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.