screen the equipment as well. Community Design Review Board Minutes 5-24-2005 7 Board member Shankar said the applicant said the parapet wall is going to be four-feet high and he asked if it would be acceptable to recommend in the conditions that any vents that exceed the four-foot height of the parapet be set back 30 feet from the eastern fac;:ade of the building. Chairperson Longrie said she knows the applicant is going to get a site line study done. This will ensure the screening of the rooftop units from the street. Board member Shankar asked if the board should be concerned about the cars driving down Highway 61 and seeing the rooftop equipment or the residential homes looking at the rooftop equipment? Board member Ledvina believes the applicant can work with staff regarding the details for approval with screening the rooftop equipment. Chairperson Longrie likes the additional windows, the glass block windows on the lower level, the residential look of the building, and thinks the need for landscaping should be addressed on the south. Once the new development is done the city can't go back and ask the applicant to increase the landscaping. If the landscaping issue is addressed now then the board doesn't need to be concerned about how the vacant parcel will be affected by the landscaping. The retaining wall block bordering outlot B should match the color of the building and complement the building. When the lighting plan and parking lot revisions are complete she would like the applicant to come back before the CDRB for approval. Screening the rooftop equipment is very important whether it is from Highway 61 or from the residential area. Board member Ledvina moved to approve the plans date-stamped May 3, 2005, and the buildinq elevations submitted at the Mav 24. 2005. communitv desiqn review board meetinq for the Lexus Service Center south of Sparkle Auto on the Trout Land development property. Approval is subject to the following conditions: (changes made by the CDRB to the conditions are underlined if added and stricken if deleted.) 1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. 2. Comply with all requirements of the city engineer. 3. Before getting a building permit, the applicant shall: a. Dedicate a cross easement on or across this site for Sparkle Auto or provide an acceptable alternative across other properties. This cross easement, or any alternative, shall be subject to the city engineer's approval. b. Provide evidence that cross easements have been granted between all effected property owners for the shared access driveway to the County road D extension. c. Meet all requirements of the assistant city engineer's report dated May 6, 2005. d. Revise the site plan for staff approval providing: Community Design Review Board Minutes 5-24-2005 8 . A five-foot pavement setback from the south lot line. . A 20-foot parking lot setback from the northerly lot line where the site abuts residential property. . Customer and employee parking spaces that measure at least nine feet wide and drive aisles that measure at least 24 feet wide. These dimensions may be less for inventory parking, but drive aisles must be at least 20 feet wide. There must also be enough handicap-accessible parking spaces provided to meet ADA requirements for customers and employees. The number and placement of these spaces shall be determined by staff. . The location and design of a screening enclosure for trash and recyclable materials, unless such containers are to be kept inside. Trash enclosures must be compatible with the building in materials and design and must have a 100 percent opaque closeable gate. e. Revise the landscaping plan for staff approval providing for: . More plantings along the north lot line adjacent to the single dwelling property to the north. Code requires a six-foot-tall and 80 percent opaque screen here to buffer the parking lot from this neighbor. . Additional trees along the highway frontage for a tree spacing of 30 feet on center rather than the 50-foot spacing proposed. . Three additional trees along the County Road D frontage to create a fuller tree line. These trees are shown at 30 feet on center. A tighter planting row will help to buffer the site from the future town homes to the west. . The applicant shall work with staff to enhance the landscapinq located on the south side of the buildinq to ensure an attractive landscape desiqn for future developments located to the south of the site. f. Provide engineered plans for any retaining walls that exceed four feet in height. Any walls over four feet in height must also have a fence on top. g. Revise the architectural plans to show the window frames on the buildinq match the existinq window frames on the Lexus Automobile Dealership buildinq located across the hiqhwav (3000 Hiqhwav 61). In addition. the plans must show that all retaininq walls are desiqned and constructed of materials which are compatible to the buildinq materials. for appro'lal by the community design re'/ie'll boar-d, submittoE! May 24, 2005, ~l'GviE!iA!] for wiAE!e'l/G anE! aret-Jitestl,lr-al E!otailiR!] en the westerly elevation and the substitution or enhancement of the concrete block on the north, south and east elevations. h. Have a recorded plat so the subject lot is a legally buildable site. Community Design Review Board Minutes 5-24-2005 9 i. A cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for all required exterior improvements. The amount shall be 150 percent of the cost of the work. J. Submit detail plans for screeninq the rooftop mechanical units for staff approval. The plan must attempt to reduce neqative visual impacts caused bv the units to the residential property owners located to the west. This can be accomplished bv combininq the mechanical units or vents. installinq the units toward the center of the roof. etc. 4. Obtain the required permit from the Ramsey/Washington Metro Watershed District. 5. Comply with all requirements of the Maplewood Building Official and Fire Marshal. 6. Install lawn irrigation as required by code. 7. Comply with the city's lighting ordinance. 8. Install a stop sign at the driveway intersection at County Road D. 9. Construct the shared-access driveway with pavement and curbing. Escrow may be accepted in lieu of full completion in consideration of curb cuts that will be needed for the two southerly sites. 10. If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy if: . The city determines that the work is not essential to the public health, safety or welfare. . The above-required letter of credit or cash escrow is held by the City of Maplewood for all required exterior improvements. The owner or contractor shall complete any unfinished exterior improvements by June 1 if occupancy of the building is in the fall or winter, or within six weeks of occupancy of the building if occupancy is in the spring or summer. 11. All work shall follow the approved plans and these conditions. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 12. The liqhtinq plan is not included in this approval. A new liqhtinq plan must be submitted for review bv the communitv desiqn review board for approval. The plan must ensure no neqative liqhtinq impacts to the residential properties located to the west bv such means as reducinq the liqht pole heiqhts. reducinq the number of liqhts. usinq a downcast liqht fixture. etc. Chairperson Longrie added a friendly amendment that the parking lot revisions and the lighting plan come back to the CDRB for approval. Board member Ledvina recommended that be a separate recommendation. Community Design Review Board Minutes 5-24-2005 10 Ms. Finwall said Mr. Teeters submitted a lighting plan which was included in the large maps on page C5 which reflects 5 freestanding lights and 5 wallpack lights. However, this plan was not clearly addressed in the staff report. Mr. Teeters said they have not determined the final plan yet and he asked if they could work with city staff on the final plan. Ms. Finwall said the freestanding lights are 25 feet high with a base of three feet, making the lights 28-feet high overall. City code allows the height of a freestanding light to be 25-feet high, so the light pole height needs to be reduced. Staff feels confident that the applicant could work with city staff to finalize the plan. Chairperson Longrie said the board wants the applicant to come back to have the parking lot and lighting plan revisions reviewed for approval. Board member Shankar recommended the applicant match the lighting for this proposed location with the lighting at the current Lexus building. He would be agreeable to the applicant working with city staff on the approval of the lighting plan. Board member Ledvina and board member Olson agreed that the lighting plan could be worked out with city staff but since the parking lot revisions have to come back before the board they are okay with that decision. Board member Olson seconded Ayes - Ledvina, Longrie, Olson, Shankar The motion passed. This item goes to the city council on June 13, 2005. VII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS No visitors present. VIII. BOARD PRESENTATIONS a. Ms. Finwall reported on the May 9, 2005, city council meeting that the 3M Bldg 278 LDl/Customer Service building (2350 Minnehaha Avenue E) was approved by the city council with the additional condition that no deliveries be made to the building between the hours of 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. to protect the residential properties on Minnehaha Avenue. Ms. Finwall said Home Depot has been expanding their outdoor storage area without city approval so the city was revising the conditional use permit to allow these expansions. The city council had some concerns about the fencing Home Depot placed around the outdoor storage area. The city council approved the CUP revision on the condition that the fence design goes before the CDRB. Community Design Review Board Minutes 5-24-2005 11 b. CDRB Rules of Procedure Board member Ledvina requested that the board discuss the Rules of Procedure when a board member abstains from voting because of a conflict of interest. Ms. Finwall said the Rules of Procedure for the CDRB refer to Roberts Rules of Order in regard to conflict of interest. A board member should indicate their conflict to the chairperson prior to debate indicating the board member would not be voting and then abstain from the voting process. IX. STAFF PRESENTATIONS a. Sign Code Revisions Ms. Finwall said staff is working on phase 3 of the sign code revisions. Staff will be discussing BC, BC(M), SC, M-1, and M-2 District sign code revisions at tonight's meeting. Andrew Gitzlaff, planning intern, is here to report on the third phase of the sign code revisions. Signs in BC, BC(M), and SC Districts The current code specifies sign restrictions based on the unique needs and issues in each zoning district. Signage in the SC (shopping center), BC(M) (business commercial modified), and BC (business commercial) must meet separate regulations from other commercial districts. The sign code is the least restrictive for these districts because of the importance of signage to the success of these high-intense commercial districts. Wall Siqns Under the current code, one wall sign is allowed for each street upon which a building has frontage. The total copy area of the wall sign can cover up to 20 percent of the gross wall surface to which the sign is attached. Staff finds the current restriction allows businesses excessively large signs, which may not be compatible with surrounding uses. Staff suggests the maximum square footage for wall signs could be based on the square footage of the principle structure in addition to an overall coverage restriction. The coverage are could be reduced from 20 to 10 percent of the fayade, depending on the square footage of the building. Chairperson Longrie said a business on a corner lot has paid a premium price to be on the corner lot and that is an advantage. Saying that signage on two streets is excessive and gives the business owner an advantage is unfair to judge. She believes it would be more appropriate to stick with aesthetics of the signage rather than size and number of signs. Community Design Review Board Minutes 5-24-2005 12 Canopv Siqns A canopy sign is a sign that is affixed to the surface of a canopy. Under the current code, canopy signs are grouped as wall signs and are allowed on canopies as part of a businesses' total allotted area for wall signs. Wall signs can encompass 20 percent of the gross wall area to which the sign is attached. Board member Olson said she likes the rules for canopy signs. At first she thought of canopy signs as canvas awning signs with the company name on the canvas awning. She doesn't like that type of signage because that doesn't hold up well and tends to deteriorate faster. Her preference is to not allow canvas canopy signs and the signage should be affixed to the wall rather than to an awning. Chairperson Longrie said sometimes, because of the way a store front faces, the canvas awning is important because it provides a shield from the sun. If there is no other place for the store name to go other than on the awning that is important as well. As part of getting the permit there should be some regulations or verification on the sign permit that specifies the awning will be maintained or replaced. Freestandinq Siqns Under the current code, one freestanding sign is allowed for each street that the building has frontage in the SC, BC(M), and BC districts. Two freestanding signs are permitted if located on two different streets and are separated by more than one hundred feet. If a business has two freestanding signs the square footage of both signs cannot exceed 150 percent of the total allowable square footage. Staff is recommending that the size and height of freestanding signs in these districts be based on the type of street the business has frontage. The board thought this was a good proposal. Temporarv Siqns Under the current code, temporary sign restrictions are the same for every district. Staff suggests that the revised sign code should adjust some temporary sign ordinance based on the unique needs and issues in each district. Businesses in the BC, BC(M), and SC districts have the greatest need to use temporary signage for advertisement purposes. Therefore, the total maximum allowable square footage for temporary signs in these districts should be greater than in the less intensive commercial districts. Signs in M-1 and M-2 Districts Under the current code, signs in the M-1 (light manufacturing) and the M-2 (heavy manufacturing) districts must meet separate regulations from other commercial districts. The intended use in the district is for any commercial activity allowed in the BC district and for manufacturing, warehousing, mining and laboratory research. Community Design Review Board Minutes 5-24-2005 13 Freestandinq and Wall Siqns Freestanding signs and wall signs in the M-1 and M-2 districts have the same dimension, placement, and height restrictions as in the SC, BC(M), and BC districts, except for the exception for auto dealerships. Staff suggests the previous changes proposed for the SC, BC(M), and BC districts should also be applicable to the M-1 and M-2 districts, including auto dealerships, due to the fact that the signage needs are similar between the two groups of districts because of the commercial nature of the intended uses. The board discussed freestanding signs for auto dealers and felt the exemption of this use to allow one freestanding sign per dealer, plus one freestanding sign per auto vehicle make was acceptable. Temporarv Siqns The temporary signage needs and issues in the M-1 and M-2 districts are similar to the BC, BC(M), and SC districts. Staff suggests that the proposed changes to the maximum allowable size of window signs, temporary portable signs, and banners should also apply to the M-1 and M-2 districts. b. Discussion of CDRB representation at City Council meetings. Ms. Finwall said city staff asks for CDRB representation at each of the city council meetings in addition to the board's attendance twice a month for the CDRB meetings. City council meetings can sometimes get long and waiting to give a three minute report can be frustrating after sitting through a lengthy meeting. Therefore, staff is asking board members for their input regarding attending the city council meetings. Chairperson Longrie thinks it's important for board members to attend the city council meetings because it gives board members the opportunity to be visible in the community and to discuss concerns the board had on specific applications and why the CDRB voted the way they did. Board member Shankar said his experience at the city council meetings has been that Melinda Coleman has given a brief report and has summed up what needed to be said. Therefore, there has been nothing additional for him to add. Sometimes after sitting through the whole meeting the Mayor doesn't call on the board member to come forward anyway. Chairperson Longrie said there have been times the Mayor has called for a board member to give a report on the item and the person whose turn it was to be the CDRB representative did not show up at the meeting. When people ask why there isn't a board representative present to give the report that doesn't look good for the CDRB either. Staff stated it's easier for some board members to attend the city council meetings more than it is for others. It would be helpful if the board members that can attend volunteer more frequently. Community Design Review Board Minutes 5-24-2005 14 The consensus was to evaluate the need for CDRB representation at city council meetings on a case by case basis. The board will review the items on the agenda to see if there are issues that need to be brought to the attention of the city council, otherwise staff will report on the item to the city council. c. CDRB Representative at the June 13, 2005 City Council meeting. Board member Olson will represent the CDRB at the June 13, 2005, city council meeting. The only item to discuss was the Lexus Auto Service Center, Northwest corner of County Road D and Highway 61. X. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m.