Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/19/2000II. III, IV. Vo MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN AND REVIEW BOARD 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 19, 2000 CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Ledvina called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Matt Ledvina Present Ananth Shankar Present Tim Johnson Absent Jan LaCasse Absent Craig Jorgenson Present Staff Present: Recording Secretary: APPROVAL OF AGENDA Tom Ekstrand, Associate Planner Lori Hansen Board member Shankar moved approval of the agenda, as submitted. Board member Jorgenson seconded. Ayes -All The motion passed. APPROVAL OF MINUTES August 22, 2000. Board member Shankar moved approval of the minutes of August 22, 2000. Board member Jorgenson seconded the motion. Ayes - All The motion passed. UNFINISHED BUSINESS There was no unfinished business. CDRB 09-19-00 -2- VI. DESIGN REVIEW A. Countryside Volkswagen Building Addition--John Schmelz, Owner Chuck Levine, Architect Mr. Ekstrand, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Mr. John Schmelz is proposing to add on to the north, front of the Countryside Volkswagen building. The building addition would have an exterior of E.I.F.S. (exterior insulation finish system), a stucco look material, and glass set in aluminum framing. There would be a new front entrance on the north side of the building, and the existing showroom door on the side of the showroom would be eliminated. The applicant would use the additional space for enlarging the showroom, and providing more office and parts department space. Mr. Schmelz is requesting the City Council approve an 11 foot front setback variance. The front wall of the proposed building addition, would be set back 22 feet from the front lot line. The front door vestibule however would extend another three feet toward the street. The code requires a 30 foot setback. They are also requesting a revision of their conditional use permit, for this proposed change, and also approval of architectural and site plans. Regarding the setback variance, there are two circumstances that effect this proposal that justify the reduced front set back. The first point is that the neighboring Embers is set back only 20 feet from their front lot line. This gives credence to reducing the setback to the VW building. Secondly, as the applicant stated in their narrative, the roadway in front curves so that the buildings along the South side of the frontage road cannot always be seen in alignment. With these considerations in mind, the applicant's proposed setback variance would create little visual impact. Staff sees no problem with approving the revision to the applicant's conditional use permit. The addition would not adversely affect any neighbor, nor would it look out of place. The staff feels the building addition would be attractive. There are two remaining points to discuss: (1) Parking on the grass that is occurring behind the property: In 1995 the City Council stipulated that the applicant shall not park on the grass. This was not a problem at the time. But now the applicant's inventory is grown to the point that now they are parking cars beyond there paved parking spaces, on the back lot. The applicant should either comply with this condition, which is also a code requirement, and remove the cars from the grass, or, the applicant should pave and curb the back lot. Paving must be kept 20 feet from the abutting residential property and 5 feet from any abutting nonresidential property. The applicant has the opportunity to request that the city waive the curbing requirement based on staff's curbing site amendment which is currently being reviewed by the City Council. To do that, they would have to show that elimination of the curb would be beneficial for drainage reasons. (2) The staff has evaluated the need for additional screening. In the council's last motion, it tagged screening as a concern. The abutting property on the south was reviewed, and staff does not feel there is a need for additional screening. The apartments to the south and east are set considerably higher on a hill and screening on the fence line would not be very effective. The two abutting residential neighbors have quite a lot of tree growth and screening already, natural and/or planted. Therefore, staff feels the screening ordinance is being met. Staff is recommending approval of the front setback variance, the conditional use permit revision, and the architectural and site related issues in the recommendation. Chairperson Ledvina questioned if the applicant had plans to pave the grass parking area in question, and if there was a landscaping plan required. Staff has discussed the issues with the architect, but does not know what the owners intent is at this time. The owner has been given options as it relates to meeting the code requirement. The options are to not use the area, or pave and curb the area as code requires. Regarding landscaping, if the board feels landscaping would be beneficial they could certainly require it. CDRB 09-19-00 -3- Board member Jorgenson questioned if the strip of land just south of the read would be grass, or what the material would be in the 5' X 50' area. It appeared to staff the area was grass, and that there was a chain linked fence right up against it. There may be an opportunity to do something with Iow landscaping, but anything large may be too big for the space. The chain link fence is used for security purposes, and the staff anticipates the fence would be staying. Board member Shankar questioned if the space between the north face of the addition and the road is meant for circulation or if it is some type of display area. Staff felt that area was meant for circulation, but has evolved into more of a display area. With this change it would be even less useful for circulation, and would more than likely remain as display, but would leave the specifics up to the applicant to explain. Chairperson Ledvina clarified the variance width. The building would require an 8 foot variance but there is a vestibule which adds another three feet. Therefore, the total variance granted would be 11 feet, from the 30 foot code requirement. Staff member Ekstrand confirmed this variance request of 11 feet. Mr. Schmelz introduced his architect, Chuck Levine. Mr. Schmelz was at a quandary about the parking paving issue which he felt was addressed back 3-4 years ago when they completed there major project. All old asphalt was removed, drainage was installed and the area was re-asphalted. It was at this time the watershed commission requested that the area not be paved. The property was purchased twenty some years ago for new car storage, or whatever storage they would have use for. Depending on the times, the car business inventory fluctuates. That area is not really a parking lot. There is not a lot of traffic, but it is used for inventory storage. At the time the city engineers came out and built up berms on the east side along the fence, from south to north and from i~ast to west, and put in drainage to direct the storm. If the board is requiring the paving as a condition, he is wondering why it is coming up now. Staff expressed that the issue is coming up now because it was a city council requirement in 1995. What the staff has to rely on now are the written conditions of approval. That is what the staff and board are addressing this evening. The points the applicant is bringing up can be discussed at the council level. They have the ability to change these requirements. It is a city code for paved parking, and it is a council stipulation from the last conditional permit. The city ordinance does not allow parking on non-paved areas, and in there motion, they specifically stated" no parking on the grass". Mr. Schmelz provided an overview of the plans. The VW franchise has required a uniform look of all of the franchises, therefore the addition is required. All dealerships are required to comply with the franchise stipulations. The initial pictures supplied were for the Stage 1 building, all new, which the applicant could not comply with. Therefore, the applicant is implementing the Stage 2 or 3 option for their existing building. A rendition of the actual final project was displayed. The entry feature would be out of a stucco material. The front of the building would have any entry, several parking spots, with a platform (patio) for displaying vehicles. The entry on the east side will be removed. The patio would not be asphalt. It would be an upgrade to an aggregate or some type of pavement material. They are still in the developing process. The fence will be removed from the front, but closed off at the building to maintain the use of the fence for security of the inventory. Parking for customers would be on either side of the building. The door on the east side would remain for the used car lot and the other building on the premises. There will be a new entry on the west side. This will be one of the primary customer entries. There are over 200 buildings in process right now with VW with similar plans. The brick on the exterior of the building is a medium brown/beige brick. The color of the E.I.F.S. will be the color of the Saab building (off- white) and yellow on the piece in the front of the building. Board member Shankar had concerns with the E.I.F.S. material, and taking it all the way down to the ground since it is a fairly soft material. Usually it is kept about 7 feet above the ground. The applicant used the same material on the Saab building. A plastic grid is installed over the installation before the finish material is applied. There are various types of grids designed to increase the impact resistance. CDRB 09-'19-00 -4- Chairperson Ledvina confirmed with Mr. Schmelz that the fence in front of the building would be removed and reattached to the side of the building. Mr. Schmelz commented that the original implementation of the fence was a request from the insurance company for theft years ago. Aesthetically, the owner would also like to see the front fence removed and reattached. Mr. Levine read the city council resolution regarding the parking, and felt his read on it was different than that of the staff. Mr. Levine felt the council encouraged Mr. Schmelz not to expand his paved parking area. Mr. Ekstrand, agreed to disagree. Chairperson Ledvina discussed the setback variance. The comparison to Embers he felt was valid. Embers has quite a bit of attractive landscaping and no hard surface in front of the building. He did not feel the same comparison could not be made with the VW site plan. As the building is moved closer to the road more emphasis must be put on the appearance of the building. The hard surface in the front of the building is an aesthetic concern. At a minimum, the fence must be eliminated in front of the building. Chairperson Ledvina also noted the variance resolution on page 12 should be 11 feet, not 8 feet. Also on page 12, the Design and Review Board should be substituted for Planning Commission. Board member Jorgenson stressed the need to add Iow shrubs, or hedges in the strip of grass next to the road to soften the view and to make the appearance more inviting to customers. Board member Shankar agreed. His concern was the six cars shown on the plans, sitting on the platform. He suggested two may be more appropriate, and reiterated the need for landscaping. Also, due to the building being mostly glass, he was concerned with drainage. Mr. Levine, addressed this issue. An underground storm sewage system was installed. There are inlets into the storm system all around the east side of the building, coming in front of the new addition. Sixty percent of the water off of the roof goes into internal drains that go directly into the storm water system. Chairperson Ledvina had no strong feelings about the building one way or another. Generally, it appears it will be relatively attractive and in proportion. Board member Shankar agreed. Since the board is providing a substantial variance for the front of the building they need to be very concerned about appearance. It would be appropriate to require a landscaping plan. Board member Jorgenson agreed and would like to see only two of the hottest models of cars in front, along with landscaping. Board member Shankar moved the Community Design Review Board to: Adopt the resolution which approves an 11-foot front setback variance for John Schmelz's proposed addition to the Countryside Volkswagen showroom. Approval is because: The proposed setback would be compatible with the neighboring Ember's Restaurant which is set back 20 feet from the front lot line. The majority of the proposed VW building front elevation would have a 22 foot setback--the entrance vestibule would be set back 19 feet. The proposed building addition would create less visual impact than the approved Menard's building addition to the west which would comply with the 30 foot front setback requirement. The applicant shall provide a landscape area on the North side of the proposed addition at least equal to % the distance from the face of the building to the property line. CDRB 09-19-00 -5- Adopt the resolution which approves the revision to the conditional use permit for John Schmelz at Countryside Volkswagen to add onto the Volkswagen showroom. Approval is based on the findings required by the code and subject to the following conditions (additions are underlined; deletions are crossed out): All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city. The director of community development may approve minor changes. The proposed construction of the proposed addition must be started within one year of council approval or the approval for this addition the--pem~ shall end. The council may extend this deadline for one year. The city waives the required number of parking spaces, provided that all vehicles shall be parked on a paved parking lot. (This is a code requirement.) If the property owner chooses to continue parking cars in the back lot. he shall pave it to comply with city code. The property, owner shall submit a paving plan to staff for approval. This plan shall include a detailed grading/drainage plan showing runoff calculations for the expanded parking area. Curbing may be waived if the city. council approves the curbing-code change and if the city determine that it improves stormwater quality. The property owner shall install and maintain screening along all south lot lines to meet the city code. The community design review board must review aPrm:,ve the screening plan. 5. There shall be no vehicle access, except emergency vehicles, to or from Duluth Street. 6-~.The city council shall review this permit in one year. Cont;nust;on ,,7 the,,,,,,,o,,,,,, ,,,, ,nur~ss,~r~ss ,,,, ~ ............ ;s .... ~ ,~, uu~ .... ~,~,~ · '-~' ....... ' --' for trucks --d ............... Approval of plans, date-stamped August 7, 2000, for the proposed building addition to Countryside VW, 1180 Highway 36. Approval is subject to the property owner doing the following: Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. Paving and curbing the back lot if they wish to keep parking on the grass (code requirement). The parking lot shall be at least 20 feet from any residential property and five feet from any nonresidential property. The applicant shall submit a paving, grading and drainage plan to staff showing runoff calculations for the expanded parking lot. Curbing may be waived if the city council approves the curbing-code change and if the city determines that waiving the curbing would improve stormwater quality. 3. If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy if: ao The city determines that the work is not essential to the public health, safety or welfare. The city receives cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for the required work. The amount shall be 200 percent of the cost of the unfinished work. Any unfinished landscaping shall be completed by June 1 if the building is occupied in the fall or winter, or within six weeks of occupancy if the building is occupied in the spring or summer. CDRB 09-19-00 -6- The city receives an agreement that will allow the city to complete any unfinished work. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. o The applicant shall submit a landscaping plan which provides for landscaping the distance from the road to the building. The plan will be subject to staff approval. 6. The applicant shall remove the fencing directly in front of the building. Board member Shankar seconded. Chairperson Ledvina confirmed the second. Ayes-All The motion carries. B. ~--Aerial Street and County Road D. The proposal by Specialty Developement Corporation, is to build a sixty unit apartment building on a 3.2 acre site on the east side of Aerial Street and Woodland Avenue on County Road D. This project would be a three story apartment building with underground parking for 66 cars. There would also be a detached garage with 9 parking stalls, and 64 surface parking spaces. The planning commission has reviewed the change in the city's land use plan and the conditional use permit. There is a class five wetland on the site. A lighting plan, indicating a lighting spread and fixture design, is being required as well as a sidewalk along the east side of Aerial Street for foot traffic to County Road D. Staff is recommending approval. Mr. Bob Bankers with Specialty Development, 1725 Tower Drive west, Stillwater, was present to detail the plan and to answer questions. Pat Flaherty, Mr. Bankers business partner, was also present. The developement will have the appearance of two buildings with a central three story atrium in the middle with a covered porch. The windows, soffits, and fascia will all be the same shade of white. The central air and furnace are contained in a "space pack unit" which is 2 feet by 4 feet and sits in the wall. The unit occupies the space of a small closet and provides air and heat for all three main rooms. The grill to each space pack is flush with the exterior of the building. Mr. Bankers explained they are using White Spider birch in their landscaping plan, which has proven to be more resilient to insects and has a life span of fifty to seventy years. The only concern of the board was the appearance of the unattached garage. Chairperson Ledvina suggested arches to dress up the fiat roof line. Board member Jorgenson agreed, and felt incorporating the use of the brick used on the main building would prove beneficial to the aesthetic appeal of the garage especially since it is quite visible from the road. Adding the brick around the complete exterior of the garage and adding dormers was agreed to by the owners. Board member Shankar moved the Community Design and Review board to: Approve the plans date-stamped August 15, 2000 (site plan, landscape plan, grading and drainage plans and building elevations) for Birch Glen. The city bases this approval on the findings required by the code. The developer or contractor shall do the following: Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. 2. Complete the following before the city issues a building permit: Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall include: grading, utility, drainage, erosion control, tree, sidewalk and driveway and parking lot plans. The plans shall meet the following conditions: CDRB 09-19-00 -7- (1) The erosion control plan shall be consistent with city code. (2) The grading plan shall: (a) Include building, floor elevation, water elevation and contour information. These shall include the normal water elevation and 100-year highwater elevation. (b) Include contour information for the land that the construction will disturb. (c) Show sedimentation basins or ponds as required by the watershed board or by the city engineer. (d) Show all proposed slopes steeper than 3:1 on the proposed construction plans. The city engineer shall approve the plans, specifications and management practices for any slopes steeper than 3:1. This shall include covering these slopes with wood fiber blankets and seeding them with a "no mow" vegetation rather than using sod or grass. (e) Show all retaining walls on the plans. Any retaining walls more than 4 feet tall require a building permit from the city. (3)* The tree plan shall: (a) Be approved by the city engineer before site grading or tree removal. (b) Show where the developer will remove, save or replace large trees. This plan shall include an inventory of all existing large trees on the site. (c) Show no tree removal beyond the approved grading and tree limits. (d) These plans shall be consistent with the approved landscape plan. (4) The design of the storm water pond shall be subject to the approval of the city engineer. The developer shall be responsible for getting any needed off-site grading or drainage easements and for recording all necessary easements. (5) All the parking areas and driveways shall have continuous concrete curb and gutter. (6) The driveways shall meet the following standards: 24-foot width--no parking on either side and 32-foot width-- parking on one side. The developer or contractor shall post the driveways with no parking signs to meet the above-listed standards. (7) The developer shall not disturb the boulevard and slope along the south side of County Road D noah of the building. CDRB 09-19-00 Co go -8- (8) The developer shall install a five-foot-wide concrete sidewalk along Ariel Street between Woodlynn Avenue and County Road D. (9) The developer's engineer shall verify that the catch basin in Woodlynn Avenue is sized large enough to receive a 30-inch pipe. As an alternative, consider constructing a new catch basin manhole on Woodlynn Avenue directly south of the pond. Submit a lawn-irrigation plan to staff showing the location of sprinkler heads. Submit a certificate of survey for all new construction. Revise the landscape plan for city staff approval showing: (1) As much of the existing vegetation (including large trees) along the northern property line and around the wetland preserved as possible. (2) The manicured or mowed areas from the natural areas. This shall include planting (instead of sodding) the disturbed areas on the south side of the apartment building around the storm water pond with native grasses and native flowering plants. The native grasses and flowering plants shall be those needing little or no maintenance. This is to reduce maintenance costs and to reduce the temptation of mowers to encroach into the pond. Specifically, the developer shall have the natural areas seeded with an upland mixture above the 942 contour and shall use a lowland mixture below the 942 contour. (3) The planting of native grasses and flowering plants around the proposed storm water pond shall extend at least four feet from the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) of the pond. Get the necessary approvals and permits from the watershed district. Submit a site lighting plan for city staff approval showing the light spread and fixture design. The light fixtures must have concealed lenses and bulbs to properly shield glare from the adjacent street right-of-ways and from nearby homes. The developer shall record with Ramsey County: A drainage and utility easement for the proposed ponding and wetland area. This easement shall be for all property within and below the proposed 942 contour and shall be subject to the approval of the city engineer. (2) A 20-foot-wide drainage and utility easement over the storm water pipe between the pond and the Woodlynn Avenue right-of- way. Have the Saint Paul Regional Water Services (SPRWS) review and approve the proposed utility plans. The fire chief shall approve the access to the back of the building for firefighting needs. CDRB 09-19-00 -9- Complete the following before occupying the building: a. Replace property irons that are removed because of this construction. b. Restore and sod damaged boulevards. Co Install reflectorized stop signs at each exit, a handicap-parking sign for each handicap-parking space and an address on the building. In addition, the applicant shall install wetland buffer and no parking signs within the site, as required by staff. eo Paint any roof-top mechanical equipment to match the uppermost part of the building. Screen all roof-mounted equipment visible from streets or adjacent property. (code requirement) Construct trash dumpster and recycling enclosures as city code requires for any dumpsters or storage containers that the owner or building manger would keep outside the building. Any such enclosures must match the materials and colors of the building. Install and taper the concrete sidewalk along Ariel Street to match each of the driveways. Install and maintain an in-ground sprinkler system for all landscaped areas. Install continuous concrete curb and gutter along all interior driveways and around all open parking stalls. Install a storm shelter in a central location in the apartment building. This shelter shall be subject to the approval of the Maplewood director of emergency preparedness. It shall have a minimum of three square feet per person for 80% of the planned population. Install on-site lighting for security and visibility that follows the approved site lighting plan. All exterior lighting shall follow the approved lighting plan that shows the light spread and fixture design. The light fixtures must have concealed lenses and bulbs to properly shield glare from the adjacent street right-of-ways and from nearby homes. k. The developer or contractor shall: (1) Complete all grading for the site drainage, complete all public improvements and meet all city requirements. (2)* Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits. (3) Remove any debris or junk from the site. (4) Post the west side of the driveway to the front door with no parking signs. If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy if' a. The city determines that the work is not essential to the public health, safety or welfare. CDRB 09-19-00 -10- The city receives cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for the required work. The amount shall be 200 percent of the cost of the unfinished work. Any unfinished landscaping shall be completed by June 1 if the building is occupied in the fall or winter, or within six weeks of occupancy if the building is occupied in the spring or summer. The city receives an agreement that will allow the city to complete any unfinished work. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. The applicant shall provide a base of four feet of brick to match the apartment building on all sides of the garage building. The applicant also shall add two dormers on the west face of the garage roof above the garage doors to break up the roof mass. These revisions are subject to staff approval. Boardmember Ledvina seconded the motion. Ayes-All Motion carries. C. Emma~_E~--Located at the northwest corner of County Road B and Van.Dyke Street. Ms. Nelda Rhoades Clarke is proposing to build a 13-unit town home development. There would be one six and one seven unit townhouse structure. There would also be two seven stall garages, 18 open parking spaces, and a commons building. This development, called Emma's Place, would be for Iow-income families with children. It would provide common space for after school activities and support services for the families who reside there. There would also be an on-site management staff. Staff was recommending the building design be resubmitted to the board due to four main issues that needed to be addressed: 1. Further architectural detailing was needed to enhance the structure. Dormers, for example, could be added to enhance the large,, expansive roof line. Another location is needed for the trash enclosures. They are currently on the neighbors side close to Van Dyke Street. It would be best to locate those where it wouldn't impact the neighborhood with any unsightly appearance. The commons building, along the Van Dyke side, could also receive a softer treatment. Recommendations include incorporating more of a residential roof line, and something other than the look of a squarish building. The landscaping plan needs to be enhanced and built up along Ariel Street and County Road B, in front of the commons building, to help provide greenery and screening for the neighbors benefit. Other suggestions included the elimination of the northern driveway to prevent the direct glare of headlights aiming directly into the neighbors home. Also, the electric and gas meters should not be visible on the street sides. Mr. Ekstrand provided pictures of suggested examples. The applicant, Nelda Rhoades Clarke, the executive director of The Emma Norton Residence, was present to answer questions. Ms. Clarke brought her architect, Terry Cermak, to address the concerns that are being raised and to present the numerous modifications that have been made to the structure. The shorter of the two buildings has now been moved to the County Road B side. The fence connection between the garage and the town homes is now an ornamental fence rather than a siding material. The large living room windows will now be projecting, and a secondary roof has been added for aesthetic detail. CDRB 09-19-00 -11- More landscaping was added along County Road B and Van Dyke Street. Sixty-four trees total have been added to the currently existing landscaping. Evergreens have also been added along the commons building. The trash enclosure will not be moved, but the existing wall and roof will be extended to almost fully enclose this area. The driveway for the northern parking lot has been offset and the plans propose leaving two driveways to alleviate any traffic congestion. The electrical has been moved to the end of the buildings and completely screened from the street with shrubs. All sides of the commons building now have windows. Carol Felsing, Development Consultant, was present to address the concerns of the community regarding the facility. This is not licensed, but permanent housing for families. She also wanted to clarify that the requirement for the in ground irrigation system would be to provide irrigation for the planted areas. Chairperson Ledvina conferred with Mr. Ekstrand to determine if staff is comfortable with all of the changes that were discussed. Mr. Ekstrand was pleased with most of the elements and did feel a lot of attention has been put in to the exterior perimeter of the site, which was the main concern of staff. The board members also suggested adding architectural enhancements on the garage along County Road B to break up the run of garages. Board member Shankar moved the Community Design and Review Board to' Approve the plans that the applicant presented to the community design review board on September 19, 2000 for the proposed Emma's Place town home development at the northwest corner of County Road B and Van Dyke Street. Approval is subject to the following conditions: Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. Before getting a building permit, the applicant shall provide a grading, drainage, utility and erosion control plan to the city engineer for approval. The fire marshal shall also review the site plan to make sure that fire-safety access needs would be met. This plan shall be subject to the fire marshal's approval. Subject to staff approval of the plans, the applicant should complete the following before occupying the building: a. Install all required landscaping and an in-ground lawn irrigation system for all landscaped areas (code requirement). b. Construct a five-foot-wide concrete sidewalk from the southerly driveway to County Road B and from Van Dyke street to the westerly lot line. c. Screen any roof-top mechanical equipment that would be visible from any neighborhood homes that may be placed on the commons building. 4. 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 city receives cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for the required work. The amount shall be 200 percent of the cost of the unfinished work. Any unfinished landscaping shall be completed by June 1 if the building is occupied in the fall or winter, or within six weeks of occupancy if the building is occupied in the spring or summer. c. The city receives an agreement that will allow the city to complete any unfinished work. 5. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. CDRB 09-19-00 -12- VII. VIII. IX. Chairperson Ledvina seconded. Discussion--Board member Jorgenson would feel more comfortable seeing the plans one more time due to the quantity of conditions required. Board member Shankar and Ledvina were comfortable with the changes made, and felt the staff has a level of comfort working with the applicant to iron out all of the details. Ayes-All Motion carries. VISITOR PRESENTATION No visitor presentations. BOARD PRESENTATIONS None. STAFF PRESENTATIONS Countryside Volkswagen is on the agenda for the City Council Meeting. A board member is needed to attend the meeting. Mr. Ekstrand will speak to Melinda Coleman regarding attendance at this meeting. In October, the Board will be meeting just once, on October 17th. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 9:44 p.m.