Loading...
PC minutes 2017 11 21 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 21, 2017 Chairman Aller called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Andrew Aller, Steve Weick, Nancy Madsen, John Tietz, and Mark Randall MEMBERS ABSENT: Mark Undestad STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; and MacKenzie Walters, Assistant Planner PUBLIC PRESENT: Rick & Liz Nustad 7721 Erie Avenue th Jack Atkins 220 West 78 Street Curt Robinson 202 W. 72th Street PUBLIC HEARING: 7721 ERIE AVENUE: VARIANCE HARCOVER, FRONT YARD SETBACK AND REAR YARD SETBACK. Walters: This is Planning Case 2017-20. It’s a request for a variance at 7721 Erie Avenue. The variance would be for a detached garage and it would be for a second driveway access, a 10 foot west front yard setback, 4.3 foot south front yard setback, a 5 foot rear yard setback and then a 12.4 percent lot coverage variance. So the location as mentioned is 7721 Erie Avenue. This property is zoned residential single family. It’s located on a corner lot with a public street, Chan View, Erie Avenue and then a platted alley. What we call a paper street. So there is a public right-of-way which means that does function as a front yard setback as well so it has 3 front yard setbacks and the zoning requirements are a 15,000 square foot lot. 30 foot for any front yard setback. Limited to a single driveway access and a maximum of 25 percent lot coverage. The site is located in one of the oldest neighborhoods in Chanhassen. If memory serves it was platted in 1887 so the lot is what we call substandard. It’s 8,529 square feet. It’s currently a non- conforming use at 28.3 percent lot coverage. The northern front yard setback is currently met. The west front yard setback, the house currently has, is set back 20.7 feet and the garage then is tucked back an extra 5 feet or so from there and there’s currently a non-conforming shed on the property that is 17 feet from the setback from that platted alleyway and approximately 6 feet from the rear yard setback. The applicant is proposing constructing a 20 foot by 35 foot detached garage which would be accessed by a second driveway. And this is to allow for the on site storage of a 1969 Mack fire truck. The applicant has noted that the lot is substandard. It is very difficult to improve the property within the confines of the zoning code. The existing Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 21, 2017 garage cannot accommodate the size of the fire truck. They’ve stated the proposed garage would only be used to store the vehicle. They would like to bring the truck indoors to facilitate the eventual restoration of the vehicle. They’ve noted that due to the age of the subdivision a lot of other properties have detached garages and encroach on the various setbacks. It is very typical to see some higher lot coverage within the subdivision as well and they have proposed architecturally designing the garage to fit into the character of the neighborhood. They would also be removing the non-conforming shed and some patio space. When staff looked it over one of our largest concerns is that this neighborhood has an existing history of street flooding. It’s storm water services are currently inadequate for modern storm water treatment standards. There is concern that the increased impervious surface coverage could exacerbate this. If the variance were granted it would allow the property to exceed it’s lot coverage by a little over 1,000 square feet. It would represent an increase of about 779 square feet over the current non-conformity. The property currently has a house, two car garage, patio, shed which is generally considered to be a reasonable use within a single family district. When we looked around at the Plano metrics of the neighborhood, that’s this here. This shows the impervious surface. As you can see detached garages are fairly common but we see only, I was able to find 2 properties that looked to have multiple driveway accesses. I do not believe, I was not able to find any that had both detached garage and attached garage and multiple driveway accesses so this level of use would not be consistent with the neighborhood and RSF districts are not fundamentally designed to accommodate the indoor storage of large vehicles. For these reasons staff is recommending denial of this variance request. I’d be happy to expand and answer any questions you may have at this time. Aller: Does anybody have a question to start with? I was wondering when we looked for what the neighborhood was doing, what other variances and you indicated that there were other detached garages. What are we looking at as far as variances that have been granted in the past and the history of those detached garages? Walters: So I believe I was able to find 8 variances for the 47 properties within 5 feet. Within 500 feet, sorry. Yes within 500 feet. All of those were situations where they were either expanding an existing a single stall garage to become a 2 stall or where there was no garage present on the property and they were adding a 2 car garage. We’ve had a couple other cases before where you know if a property is older and does not have an existing garage because ordinance now requires a 2 car garage we do whatever we can to make those fit. I couldn’t find any that had an existing garage and then were adding another detached garage. Aller: When we looked at those, the expansions or the additions, what did it do with regard to the surface area coverage for storm water drainage? Walters: Yeah, unfortunately the most of these variances that I found for the garages were in the 80’s. There wasn’t any record that I found mentioning the impervious coverage or whether or not it was increasing so unfortunately I don’t know whether or not. My guess from the average 2 Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 21, 2017 size of the lots would be that most are over the 25 percent but I wouldn’t be able to speculate on by how much. Tietz: MacKenzie I have a question. Aller: Commissioner Tietz. Tietz: Since this is a proposed to be primarily a storage building for the fire engine that’s used periodically and possibly then going to be restored in it, to reduce the surface coverage is it possible that instead of having a full driveway it could just have like the two wheel lines that you see in some locations where properties have surface coverage issue. I know that’s been done in Excelsior right off the lake. There’s a couple of new very large homes but the driveways are essentially the old fashion two lines. At least that would provide some hard surface to get the vehicle out if they you know on occasion but it seems like it’s primarily a storage facility as opposed to a daily use facility. Aanenson: You could attach whatever conditions you felt appropriate on that. There’s also the grass pavers where it’s, you know so that would be, if that was something you’re interested. Tietz: Yeah. It looks like there’s over 300 square feet of new driveway that would be added and if you take that off of the in excess of the currently zoning that does help. And you know you mentioned architecturally. What’s the, do we know what the peak of that garage is going to be? I assume that that overhead door on a fire truck is not an 8 foot door right? Walters: I would imagine not. I do not actually, I’ve not received plans for the proposed garage. I expect the applicant could address that when they address the commission. It would be required to meet the 20 foot accessory structure height, mid point of highest gable. Tietz: Okay, thank you. Aller: Additional questions? Commissioner Randall. Randall: So I’m looking at your proposal here with the approximate buildable area. Is it possible to decrease the variance by attaching this and then also linking the driveways together? Would that be a little bit more workable solution or? Walters: When this proposal was first brought before staff, staff did request that an alternative be provided where it was a single driveway access. This is the application and proposal and that was submitted. Randall: Okay. 3 Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 21, 2017 Walters: The Planning Commission could vote to grant variances but not the second driveway access which would require then a redesign. As to why the applicant opted for a detached versus attached garage, I believe that would be a question for them as well during their presentation. Aller: Did you have a question? Commissioner Madsen. Madsen: Yeah I had a question. For any of these variances that were within 500 feet, were any of them for basically a storage garage or were they more for a daily use garage? Walters: My notes were, to the nearest I could tell they were all for the first and only garage on the property but unfortunately my notes are not specific enough for me to be 100 percent from that but most of them mentioned two car garage and the properties again typically did not have an existing garage. Madsen: Okay, thank you. Aller: Any other questions? Weick: I have a question if that’s okay. Aller: Commissioner Weick. Weick: The existing shed that’s on the property, is that included in the current hard cover and then subtracted from the new hard cover? I just want to make sure we’re accounting for it appropriately. Walters: (Yes). Weick: Okay. Walters: Yep it’s a 96 square foot structure. It’s part of that 28.3 percent existing lot coverage and that’s one of the things the applicant is doing to try to minimize the impact of the project. Weick: Okay. Aller: Any additional? Okay, we could hear from the applicant now. Yes please. Step up to the podium. State your name and address for the record and then let us know about your request for the variance. Rick Nustad: I’m Rick and this is my wife Liz Nustad and we’ve been residents of Chanhassen coming up on 20 years and we own an antique fire truck. It’s classified an antique. I don’t know if you’ve passed stuff around to look at but. 4 Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 21, 2017 Aller: Do you want to put it. Walters: If you want to put it right there and we’ll turn the document cam on and it will pop up there. Rick Nustad: Okay. I grew up in Excelsior. This truck was my favorite truck of all time and anyways we’ve been the owners of it for 5 years and we purchased it and we keep it right now in a storage facility that we have to pay and it’s outdoors so we’re looking at getting it indoors. We th use it on parades and as you can see it was sponsored by the Historical Society for the 4 of July parade and we’ve worked long and hard on this process and had our lot surveyed and we have a design of what this garage would look like. And essentially we have down sized the original drawings to minimum for what we could have to store this truck and the garage itself would be 20 feet wide and 35 feet long. The peak of the roof of that would be 19.6 feet high and the garage opening would be about 12 feet high. In our neighborhood right now we currently have similar buildings. There’s one that’s almost across the street from us and is a storage facility. And my printer’s not working very good and here’s another picture of another address that actually has two garages. You actually through the first to get into the second. And about the only thing we can offer is we went around the neighborhood and we have 24 signatures of neighbors that looked at the drawings and are for it. I’m not real sure what else to say here. We’re willing to change anything. We did speak with the Planning Commission about using blocks for the driveway that are, allow grass to grow but that according to the City makes no difference in terms of hard cover surface. And for drainage we would run drain pipe along the roof and it would come out on the southeast corner of the garage which is an actual alleyway right there which to me looks like good drainage and that is about it. I thank you for your time and all of that. Liz Nustad: Exterior of the building would be the same as the house. It would blend in. It won’t, it will be nice. It won’t look. Rick Nustad: Right and we did stress the point that there will be no junk sitting outside around this. It’s going to be just a garage. Aller: If I could just ask when you indicated that you had reduced the size, is that a reduction from what you provided to the planning department already or is that? Rick Nustad: No. We purchased drawings online and we reduced it. Aller: Okay. Rick Nustad: Literally there’s going to be about 5 feet of room around inside the garage so it’s just strictly for storage. Liz Nustad: Storing the fire truck. 5 Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 21, 2017 Rick Nustad: Out of the elements. And like I say we’re willing to do whatever. You know we talked when we, you mentioned about a single driveway versus a double. I’m sure it’s possible. It would have to be angled just to get the truck lined up to pull into the garage so. Aller: How often is the truck actually out of storage and being used? Rick Nustad: You know we might take it out every weekend. Every other weekend sometimes in the summer and we do parades. We’ve done about a dozen parades and won trophies for it th and was very proud being in the 4 of July parade in Chanhassen too. Aller: Great. Any additional questions at this point in time? Commissioner Randall. Randall: A question I wanted to ask MacKenzie about maybe doing something attached. Was that ever a consideration for you guys? Rick Nustad: You know I didn’t really look at that. It would be where there would be a wall between each one though right. Yeah we could do that. Randall: The only reason I say that is because I ended up doing that on my garage and then I just put another garage door in to divide them instead of doing out but you know just that might work a little bit better. Cut down on the percentage. I mean we’ve got to do the numbers on it but you know also too it might make it easier to tie utilities into that area too. Rick Nustad: Sure. Randall: You know I have a garage workshop too and I like having a room next to my vehicle. You know if you want to run air tools and that type of thing too. Rick Nustad: Right. Randall: So I think some of those solutions might be, or some of those ideas might work a little bit better but that was just my concern and then maybe linking the driveway up because it would be that much closer. Rick Nustad: Right. That makes good sense. Right now as the drawings were submitted there’s about 5 feet of our patio would remain between the two buildings but we can definitely look at combining maybe. Randall: That or another idea might be to re-conform your existing garage to accommodate it and then add maybe a smaller area for your normal vehicles. That could be another thing too so there’s different ideas. I mean I think we can try to figure out something that will work for everyone but yeah I wouldn’t want to have to back that thing in on a curve or whatever. 6 Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 21, 2017 Rick Nustad: You know it’s not like today’s modern fire trucks that Mr. Atkins drives. Randall: Thank you sir. Rick Nustad: Thank you for your time. Aller: The other question I have is, when were you looking at actually constructing it because we’re talking about potentially time investment and trying to come up with a different plan and so I’m looking at alternatives here. Thinking of alternatives as to how we would want to approach this for you. Rick Nustad: You know if it was to pass this month we would look at probably starting in the spring. I would take the time this winter to find a builder and I’ve dealt with vendors. I work for the Foss Swim Schools so we deal with lots of vendors when it comes to construction and we would find a reputable one of course and follow all of the rules and regulations but we’ve had it sitting outside for 5 years so a few month months or 6 months would not hurt. Aller: Okay great. Alright, thank you. Any additional questions? Thank you for your presentation. Rick Nustad: Thank you. Liz Nustad: Thank you. Aller: Okay at this point in time we’re going to open up the matter for public hearing. If anyone is actually here for this particular item and would like to speak either for or against the item please come forward and state your name and address for the record and let us know what you think. Yes sir. th Jack Atkins: Yeah, my name is Jack Atkins. I live at 220 West 78 Street so across Erie and on the corner of Main Street and I want you to know we have no objections to them doing this and we urge you to work with them to come to a solution. I think they’re amenable to that. I do want to point out, I don’t know if you can see that. That’s the garage that’s kitty corner. That’s 25 by 42 foot on a much smaller lot so it’s not out of keeping with the neighborhood. I think this pre-dates any zoning. Aller: Right. Jack Atkins: So from that standpoint. The other thing is there is an easement for where the sanitary sewer goes through and there’s an offer by the City to let us claim that or buy it or something. I can’t remember but they did not do that and that’s another 8 foot by 60 feet on the property that could be considered part of their. 7 Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 21, 2017 Aller: Right, if it was vacated. Jack Atkins: Pervious land. And also is, on new developments is the setback from the center of the street to the property line, is that 33 feet still? Aanenson: To the property line is always to the property line. Jack Atkins: No I’m talking about how wide is the easement from the center of the street? Aller: Oh the city easement coming into the property. For access. City access. Aanenson: Typically the right-of-way from the street is one definition and then there’s typically an easement in the front where utilities go but you can include utilities as part of your setback. It’s not in addition to so right-of-way is one definition of your property as your right-of-way. Then typically inside the right-of-way there may be a utility easement around that or just for. Jack Atkins: I was just curious because the City owns 33 feet from the center of the streets on both sides of their property and I thought that might be 30 feet on new developments now. Aanenson: Could be. Jack Atkins: So that’s. Aanenson: But it also might be encumbered. There might be not an additional utility easement along that too so. Jack Atkins: Well I guess my point is that, it’s old Chanhassen. 1887 and all of the lots are a hardship so anything you can do to make this work for them we’d, the neighborhood would appreciate it. Thank you. Aller: Thank you. Thank you for your presentation. Anyone else wishing to come forward? Seeing no one come forward at this point in time I’ll close the public hearing on this item and open it for discussion. Thoughts. I’m tempted to say it’s premature and maybe we could offer or request them to, what they can work out. Is that in line with everybody’s thinking or are they thinking something else? You can still grant it with conditions. Tietz: Or grant approval with provisions and I think that’s probably, even though construction wouldn’t start now probably til April or May depending upon the winter conditions, I think Mark had a good suggestion of seeing if it could be attached which would make it, it might reduce a modest amount of hard surface. That 5 foot kind of alley way between the proposed and existing and as Mark stated there could be some benefits and I think there’s still a benefit in, I don’t see how you could back a fire truck into that using the existing driveway so if it’s just a parallel strip 8 Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 21, 2017 because it’s infrequent use or pervious pavers or some sort. If those two issues could be dealt with as a provision of approval I guess I would vote positively. Aller: I guess my question would be how do we do that adequately so that they don’t have to come back again anyway. Tietz: Well there’s conditions on one of the options that it would be up to the City to, or staff to review it and approve. Or see if it complied. I don’t know maybe that’s inappropriate but just do it that way. Aller: That just again leaves it to other people and then what happens if they disagree and they want to come back before us? I don’t want them to come back a thousand times if we can avoid that and it doesn’t sound like anybody wants to particularly just deny it out of hand so. Thoughts Commissioner Weick? I see you’re in your pensive status. Weick: Well no I think it’s a genuine you know, it’s obviously a genuine attempt to create a structure that’s in line with the existing house and the neighborhood. I really do appreciate the signatures from the neighbors. That was a big question I had is what do the people around, around the house think. I think that’s the most important thing sometimes. I mean the codes are also very important. The biggest thing for me, the setbacks don’t bother me at all. It’s just the hard cover. It’s a significant amount of hard cover and especially with the driveway. You know that’s a lot. I mean I don’t know if you’ve been over there but the driveways will then sort of become the primary, they’re short. You know the house is relatively close to the street but that’s a lot of driveway. That’s my biggest concern. Aller: You’re increasing a lot of runoff. Weick: Yeah, yeah. I think it’s nice to you know have this replace the existing shed that’s there. I think that will help visually with the neighborhood as well so, I like the idea. Just the only concern I have is it’s a lot of cover. Aller: Okay. Weick: And I’m not sure attaching or not attaching necessarily makes a big difference there. Maybe it does. I’m just not, because to me it’s the driveway. Again I get back, it’s the driveway that makes it, that seems like more than what’s needed. Aller: Okay. Any other? Commissioner Madsen? Tietz: Andrew, yeah oh I’m sorry Nancy. Go ahead. Madsen: Go ahead. 9 Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 21, 2017 Tietz: Just looking at the engineer’s plan it looks like the land does slope to the southeast and if the indication was to take the drainage off of the new structure to the southeast, excavation could occur in that corner which could in a sense create a rain garden of sorts and contain that, that additional hard surface runoff in that area. I think we’re requiring that on a number of projects now and this would not be out of the ordinary to request that. Yes there’s probably some re- grading that’s going to have to be done for the footings and slab anyhow and this might be an opportunity to just create a holding area in that corner. You know this is a very small site in an old neighborhood and I think our current requirements are very difficult to assign to a site, an area, a neighborhood like this so I think doing what we can to help make this possible is in the City’s best interest and I think we should seriously consider it. That southeast corner looks like it’s a potential. I don’t know MacKenzie if that’s been looked at. Aller: And when I looked at it originally I didn’t think it comported with the neighborhood because by the nature and the testimony that we have, the other garages and the other variances were basically for what we have deemed to be kind of the standard in our community which is to have a house with a two car garage. Whether it be attached or detached but it’s for vehicle use and for regular household storage that’s in and out. However they use that but typically we’ve expanded from one to two or to have two. Now we have two so when we look at what’s the reasonable use of the property in the neighborhood, we’re not necessarily looking at creating so that, creating variances even though they’re small plots and lots to turn around and say well we’re going to give a variance so everyone can have an accessory structure which exceeds our requirements. So to me it was super important that they came in, because that was one of my questions is how are the neighbors going to feel about this so I was happy to hear that the neighbors are involved and are looking at this in a positive fashion and want to promote this utilitarian use of the property. And then the question is how do we get there to minimize if we’re going to allow for a variance how do we minimize that because I think that’s what our obligations are to make sure that it’s the smallest possible variance that would meet the request. So how do we go about doing that and if we want to do that today or do we want to have everybody do homework and come back? Madsen: I share your concern on the size and scale of the building. I think it’s a wonderful idea to restore the fire truck and what you do in a community with it. Thank you for bringing in the picture of the one other storage building that is in the neighborhood but I’m just not sure that a residential neighborhood is the best fit for lots of storage buildings so if we do grant this variance, and more other neighbors have uses for storage buildings I’m not sure that’s the, what the residential area was intended to have so I do struggle with that but I do appreciate you bringing in the list of the neighbors who are for this facility to store the truck but I struggle with that. Randall: I guess I would like to kind of table it and have them work on it some more. I don’t know if they came up with a different plan that used less variance and maybe a rain garden or whatever. Some of those solutions might be, do they have to re-apply for all of this stuff? 10 Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 21, 2017 Aller: That was what was my next question. Aanenson: No. Aller: They would have to sign an extension correct to have it decided. Aanenson: Yeah they can give us an extension so they could, you could table and since they’re not ready to construct right away we need some time to work on it. Aller: Right. That’s why I was asking what their time table was to see whether or not it would be an appropriate alternative. Randall: It would be easier if you were into motorcycles than fire trucks but I’m just giving you a hard time. Rich Gavert: Can I say something? Aller: You know we closed the public hearing on this but in the spirit of going ahead and hear you but why don’t you come up so it’s on the record. Come up and state your name and address for the record. Rich Gavert: Rich Gavert, 7701 Frontier Trail. The building, the garage so to speak that Jack and Rick showed you pictures of, that’s nothing but storage. I’ve been here 42 years and it’s, never see a car coming or going out of that so the precedence has more or less been set. Aller: Well thank you. Thank you. Aanenson: That’s an original building. There’s no house with it. It’s been there forever and it’s not being used as a business or anything. It’s just sitting out there so it’s an anomaly. We’ve got that in other parts of the city. It’s not a new one that someone’s trying to put a boat in or something like that. It’s being used as storage so. We recognize that that’s a. Aller: And I recognize and I think the commissioners recognize the fact that the present building is non-conforming so. What we’re doing is replacing a non-conforming use with a… Tietz: I think if we are taking this back for further study, you know there’s a lot of time and investment and I’m sure there’s some engineering time that’s going to go into this too. I don’t want someone to go away and think that all these changes or proposed changes and they look at it, that then they come back and it gets denied so I think it’s very important that we are giving positive direction and hopefully in working with staff that it come back with a solution that then we will find acceptable. 11 Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 21, 2017 Randall: I think some of the things that are important too for the homeowner are going to be to determine the minimum space that they need for this fire truck. Whether it be it’s operation and storage, whatever. By having the minimums down that will give us the minimum that they have. That they can work with and find a solution to the problem so I just want to put that on the record. Aller: And it sounds like they’re doing a good job of that now but there are things that haven’t been considered. The fact that they could use the existing and expand the existing or attach it and there are different alternatives that really should be looked at in order to make sure that we can feel comfortable in granting one because it would be at a minimum level. So with those comments would anyone like to make a motion on this item? Randall: Make a motion to table it, is that what it would be? Aller: Yeah. Randall: I’d like to make a motion to table this variance request. Do I have to set a time line with that also? th Aanenson: Chair for the record, the 60 day is the 19 of December but we would ask for another 60 days which we can if they’re agreeable to that and then we can certainly have it accomplished within that timeframe. th Aller: So that would be the 19 of February. Aanenson: Yeah. Any time between then and now that they can get, yep. Aller: Right and that would. Aanenson: We’ll just put them back on the agenda. Aller: What happens is we’re required to, the City’s required to make a decision before a certain time line runs and that’s 60 days so in order for us to allow for other communication and discussion to go forward we have to move that back so that we don’t, otherwise we would have to deny it and then appeal it and do all that other stuff so this way we’re just, if the motion was to carry then we’ll just be moving that date out with your agreement to say that we’ve got the additional time to make that decision based on your application and then you can amend your application based upon your discussions and we can have another hearing and hopefully put this thing to rest. Okay. So we have a motion. Do I have a second? Madsen: Second. Aller: Having a motion and a second. 12 Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 21, 2017 Randall moved, Madsen seconded that the Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments table Planning Case 2017-20 after receiving written agreement for a 60 day extension. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. Aller: That motion carries. Do we have a form currently that we can print out? Aanenson: I think we can just ask for the 60 days. We’re within our rights to ask for 60 days so. Aller: Okay. Thank you. PUBLIC HEARING: TH 204 WEST 78 STREET: VARIANCE FOR HARD SURFACE COVERAGE AND FRONT YARD SETBACK. Aller: Is that you? Walters: Yes it is. Aller: Thank you MacKenzie. th Walters: So this is Case 2017-21. 204 78 Street West. This is a variance request. They’re requesting a 3 foot, an after the fact variance for a 3 foot front yard setback to accommodate a pergola and an after the fact for 1.5 percent lot coverage for an expanded driveway. This is in the same neighborhood as the last variance we heard. Let me get my laser pointer up here. The property is located here. The zoning is the same. The only change, the relevant condition is because this property accesses a collector road our ordinance does require it to have a turn around accommodated within the driveway. The current site conditions are it’s an 8,981 square foot lot. It currently has 28.3 percent lot coverage. The existing front yard setback is 27 feet. It meets all other setbacks and as a bit of an anomaly the public sidewalk is actually located on the property instead of in the right-of-way and that’s about 214 square feet of impervious surface. The applicant is requesting to retain an expanded driveway and retain the pergola in it’s existing configuration. The applicant has stated that when the house was constructed about 10 years ago the sidewalk was poured in a different position than intended right up against the house so that forced the pergola footings to be further forward which pushed it out into the required front yard th setback. And then due to the difficulty of accessing 78 Street West they chose to deviate from the proposed driveway and widen it. The other reason they made that decision the construction th was because 78 Street does not allow street parking so they wanted to accommodate some on site parking. After the property was built they had originally put an extra 385 square feet of Class V aggregate or gravel to the side of the driveway. After consulting with staff they did remove that to reduce the property’s non-compliance. As was noted in earlier discussions a lot of properties in this neighborhood do encroach within the front yard setback and they feel the pergola adds architectural interest to the front façade. When staff looked it over one of the things 13