Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/28/2006 AGENDA CITY OF MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD Tuesday, March 28, 2006 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: March 1, 2006 5. Unfinished Business: None Scheduled 6. Design Review: a. Second Harvest Heartland Freezer Addition - 1140 Gervais Avenue b. Carpet Court Concept Review - 1685 Arcade Street c. Gladstone Redevelopment Concept Plan (Joint Presentation for the Community Design Review Board and Housing and Redevelopment Authority at 7 p.m.) 7. Visitor Presentations: 8. Board Presentations: a. March 13, 2006, City Council Meeting - Items Discussed Include CDRB Annual Report b. March 27, 2006. City Council Meeting - Items Discussed Include Menards 9. Staff Presentations: a. Member Representation at the April 1 O. 2006. City Council Meetings - No Design Review Items Scheduled 10. Adjourn MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD 1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, MARCH 28, 2006 I. CALL TO ORDER Acting Chairperson Ledvina called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Board member John Hinzman Vice-Chairperson Matt Ledvina Chairperson Linda Olson Board member Ananth Shankar Board member Joel Schurke Present Present Absent Present Present Staff Present: Shann Finwall, Planner Staff Absent: Lisa Kroll, Recording Secretary III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Board member Schurke moved to approve the agenda. Board member Hinzman seconded. Ayes - Hinzman, Ledvina, Schurke, Shankar The motion passed. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of the CDRB minutes for March 1, 2006. Board member Schurke had a correction on page 2, in the last paragraph, second line changing the persons name Joel to Rob. Board member Schurke moved approval of the minutes of March 1, 2006, as amended. Board member Shankar seconded. Ayes --- Ledvina, Olson, Shankar Schurke Abstentions - Hinzman The motion passed. V. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. Community Design Review Board Minutes 3-28-2006 2 VI. DESIGN REVIEW a. Second Harvest Heartland Freezer Addition - 1140 Gervais Avenue Ms. Finwall said Second Harvest Heartland, is proposing to build a 7,268-square-foot freezer addition onto the north side of the warehouse building at 1140 Gervais Avenue. According to the applicant's letter, Second Harvest Heartland is Minnesota's largest non-profit hunger-relief organization and has been at their present location since 1977. Second Harvest Heartland needs this additional freezer space to serve their growing needs. The proposed building addition would have an exterior of steel-faced urethane wall panels. The applicant is requesting approval of site and building-design plans. The applicant's narrative, however, also discusses a request for a conditional use permit (CUP) revision. During staff's review, staff found that this project does not need a CUP revision. When the building was built in 1976, code required a CUP for warehouses. Since then, the city council revised the code to make warehousing a permitted use in M1 (light manufacturing) zoning districts. This use is now a "permitted" use and the CUP is no longer in effect. The existing building has an exterior of flat concrete block with ribbed-block accents. The flat block is painted cream color and the accents are rust colored. The proposed freezer addition would have vertical-ribbed metal panels. Although the addition would be metal, its exterior would not be of a lesser quality than the concrete block of the existing building. The color of the proposed addition is not given, but staff recommends that it be the same color, or a compatible color, as the existing building. The applicant should also enhance the exterior of the addition with an accent stripe or similar detailing to help break up the large exterior fa<;:ade. Detailing similar to that on the existing building should be considered. Acting Chairperson Ledvina asked if the height of the existing building would match the proposed addition? Ms. Finwall said she would refer that question to the applicant. Acting Chairperson Ledvina asked if this property was in the shoreland district? Ms. Finwall said no it is not. Board member Schurke asked if there were any inquiries or comments made to the city from the bordering property owners? Ms. Finwall said there were no inquiries or comments received. Board member Shankar said the exterior elevation shows a black shape on the plans and he assumed that represented the position of the existing building. Ms. Finwall said that is correct. Board member Shankar said in that case shouldn't the east elevation be the west elevation? Community Design Review Board Minutes 3-28-2006 3 Ms. Finwall said the plan is correct as submitted. Acting Chairperson Ledvina asked the applicant to address the board. Sarah Schield, Planner II, Landform, 650 Butler North Building, 510 First Avenue North, Minneapolis, representing Second Harvest Heartland, addressed the board. She said she brought color elevations of the existing building as well as a color sample which she gave to staff. She also had a revised parking plan to give to staff. She said regarding the comments that were addressed earlier she brought a color sample that she hopes will assist the board relating the color they would like to implement to the existing building exterior. It was suggested that the property owner extend the existing stripe to break up that fa(fade which Second Harvest is willing to do. She said they had an opportunity to speak with Tom Ekstrand from the Planning department as well as Erin Laberee from the Engineering department during an earlier meeting. There are really no issues concerning the recommendations. Ms. Scheid said she told Erin Laberee that they would install rainwater gardens as the best management practice and informed her that there is less impervious surface on the site with the removal of part of the parking lot. The proposed addition would be located in what is currently a paved parking lot area and drive aisle with the addition, removal of the pavement, and installation of a landscape/sod area, there is approximately 1,200 square feet of pervious surface that will be included. The parking plan given to staff is revised and shows 12 parallel parking spaces on the south side of the property that are 9' X 24' and there is room for additional parking spaces if needed. This addition is freezer space and no additional employees will be added to this site so they do not foresee any increased parking at this location but the parking spaces will be provided if they are needed to meet city code requirements. Acting Chairperson Ledvina asked if the addition and the existing building would be the same height? Ms. Schield said yes and the rooftop equipment will be painted to match as required by code. Acting Chairperson Ledvina asked if the area of parking that has been added is currently in a paved area? Ms. Schield said yes. Board member Shankar said the new metal panel has ribbing on it and he asked if the spacing of those ribs is the same as the spacing on the existing concrete block wall? Jon Livingston, Vice President of Second Harvest, 1140 Gervais Avenue, Maplewood, said he wasn't sure if the spacing was the same. Board member Shankar said the existing block wall casts shadows. He asked if the metal panels will cast a similar shadow cast as the block wall? Ms. Schield said she can't say for sure but they would do their best to match the material as closely as possible. Board member Shankar said if the metal ribbing doesn't match then the color seems different, even if it really matches. Community Design Review Board Minutes 3-28-2006 4 Ms. Schield said that's a great point and they would take a look at that while looking at the colors. Acting Chairperson Ledvina asked if Second Harvest considered constructing this addition with concrete block to match the rest of the building? Mr. Livingston said as a nonprofit company the budget is a large concern. Constructing a block wall on the outside and having the internal walls a material needed for a freezer and a cooler puts them at $1 million dollars which is a large budget concern for them. With the functionality of the metal product for an exterior wall it seemed redundant to add concrete block. Acting Chairperson Ledvina said you mentioned this would cost about $1 million dollars, he asked what the cost would be for the material you propose to use? Mr. Livingston said the cost of the product would be between $600,000 and $700,000 verses using the concrete block at $1 million dollars. Acting Chairperson said there will be quite a lot of windows lost on that elevation and he is concerned about that. He asked if there was anything else they could do to dress the building up because he is concerned about the appearance of the addition for the neighbors to the north. Mr. Livingston said the windows that would be lost on that side are non-functional windows. They have the freezer wall on the inside. To dress up the building, they would use the addition of the stripe and are considering additional signage to soften the look. Acting Chairperson Ledvina asked if there would be an opportunity to put any windows in the upper area of the addition to match what is there? Mr. Livingston said they would not be able to cut through that type of material. It would lose its functionality. Acting Chairperson Ledvina asked if the interior cooler goes the complete elevation to the roof of the addition? Mr. Livingston said the ceiling height is 24 feet and the existing freezer and cooler run about 21 to 22 feet in height. Board member Schurke asked if the addition was in essence a box that you have freezer type equipment? Does it function as a walk-in type freezer? Mr. Livingston said the addition will be self supportive, self standing, with the freezer inside and they will come from the inside to maintain the product and everything else they stock in the freezer. Board member Shankar said he is not quite clear where the stripe would be and what the stripe is for. Community Design Review Board Minutes 3-28-2006 5 Acting Chairperson Ledvina said the stripe would be to match the darker color on the top of the building. Board member Hinzman said it's not really a stripe; it's more of a color detail. Board member Schurke said regarding Acting Chair Ledvina's question regarding windows, when he read the staff report, he understood that this was similar to a cooler you moved the equipment in and the whole thing was self contained and the R value walls needed to be at such a level that you would have the freezer goods inside it. But now he understands there are large plug in freezers that are located inside this space so it's more or less a warehouse type interior. Mr. Livingston said yes. Board member Schurke asked if that was the case why would they not be able to insert vertical windows from floor to ceiling to break that expanse up? Mr. Livingston said it's an insulated material and once you cut into the metal you compromise the insulation and the R value. Board member Schurke said you must have sections of panels, it cannot be continuous panels. He asked why you couldn't frame a vertical window in to add light. Mr. Livingston said he would not be the right person to answer that question. Board member Schurke said from a design standpoint you hear the CDRB members are interested in seeing more detail added to the building, other than just a stripe of color on the building. There must be other ways to break up the building and add interest. Ms. Schield said the cost is another factor. Board member Schurke said he would imagine windows would help with the operating cost. Imagine operating in that space without any lights on. Currently this would be a dark box and if you added windows you could have natural daylight which would not only add visual interest, but it would add daylight as well. Acting Chairperson Ledvina asked staff if any of these options were explored with the applicant in terms of areas of interest added to the building? He noticed that Ms. Finwall was not the author of this staff report. Ms. Finwall said when she reviewed the staff report she was the one who recommend the painted stripe of color and assumed any other elements were not discussed with the applicant. Board member Shankar said he could understand the function of the space would not allow them to have windows there. He would be comfortable if the striping was horizontal at the top and extended to the floor which may give the appearance of vertical windows rather than putting actual windows in. Community Design Review Board Minutes 3-28-2006 6 Board member Hinzman said another idea would be to put some type of a medallion element in the same location as the windows to break it up. Acting Chairperson Ledvina said he would be agreeable with that. He is disappointed there are existing windows on that elevation which will be lost due to this proposal. He also said it would have been nice to be able to see a larger section of that panel. Ms. Finwall said if the CDRB decides to table this item it would come back to the CDRB on April 11, 2006. Acting Chairperson Ledvina said he is not comfortable with this proposal at all. He understands there are budgetary constraints, but he thinks there are a lot of different things that could be done to detail the building that are inexpensive and would help break up the expansive wall. This wall is for 150 feet along Gervais Avenue. He asked what the schedule was for the project and if the CDRB could ask them to come back with more detail. Ms. Schield said staff had a pre-application meeting with Tom Ekstrand in planning and unfortunately at no time were any of these issues addressed. She said they reviewed the city ordinances and nothing the CDRB has brought up was addressed in the code ordinances. She said they are on a tight timeframe. In talking with Tom Ekstrand, he explained there is a possibility that if the CDRB was not comfortable with some of those issues could be worked out at a staff level. She asked if the CDRB would allow that to happen. She is not sure that the materials that they are proposing to use or adding windows is enough of a reason to delay this process. She said they are definitely willing to look at painting a portion of the wall expanse along Gervais Avenue. Acting Chairperson Ledvina asked if they needed an action tonight? Ms. Schield said they would prefer an action this evening. However, if the CDRB is looking to deny this proposal based on the issues that have been raised, then by all means they would prefer to table this rather then have it denied. Board member Hinzman asked what type of requests on behalf of the client could you get to add some features to the building fa(fade to break things up? Mr. Livingston said this is a freezer and personally he has not seen windows in a freezer. He said they are open to suggestions as far as breaking things up and he is sure the engineers and designers would be able to come up with something creative to satisfy the CDRB's concerns as well as the needs and functionality of the freezer unit. He is sure we can come to terms with staff to decide what needs to be done. He said they will have racking in the freezer. They will be able to bring their product into the docking area, go through the warehouse, into the freezer, and locate the product on the racks and pull things out as needed. Board member Schurke said he didn't understand there would be racking located inside the freezer. He asked what temperature the freezer would be? Mr. Livingston said it would be kept at -10 degrees. Board member Schurke asked if they knew what the R value would be? Community Design Review Board Minutes 3-28-2006 7 Mr. Livingston said he didn't have that information. Acting Chairperson Ledvina said he didn't understand the function of the freezer either. Board member Shankar said he is comfortable moving forward with the proposal with some additional conditions. Board member Schurke said he would be comfortable with that as well, but encouraged the applicant to be creative with their graphics on the building. Board member Hinzman agreed with those comments. Board member Hinzman moved to approve the plans date-stamped February 28, 2006, for the Second Harvest Heartland Freezer Addition at 1140 Gervais Avenue. Approval is subject to the developer complying with the following conditions: (changes to staff conditions by the board are underlined if added and stricken if deleted.) 1. All requirements of the fire marshal and building official must be met. 2. The following requirements of the assistant city engineer must be met: a. An accumulation of one inch of runoff from the parking lot and the roof of the freezer addition must be captured in an infiltration basin, infiltration trench or some other BMP (best management practice). b. The property owner must sign a maintenance agreement with the city assuring the annual maintenance of the BMP. 3. The applicant shall submit a revised site plan providing for the relocation of the 12 parking spaces that are shown in the drive aisle south of the building. These 12 spaces shall be placed in accordance with city code requirements. 4. The property owner shall patch the entire parking lot and stripe it in accordance with the approved site plan. 5. The applicant shall submit a landscaping plan for the widened green area north of the proposed addition. This area shall be planted with at least eight trees to replace the eight trees removed by the building-addition project. New deciduous trees shall be at a minimum 2% inches in caliper, balled and burlapped. Evergreens must be at least six feet tall. The new green area north of the addition must be sod. 6. The applicant shall submit revised elevations showino the followino; a. The freezer addition must match or be compatible with the color of the main building. b. TIle applioant shall also pr-o'iido a A painted acoent on the addition similar to that on the existing building. Community Design Review Board Minutes 3-28-2006 8 c. Desion elements located on the exterior of the addition to help break UP the laroe expansive walls such as medallions, false windows, etc. 7. Buildino samples must be submitted to staff for approval. 8. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project by that time. 9. The applioant shall provide the city with cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for the exterior landscaping and site improvements prior to getting a building permit for the development. Staff shall determine the dollar amount of the escrow. 10. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. Board member Schurke seconded. Ayes - Hinzman, Schurke, Shankar Nay - Ledvina The motion passed. Acting Chairperson Ledvina said he voted nay because he felt the design of the addition was a step backward in the overall design of the building. b. Carpet Court Concept Review -1685 Arcade Street Ms. Finwall said Gary Blair is proposing to develop a 7,848-square-foot retail/warehouse carpet store on a vacant lot located on the northwest corner of Larpenteur Avenue and Highway 61. Mr. Blair will relocate his existing Carpet Court store in St. Paul to this new location. The building will consist of approximately 3,966 square feet of retail space and 3,882 square feet of warehouse/storage space. He is proposing building with steel horizontal siding, stucco wall finishes, stone wainscot, and a metal roof. In October 2005, Mr. Blair submitted a development proposal for a 7,653-square-foot building for his carpet store and warehouse. During review of the project, the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) indicated that they were interested in turning back the frontage road to the city. In February 2006, MnDOT authorized the turn-back of the frontage road to the city. In March 2006, Mr. Blair submitted a new development proposal for the property based on the turn-back and ultimate vacation of the frontage road. The new proposal includes a 7,848- square-foot building for his carpet store and warehouse. Acting Chairperson Ledvina asked if this was a former gas station? Ms. Finwall said yes. Community Design Review Board Minutes 3-28-2006 9 Board member Shankar said he didn't understand the statement on page 4, number 4, which states city staff has suggested several altematives to accomplish reducing the number and location of driveways onto Larpenteur Avenue including shifting the building, using one driveway for both the parking lot and loading dock, or allowing for a temporary driveway to the north until the future cul-de-sac road is constructed. Ms. Finwall said the city was working with Mr. Blair to shift the building further to the north allowing for parking to the south of the building, towards Larpenteur Avenue. This alternative which city staff said they could then utilize one driveway. The applicant could address that issue further. Board member Hinzman said he would prefer a single entrance off of Larpenteur Avenue. That stretch of Larpenteur Avenue doesn't have that much traffic but if there is a way the building could be turned or reconfigured in a way that one driveway entrance could be used, that would be his preference. He said it seems unusual to have a steel building in this location. Most of the surrounding buildings are brick construction and since this is such a prominent location and a busy street, he is skeptical about that material. If this was more of an industrial use he would be more inclined to see steel used on this building in this location. Acting Chairperson Ledvina asked the applicant to address the board. Gary Blair, owner of Carpet Court, 1685 Arcade Street, Maplewood, addressed the board. He introduced his contractor, Mark Young of Wick Buildings. He passed out building elevations of things they have worked on for the board to see. The concept of using a steel building is not very attractive and is not what they want either. He said they are proposing to use stucco on the outside of the building facing Highway 61 and Larpenteur Avenue. They are thinking of running the steel horizontally, rather than vertically. On the back portion of the building they added windows to make the appearance more attractive. He also presented staff some photos of buildings that had been constructed. He said they would like to use burgundy for the trim with beige tones for the main body part. The stucco wall finish can be just about any color you choose. They would use a metal roof. Board member Shankar said he would recommend using only two materials, stucco and metal. Board member Schurke asked if they have a registered architect working on this project? Mr. Blair said yes. Board member Schurke said just for the record he didn't see the other elevations on the handout the applicant provided showing the other sides of the building. Mr. Blair said they didn't have time to get those put together. The architect takes a few weeks to get that done. By the time they meet again those will be put together. They are still trying to put together a plan that will work and this concept has already cost several thousand dollars. Regarding the turning of the building, they have tried several different ways to do that. He handed another set of drawings out to the board. With these scenarios the impervious surface increased due to the width needed for the driveway. Community Design Review Board Minutes 3-28-2006 10 Board member Schurke asked if he understood correctly that there would not be any windows on the west fa(fade? Mr. Blair said correct. Board member Shankar said the height of the wainscot seems out of proportion with the height of the stucco. He said he would urge the applicant to increase the height of the wainscot so it is more in proportion to the stucco height. Mr. Young said that's not a problem, sometimes it is 30 inches high and sometimes it is 48 inches high. Board member Hinzman said he would agree the upper elevations of this building above the wainscoting seem sparce and there is not a lot of difference in materials across the elevations. With some of the examples of metal buildings that were shown earlier there were other things that were done to give interest to the building such as dormers that make it look less like a box and those would be the type of things he would look for when the site plan comes back to the CDRB. Mr. Blair said they are hoping that the way the rooflines come out it would have a lot of curb appeal. They would also be using a stone wainscot material on the building. Board member Hinzman said the stone wainscot on the bottom is nice but it's such a small portion of the building. Even when you get to the second story there is not much on the upper elevations to differentiate the materials. Mr. Blair asked what the board would recommend. Mr. Young said there are things you can do with the stucco such as putting borders up in contrasting colors of stucco that would break up the lines on those taller buildings. Board member Schurke said he couldn't find any record of who the architect is on the plans. He asked who the architect is that is working on this plan? Mr. Young said Wick Buildings have their own architects. Board member Schurke said he is not impressed by the design of the building. He said you are across the street from Gustavus Adolphus Church which is probably one of the finest designs along Arcade Street. This area is the gateway to the City of Maplewood. He said it's frustrating to see a building of this quality proposed to be built in this location. His preference would be to revisit this proposal entirely and see a nicer, more creative building proposal that adds value to one of the gateways to Maplewood. He said this is a premier site overlooking the Phalen Park system and the lake. This is a great piece of property but he truly feels this building is inappropriate for this location. Community Design Review Board Minutes 3-28-2006 11 Mr. Blair said he appreciates the comments. The fact that he has been working on this proposal for four or five years now, and the staff would concur, that as choice as this property might be, it is also one of the worst properties to develop because of the shoreline district, the two streets, the surrounding residential properties and the service road. Mr. Blair said if you are suggesting another building design, he would be happy to hear about it. This proposal looks very attractive compared to what they had come up with before. The photos shown of other buildings are beautiful. Don't be misled by the steel siding because it is not constructed the same as other steel buildings. Board member Hinzman said the buildings in the pictures had gables, different rooflines, and different movements to the building that add more interest. Board member Schurke said it's not necessarily the CDRB's job to design the building for him. The constraints of this particular parcel are separate as opposed to looking at the whole triangular piece of land bounded by Larpenteur Avenue, Highway 61 and Parkway. You are setting a precedent for what would likely be developed on the rest of the triangle. He said he can empathize with the things Mr. Blair has had to face prior to this but the fact is you are asking for variances to allow development on this parcel. From a design standpoint this building doesn't fit this parcel in his opinion. Mr. Blair asked if Mr. Schurke is proposing that he should be developing the whole triangular piece of property? Board member Schurke said no, he is telling Mr. Blair the design of this building and the quality of this building proposal do not fit with what he thinks should be built at this location. Board member Hinzman said we don't have modified steel buildings with little architectural features on them in this area. The wainscoting is nice, the stucco is okay, and looks better than the metal panels would but there is not a lot of value added to this building in his opinion. Mr. Blair said he would like to know what to do. Mr. Young said they can take the stone all the way up to the eaves. The compliment of the stucco verses the stone was for cost reasons. It costs about $8 per square foot to use stucco compared to the $16 per square foot to use stone. We may be willing to take it all the way up to the fa(fade. It is not a steel frame building; it is a wood frame building on a concrete foundation, so it is typical commercial construction in the twin cities. He said if this area was zoned business commercial (BC) this type of a building would be the most attractive building you could build. Mr. Blair said most of your warehouse buildings like Menards are a big square box with little appeal. They feel their building has more pizzazz then just a big square box like a Home Depot or Menards. If you disagree with that comment that's fine, but then you need to say what you want to see built. He said he has tried to get a building approved over here for the past five years and during this process he has already spent about $50,000 for drawings and has had more than one architect work on this project. Community Design Review Board Minutes 3-28-2006 12 Board member Hinzman said there is an office building under construction on Highway 61 called the Maple Leaf Ridge Business Center. Granted it is an office building we recently granted approval of. Mr. Blair should look to that building design for guidance. Mr. Blair asked about Forest Products on a corner lot off of Highway 61, it fills the whole lot and is within the shoreline, he asked if something like that appeals to the CDRB? Board member Hinzman said he can't picture the building right now in his mind. Mr. Blair said he would appreciate any help from the city regarding the design of the building. It was also mentioned to him that nobody else has approached the city in the last 20 to 30 years to propose to build anything on that lot. He is the first and only person in the last five years. Ms. Finwall said she has noted all of the CDRB's comments on the Carpet Court concept plan for Mr. Blair. Mr. Blair will be drafting some more formal plans and the CDRB will be seeing him in the next month or so. c. Gladstone Redevelopment Concept Plan (Joint Presentation for the Community Design Review Board and Housing and Redevelopment Authority) (7:00 - 8:35 p.m.) Chuck Ahl, Public Works Director, gave the Gladstone Redevelopment Concept Plan presentation to both the CDRB and HRA. The CDRB and HRA asked questions regarding the two concept plans. The HRA left the city council chambers at approximately 8:35 p.m. to continue their meeting in the Maplewood Room. The board then agreed that they would compile a board recommendation for the Gladstone Redevelopment Plan at their next CDRB meeting, April 11, 2006, when the chair, Linda Olson, would also be present and could participate in the recommendation. The final recommendation shall be given to staff ahead of time and then presented by each board or commission at the city council meeting on Tuesdav. ADril18. 2006 at 7:00 D.m. VII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS No visitors present. VIII. BOARD PRESENTATIONS a. March 13,2006, city council meeting - items discussed include the CDRB Annual Report for 2005. Ms. Finwall said the city council passed the CDRB Annual Report for 2005 and the city council thanked the CDRB for their efforts throughout the year. b. March 27, 2006, city council meeting - items discussed include Menard's - 2280 Maplewood Drive. Board member Schurke updated the board on the Menard's garden center proposal. The city council approved the project with all of the board's recommended conditions plus a condition to install a rainwater garden. Community Design Review Board Minutes 3-28-2006 13 IX. STAFF PRESENTATIONS a. No CDRB member representation is necessary at the April 10, 2006, city council meeting, because there are no CDRB items to discuss. X. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:47 p.m.