Loading...
CC Minutes 3-8-04 - - 6Y ()l City Council Meeting - ..larch 8, 2004 Councilman Labatt: Okay. I'm good with that. Mayor Furlong: Okay, other discussion? Susan Rech: Can I make a comment? Mayor Furlong: I'd rather not. Thank you. Keep this moving. We're going in the right direction so with that I guess if we're looking at a couple months to, for this council to be able to consider those ordinances, is there any reason for us to table this in advance of those ordinances or is it your opinion that by going forward with the permit now, that we'll take care of our concerns through the ordinance process. Roger Knutson: I think you'll take care of your concerns through the ordinance process, and I think it's also important to realize we're not just dealing with one kennel license. It will have effect on all sorts of licenses. There are many in the city and we want to make sure we kind of separate the two issues. Individual license versus the ordinance issue. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright, then I guess if there's other discussion, do we want to go forward. I guess I'll ask for a motion at this point with regard to the permit. Unless there's further discussion. Councilman Lundquist: Motion to approve the kennel permit for Paws, Claws & Hooves. Councilman Labatt: Second. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Made and seconded. Is there any further discussion on this item? Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Labatt seconded to approve the commercial kennel permit for Paws, Claws & Hooves at 10500 Great Plains Boulevard. All voted in favor, except Councilman Ayotte who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1. REQUEST FOR A LOT COVERAGE AND FRONT, SIDE, AND LAKESHORE VARIANCE, 3637 SOUTH CEDAR DRIVE, TOM & JACKIE JOHNSON. Kate Aanenson: The subject site is a lakeshore lot on Lake Minnewashta. The applicants did appear before the Planning Commission and because they did not, they had less than 75 percent, their motion goes forward as a recommendation for your consideration. The applicants have an existing home that they want to improve. There is a large expanse of asphalt as you're coming in a side loaded garage, so an existing non-conforming setback to the front of the lot. And then with the addition of the deck would encroach into the 75 foot setback on the side yard. The Planning Commission worked to see if they could get the setback to meet the 10 foot on this side, with the applicant's architect and designer. 25 - - City Council Meeting - ",larch 8, 2004 They did work to make that setback work, the 10 foot, so what we're showing in pink there will be removed, so the side yard does meet standards. The area that doesn't is this area still on the deck where they want to walk out on this side to connect to the existing deck to the back. This area kind of hatched here in white and blue would still not meet the setback requirements. The other issue that the staff worked with the applicant on was to reduce the impervious. With the original one, 25 percent is the impervious coverage standard. They're at 46. With the changes they move to 43, and one of the recommendations is based on the asphalt that's out front, this is an approximate. In talking to the applicant they want to maybe alter that a little bit but to give the hard number of what we're looking at there, it's approximately 450 square feet and that would get us to reducing the impervious to 40 percent, and they've agreed that they think they can meet that. I think they just want that flexibility but I think what we'd like to put specifically in the motion is that getting to the 40 percent, so I'd recommend that you modify the condition. Councilman Labatt: Number one? Kate Aanenson: Yeah, it'd be on page, correct. Page 5, condition number 1. The 43 to get it to the 40 percent. Again adding additional vegetation. Taking some of that driveway out. Unless you have additional questions, I think kind of the revised site plan, the Planning Commission did spend some time trying to see where there was some flexibility and again in good faith the applicants have worked to try to resolve through some change. Again it's a side loaded. A lot of the addition is going with what was already a hard surface coverage already so that, in moving towards reducing that, we think that's good and again flexibility of trying to eliminate some of the lakeshore setback. So with that we are recommending approval as seen in the staff report starting with the condition on page 5 with the amended as stated, and I'd be happy to answer any questions that you had. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Questions for staff. Councilman Lundquist: Kate what you have, Justin can you put that drawing back up? They currently have a side load garage now. What you're drawing there would require them to change the entrance 90 degrees. Kate Aanenson: No, it would still side load. It would come in this way. Still side load. Councilman Lundquist: Oh I got you. Take that hatched area they take out and replace with, okay. Kate Aanenson: Correct. Yes, and so they want some flexibility on how that works but what they're still trying to get to is that 40 percent. They might split it a little bit. Maybe doing of that over here. So we're giving that flexibility. The goal is to get to the 40 percent and we'll have them document that on the building but as they revise those plans. Councilman Lundquist: Okay, understand. Thank you. 26 - - City Council Meeting - .vlarch 8,2004 Councilman Labatt: Can you, Justin can you go back to that picture again. Can you just go over those colors again real quick. Kate Aanenson: Sure. Let me just put this up here real quick as we're still in the same focus. Again, this is the existing house so there's a space kind of to the back of the house. Here you have the garage which is...trying to infill. That's where the addition is going. They're connecting the house to the garage because right now it's detached. Filling in that space. Again, when they originally came in, this is pinching down so what the Planning Commission was working to maintain that 10 foot side yard so the pink, when it originally came to the Planning Commission, had that on this through the, after the recommendation of the Planning Commission. They have agreed to remove that so they meet the side yard, correct. They meet the side yard. The problems still with the current setback on the back would be this area here where they want the deck to connect to the existing deck. That's still within the 75 foot setback. The Planning Commission did agree because this was in hard surface, to allow this variance to occur. What they were concerned was the lakeshore and the side yard. They thought there was flexibility in design and I think the applicant has again worked through that. Mayor Furlong: Can you point out on the map about where the 75 foot line is? Goes. Kate Aanenson: Yeah. Actually pretty close to this, yeah. This is 68 to the back here. 72 up to right here so. Mayor Furlong: Okay. So the current deck is within the 75? Kate Aanenson: That's correct. That's correct. Mayor Furlong: So are they asking for expanding further into the 75? Kate Aanenson: Right, with the new deck because this deck does not connect with the back of the house. The addition. I'll just show you on this plan. Get it going the same way here. They're proposing doors that would come out the back of the addition that would tie into the existing deck. Take advantage of that. Again they pushed everything to meet the side yard setback but they wanted to interconnecting this so the deck's in. Mayor Furlong: Questions then. If the, if we deny the 75 foot lakeshore setback, what does that do to the existing deck? Kate Aanenson: We have this little narrow area, probably right through here to connect between this deck and this deck. Mayor Furlong: But would the existing deck have to be removed? Kate Aanenson: No. Again, it's existing non-conforming. That's something that we always look at. Where can we try to get modification or movement towards meeting the 27 - - City Council Meeting - .<larch 8, 2004 goals or the ordinance in place. Because that's existing and we didn't want to expand a non-conformity but we didn't ask them to tear it down, but we did look at the impervious surface to try and reduce that. It's certainly under a variance you can always attach any condition and make any recommendation you think is reasonable, and this was a recommendation that we had. I think the Planning Commission felt, there were some that felt not to change that strong about the impervious and some that felt strongly about the side yard setback modifications. Councilman Peterson: Kate, per their current request, how, give me a sense of how wide the current, not the current, but the proposed deck would be? Are they talking, do they want just a walkway or do they want it to be 10 feet to have some chairs out there and seating, etc, etc. Kate Aanenson: It's wider than, it's about 10 or 12. Dan Anderson: At the 45 degree angle? Kate Aanenson: Yeah. Dan Anderson: About 8. Just enough for people to pass. Kate Aanenson: And that would be this area here. How about if I put it on this one, kind of that blue hatched area. Again coming out the sliding door. French door. Councilman Peterson: Okay, thank you. Mayor Furlong: Other questions for staff? One of the things that I read too was that underneath the deck there's impervious surface there as well. Is it their plan to add impervious surface underneath this new addition? That you're aware of. Kate Aanenson: I'm not sure, no. No. Mayor Furlong: Maybe we can ask the applicant that question. Kate Aanenson: Yeah. Mayor Furlong: Is there any difference from staff's viewpoint in terms of where on the lot, is there a better or worse place for impervious surface to be? Kate Aanenson: Well again, most of the rear yard is landscaped, and that's the important side as you get towards the lake. Lake scaping. Again, because it's a side loaded garage, there is a lot of asphalt towards the front and because the house is sitting so close, we'd like to reduce that. That runoff towards the street to reduce, capture some of that too. It's a small lot. Under sized, similar to Carver Beach so when you increase the size of the home, and I think they've done a good job of trying to go vertical and maximize some of the, trying to connect the garage and going over the top of the garage, so as far as the plan 28 - - City Council Meeting - .".larch 8, 2004 goes that's work pretty good. It is a narrow lot as it's pinching down and one of the concerns we have sometimes when you do a deck, depending on the type, it ends up being hard surface underneath it anyway because grass doesn't grow, whatever so sometimes we think we're getting some additional impervious but it doesn't end up that way over time. It becomes a storage area or something. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Any other questions for staff? If not, thank you. Is the applicant here this evening and like to address the council in any manner? Dan Anderson: My name is Dan Anderson. I'm representing Tom and Jackie Johnson at 3637 South Cedar Drive. If there are any questions I can answer, I realize there were some questions you were asking, or that I can answer. On the deck. Mayor Furlong: Well the guess the questions. Dan Anderson: To answer the question, you said the applicant would answer it at some point. Councilman Lundquist: Impervious surface under the deck. Mayor Furlong: Okay, yeah. I mean in terms of the impervious surface underneath the deck, if that was planned. You have that under the existing deck, is that correct? Dan Anderson: Yeah. That will remain. Mayor Furlong: Under the new portion of the deck will also be? Dan Anderson: That will be grass or some sort of landscape or that kind of thing. There's no need to bring that whole apron. Topography doesn't allow us to do that I guess, for drainage and slope. Sloping away. Kate Aanenson: Drops off. Dan Anderson: It drops off pretty good. Kate Aanenson: It drops off pretty good towards the lake... This is the existing deck. There is concrete underneath it. It's dropping towards the lake. Dan Anderson: This shows a maintenance... This is again, just a walkway to get you from here to there. Unless there's any other questions. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Any questions for the applicant? Okay, thank you very much. I'll bring it back to council for discussion then. Thoughts. Councilman Peterson: Mr. Mayor, I think I generally agree with staff. The only thing that I would consider would be letting him have that access from the new space, if it's 8 29 - - City Council Meeting - ..larch 8, 2004 or 9 feet, I don't think they need that to pass. What I'd do is I'd do minimum per code and minimize the setback to a great degree, so whether that's 36 or 42 inches or something so that a standard hallway, from a fire standpoint, I'd encroach on the easement that much but that'd be it. Mayor Furlong: And we'll put that in as, you're recommending that that goes in as a condition? Councilman Peterson: If it's. Mayor Furlong: If we move forward on that? Councilman Peterson: Yes. Mayor Furlong: Yeah, you're Mr. Johnson? Tom Johnson: I'm the owner and one thing I wanted to, my name is Tom Johnson and I'm the home owner at 3637, and one thing I wanted to mention is that the actual 75 feet is about, right about there in the actual drawing. When I talked to Bob, when I came in initially he said you know that if we wanted to we could have come straight back and then come over like that but it would not then flow architecturally with the addition. And that was his comment. He was fine with the way that we redesigned. Initially my neighbor came and was upset with the fact that the deck came within 5 feet over here and he had given us a letter saying that as long as we had taken that part of the deck off, he was fine with the, actually he liked the overall design of the addition but I just wanted to make mention that if you bring it back like this, it's going to architecturally not flow with the addition as well, so that's really all I wanted to say. Thanks. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Additional comments council. Councilman Lundquist: I would concur with Councilman Peterson. I'm sensitive to Mr. Johnson's comments about the architectural flow but in my eyes I guess there's, the purpose that they're looking for that piece of the deck is to connect the two and I think it's possible to do that and still get probably out of the variance altogether, and if not, at least minimize it which is I think what we should, what I would support doing. It may impact the architectural features slightly but I mean the choice is there. If it impacts the architecture too much, the choice is always there to not put it in at all so, you know we have to be sensitive to the ordinances, especially on the lakeshore side and I can support staff's recommendation with that addition that that be sent back to minimum for code or if they can get it out of that 75 altogether. I mean if it's 3 feet and that makes it a 5 foot thing and it's still bigger than code needs to be, then fine. As long as it's, we either do the minimum required by code or out of that 75 altogether because I'm okay with that then. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Councilman Labatt. 30 - - City Council Meeting - ,Y1arch 8, 2004 Councilman Labatt: Kate I'm just trying, how big is the existing deck right now? About that far Tom, thanks. Dan Anderson: It's 12 feet by 36 feet. Councilman Labatt: So it comes out 12 feet right now? Dan Anderson: Yeah. Councilman Labatt: Okay, that helps. 12 feet. And Kate, in taking Craig and Brian's comments, what do you anticipate the deck would have to come in to meet that 75 foot on that. Kate Aanenson: Well it appears that it may be, if it's over the 75 feet, then what I heard is what the minimum corridor passing would be per code, and that's kind of where I'm going. If it can be 3 feet, as Brian said, and still meet the 75, then it would be 3 feet or 4 feet, whatever that is. Mayor Furlong: Yeah, what I'm hearing is if it can be something bigger than code but still not encroach the 75. Kate Aanenson: Correct. Exactly, that's how I heard it. Mayor Furlong: And that's okay. Councilman Lundquist: Yes, exactly. Mayor Furlong: Or if it has to go into the 75, then it should be only as wide as code req UHes. Councilman Labatt: Clear as mud. Councilman Lundquist: And only for that new addition piece. The existing deck stays as is and we leave the existing deck alone. Councilman Labatt: I just wanted to clarify that real quick so, good. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Any other discussion items? I concur. I think that's a reasonable compromise. I would like to commend the applicant for making the adjustments that were recommended to Planning Commission by the neighbor for listening there so it makes it, I think what that does is remove even the request for a side yard variance, is that correct? Kate Aanenson: Yes. 31 - - City Council Meeting - Hlarch 8, 2004 Mayor Furlong: So that's not even, I don't know that we have to deny something that's not being requested. With that, do you have some suggested language based on what we've talked about here tonight? B was to deny the shoreland setback so I think we need to put, we either approve that subject to the condition that we've been discussing here or we need some language here. Kate Aanenson: Yeah. I have to go back to A and say, under A. Including the front yard setback, and then also put in the lakeshore setback. Mayor Furlong: Where do you want it? Kate Aanenson: I'd put it right up under A. Under the approval. At the end of front yard setback. Mayor Furlong: After the word setback, put in and? Kate Aanenson: Correct. Yes, and lakeshore setback to permit minimum code or corridor passing, is that what you're looking for Craig? Councilman Peterson: Yeah, or I'll even give you some leeway to say what's reasonable. If code is 36 and you look at it and say no, it really needs to be 4 feet, you know I'm open to that. I don't want to hold a ruler to it. I want you guys to use your discretion and do the right thing. Kate Aanenson: But to minimize, to make it work. Councilman Lundquist: Minimize the impact. Kate Aanenson: So if you put that right up in the A, and that's covered, those will be the conditions underneath that motion. With the 40 percent under 1. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Is there any other discussion at this point? If not, would somebody like to make a motion? Councilman Lundquist: Just for clarification Mr. Mayor. So then we don't even need to address B at all then, is that correct? Kate Aanenson: That's correct. Councilman Lundquist: Because there's remove the side yard issue with taking off the deck. And. Mayor Furlong: And the house. The shoreland we're addressing in A. Kate Aanenson: Well B actually addresses the impervious surface that should be. 32 - - City Council Meeting - ...Larch 8, 2004 Mayor Furlong: But aren't we requiring them to move it to 40? Was suggested, which I think they agreed to so. Mr. Knutson, are you comfortable with us, do we need to do anything with B? Kate Aanenson: I think we need to put the variance for impervious surface up here. I'd put it up in A too. Roger Knutson: Because you're agreeing. Kate Aanenson: Agreeing to impervious surface and it's qualified underneath it in 1. Roger Knutson: Yeah, I think that's a good idea. Kate Aanenson: So it's after that first lakeshore setback to permit code requiring and impervious surface. Roger Knutson: And he's withdrawing the side yard setback. Kate Aanenson: Correct. Roger Knutson: Mayor, perhaps we could just have, so our record is real clear, have the applicant just stand up and acknowledge that he's withdrawing that. Tom Johnson: I have one more thing. The way this thing is coming out, we actually lose ground on the whole thing. We're giving on the impervious surface and we didn't get anything on the 75 foot setback. I mean we had it before. This doesn't make, I mean it doesn't make a lot of sense to me. See what I'm saying. Kate Aanenson: No, I think you're a little confused on the motion maybe. What they're saying is if you can get to 75 feet, you get to have whatever you get here to get to 75 feet, or the minimum width for passing between these two. Right here, this is showing 72 right to this point. This is showing 68 right to this point. So whatever the passing is, what they're saying is possible, if it's 36 or if it makes sense to make it 4, we'll sit down and look at that with the building official. ., Tom Johnson: Okay, but tell me before, I mean in the Planning Commission we didn't have this in and it was at 43 percent or whatever, so I guess I'm a little confused with, it seems like we're giving up on this and not getting what we wanted, yet we you know agreed to go back the 2.6 feet over here. I'm trying to figure out exactly what we're getting out of it. It seems like the city's getting more than what, I mean we're giving more than what we're getting on this. Kate Aanenson: You're getting a variance for the front yard setback and you're getting a variance to increase the impervious. Tom Johnson: Okay but we, didn't we have that during the Planning Commission? 33 - - City Council Meeting - ,<larch 8, 2004 Kate Aanenson: Their's was a recommendation only. Tom Johnson: Oh, that was a recommendation only. Roger Knutson: And just so we're clear. Let me go through the numbers. Kate, the required maximum impervious surface coverage is what? Kate Aanenson: 25 percent. Roger Knutson: And what do they have currently? Kate Aanenson: 46. Getting it back towards 40. Roger Knutson: And will they be under 25 when they have this? Kate Aanenson: No. Roger Knutson: Sorry to cross examine you, but so what we're getting at is, right now you could just say no because to any building expansion that expands the foot print of the building because they're increasing the impervious surface, so you're allowing them to increase the foot print of the building. You're getting that. Kate Aanenson: So the goal is to bring it in conformance by allowing you to expand, to bring those into conformity or reduce the non-conformance inasmuch as possible and that's what Planning Commission recommended. That's what the staff is working towards. To try to get those in as much as we can. Dan Anderson: If I can add one thing. I'd like not to go 36 inches. Kate Aanenson: Well I think they've agreed that we can talk about that. Dan Anderson: You'll just take 36 out of the equation. Councilman Peterson: We already did. Well we already did. Whatever, I said whatever is reasonable. Dan Anderson: .. .reasonable but going on whether...they're going to push 36. I want to say 4 feet and be done with it. Kate Aanenson: Well that's up to them to decide so. Dan Anderson: Well that's what I'm trying to say. ..over there, why get into the same argument over there if we finish it tonight and be done with 4 feet. 34 - - City Council Meeting - ,<larch 8, 2004 Councilman Peterson: I'm comfortable with 4 feet. You know I'm just thinking the 36 is probably code, but that's narrow. Dan Anderson: I can actually go 5 feet to the property line per code. Councilman Peterson: I'm comfortable if my fellow council people have already went on record by saying I'll go 4 feet or whatever is reasonable. If it's 5 feet, I don't really care but 9 feet is much more than a walkway. Dan Anderson: If we can just come up with a number, a measurement then I've got something to work with. Councilman Peterson: 4 feet. I'll let my councilors agree or disagree with me. Mayor Furlong: Okay. But one thing, if you could just confirm for the record that you are withdrawing the side yard setback variance request, is that correct? Tom Johnson: Yes. Mayor Furlong: Yeah, if you could just. Tom Johnson: We're withdrawing the 2.6 foot side yard setback requirement, or vanance. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is that good? Roger Knutson: Excellent. Mayor Furlong: Very good. Thank you. Alright. Okay, any other discussion or questions? Clarification? If not, is there a motion? Councilman Ayotte: I'm sorry, are we going to go with the 4 feet then? Councilman Lundquist: I'm okay with minimum of 4 feet. Mayor Furlong: Craig, do you want to make a motion? Councilman Peterson: Sure, I'll take a stab at this point. I'll make a recommendation that the City Council approve the item before us with the changes that were outlined in the last 15 minutes, I think there's 3 of them. That the setback for the lakeshore would be permitted 4 feet or as appropriate. The minimum would be 4 feet or as appropriate. The impervious surface would change to 40 percent. And what was the third one? Councilman Lundquist: To remove the one other. Mayor Furlong: The front yard setback, which was already in the staff report. 35 - - City Council Meeting - Hlarch 8, 2004 Kate Aanenson: Yeah, and then number 1 would also go to 43.9, would be 40 percent. Councilman Peterson: Yeah, I already said that. Councilman Ayotte: What was the third one? Kate Aanenson: Well the third one is saying he's under A, it should also say, approve the 19.3 foot front yard setback, a lakeshore setback to allow 4 feet to connect the two decks, and variance from the impervious surface, and it's qualified what that percentage should be under item 1. Councilman Peterson: That's what I wanted to say. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Does somebody want to second that besides Kate? Councilman Lundquist: I'll second. Mayor Furlong: Very good. Is there any discussion on the motion? I think we've had enough too. Just one more opportunity if people have comments or concerns. Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded that the City Council approve variances for a 19.3 foot front yard setback, a lakeshore setback to allow 4 feet to connect the two decks, and variance from the impervious surface for the expansion of the house at 3637 South Cedar Drive based on the findings of fact in the staff report and subject to the following conditions: 1. The impervious surface shall be reduced to less than the current 40 percent impervious surface. The driveway shall be removed and re-vegetated as shown on the attached "Impervious Surface Reduction" schematic to achieve a reduction in the impervious surface. 2. Tree protection fencing must be installed prior to any work commencing around all trees near the construction limits. Fencing shall remain in place until all construction is completed. 3. The applicant shall work with staff to provide a vegetative buffer between the principal structure and Lake Minnewashta. 4. Permits must be obtained before beginning construction, alterations and demolition. 5. The tower and other elements of the project which are beyond the scope of Chapter 9 of the Minnesota State Building Code must be designed by a licensed engIneer. 36 - - City Council Meeting - ,Y1arch 8, 2004 All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to O. REQUEST FOR A COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE AMENDMENT FROM OFFICE-INDUSTRIAL ONLY TO OFFICE-INDUSTRIAL AND OFFICE- INSTITUTIONAL~ LOCATED EAST OF GALPIN BOULEVARD AND NORTH OF LYMAN BOULEV ARD~ SCHOOL DISTRICT 112. Kate Aanenson: Thank you Mayor, council members. School District 112 is requesting a land use amendment to provide the opportunity to build a second school. When the staff first looked at this we contemplated rezoning the site and doing a single land use. In looking at it further their decision is a couple years down the road and similar to what we've done in the southern area of the city, we felt it's probably more appropriate to provide for two land use options. One in interest to the city, and then in interest of the applicant that they can close on the property and have an appropriate land use and when they come back for site plan review, at that time we would actually rezone the property. When this item was held before the Planning Commission, there was some concern of neighbors for the proximity to the railroad so we know when the school does come forward, that we need to look through some design issues, but again we put in the staff report the uses that were permitted under the industrial office park for the 01. Again we're adding, this is guided office industrial park, and office institutional would permit a school. Again when an application does come in, because it's guided for both land uses, you have the ability to decide which one you want to go with. And in good faith, what we're telling the school district that we understand that this could be a school. By having both land uses on there, if for some reason the school chose not to go there, we still have the ability to maintain the tax base and keep the lOP zoning in place. Again with findings of fact provide for the appropriate use that the city may have at that time if it were not to be a secondary school site. So with that, the staff is recommending approval. This item does have to go to the Metropolitan Council because it is a land use change. We don't see any issues with that. I have talked to our representative about that and it seems like that would be pretty much routine on their agenda because the school district does want to close on this property in the next few months, so with that we do have findings of fact in the staff report. So we are recommending approval of the subject site and I'd be happy to answer any questions that you may have. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Questions for staff. Councilman Peterson: Kate, you know I think we've talked about it for years. We don't normally like to see lOP go off. I mean what are you and your team, what can you do to, whether it's in the 2005 MUSA area or whatever to bring other lOP back on to compensate? Are we. Kate Aanenson: That's a good question and we did put that in the land use, the overall percentage and what the impacts of that change would be, and we certainly know that that's on the council's radar to be cognizant of the impacts of that and where we pick those up. And as we work through the development of the rest of those areas, we know that we need to see where we can pick up that difference. Again, because the school is 37