Loading...
CC Minutes 2-27-06 City Council Meeting - February 27, 2006 Mayor Furlong: Okay. We can make one motion based upon staff's recommendation in the reports. Do I hear such a motion? Councilman Peterson: Mr. Mayor, I would make that motion that the City Council approve all the recommendations supported by staff this evening. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second? Councilwoman Tjomhom: Second. Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any discussion on that motion? Hearing none, we'll proceed with the vote. Councilman Peterson moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded to approve the following: a. Resolution #2006-18: Vacation of Drainage and Utility Easements for Pinehurst, Vacation #06-07. b. Preliminary and Final Plat for Pinehurst 2nd Addition, Planning Case 06-07. c. First Amendment to Pinehurst Development Contract, Project No. 05-03. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to O. DA VE BANGASSER. 3633 SOUTH CEDAR DRIVE: REQUEST FOR A HARD SURFACE COVERAGE AND TWO FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCES TO CONSTRUCT A 3 STALL GARAGE. Kate Aanenson: Thank you. The subject site is located out at Red Cedar Point. It is actually two lots. This is where the actual variance is on, where the existing garage is and I'll show you that in a second. There is existing home on the site and existing single car garage on the north property. The applicant is requesting to receive a variance to add a 3 car garage. The variance involves a front and rear yard setback for the garage, as well as the impervious surface, hard cover. Can you zoom in on that just a little bit Nann? Thank you. So the existing lot with the house on it, I've got the hard surface shown in yellow on this. The gravel driveway in the front, which provides access to the existing dwelling and the garage. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on this on February ih and recommended, or voted for a 3-3 tie, which is why it's before you tonight. It didn't have a super majority vote. One of the things that the Planning Commission did ask for was some of the surrounding impervious surface coverage in the area, and that was at 29%. This would be at 31 %. In looking at the 3 car garage, staff looked at the existing situation regarding the driveway. Could some more hard surface coverage be removed? We also recommended that the lot be combined. I know there was that question regarding whether or not you could combine two lots when the street goes through. You can under the City's code. Under lot, definition of zoning lot you can combine lots and we have no requirements of how that would happen. We have other circumstances in the city of why we would do that. Have it under one ownership so you can sell them off and try to allow somebody, if this was in a separate, it's a lot of record and there is some legal standing for someone should ever get a permit on there. So one of the conditions that you can apply when someone asks for 9 City Council Meeting - February 27, 2006 variances, things to mitigate that impact and certainly having them under one ownership would be more of the idea would be one thing that we feel would be better than someone else trying to come in and maximizing that lot. So in discussing and looking at this itself and looking at some of the surrounding properties, there is a wide range of lot sizes. If you were to go back, and I know the applicant's concerned. This is a narrower lot with the existing home. There's a wide range of some homes have garages on the lot. Some have homes, garages across the street, so some have 3. Some have 4. And again in this circumstance, going back to what we have for, there is parking convenient. While it's not covered, to the property in itself, and looking at the hard surface coverage, as outlined in your staffreport at the tying the two together. The 31 %, they felt that that's exceeding, or it's on the higher end so we recommended against the second stall, or the third stall and just recommended the two. And the Planning Commission struggled with that too, so with that we did put the findings in there. There are, there is a motion for the alternative in your staff report. If you were to approve it. But we believe again that's reasonable use with the 2 car garage. So with that I'd be happy to answer any questions. Mayor Furlong: Questions for staff? Ms. Aanenson, a question for you. The issue of combining the two lots is something that I think you said we've done before and in fact I think in this particular area that occurs too where there are individual parcels that public roads cross. Kate Aanenson: That's correct. It is defined in the code. You could have, and we have in the city 3 or 4 different lots under separate, that are under one ownership, so it's the lots that are under one ownership combining them. And the purpose of that is if someone doesn't, if it's a lot of record, it has certain legal rights to it and if someone wants to sell it, they may try to come in and try to maximize the building and the circumstance. Building.. . accessory structure. As it sits today it's an accessory structure on a separate lot which would be in violation of the city code, so again doing as many things as we can to bring it into compliance as part of that mitigation for the vanance. Mayor Furlong: Okay, and that's what, condition number 10 does by making it in the same parcel. . . Kate Aanenson: That's correct. Mayor Furlong: ... parcel identification number, then it becomes a single lot of record. Kate Aanenson: Correct. And to say that it helps impervious mayor may not. Someone might try to put even more on there. Do a single car garage and put a loft above it and then try to make it a dwelling unit. It may end up being something else. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Kate Aanenson: So again if you look at number 11, it's the affidavit of the lot combination and that's, it's a combination lot. It's a zoning lot is different than just a regular lot is defined. Mayor Furlong: Okay. And that, would then that create a single parcel? 10 City Council Meeting - February 27, 2006 Kate Aanenson: Yes, that's the right word. Parcel is the right word as opposed to lot. If you look at other definitions of. Mayor Furlong: It would be called a single parcel. Kate Aanenson: Correct. Mayor Furlong: And so if there is any desire to do, to separate them, then they would have to come through the subdivision process. Kate Aanenson: That's correct. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Kate Aanenson: And that's the hook that you want. Mayor Furlong: Okay. And then you mentioned something this evening that I didn't see in the Planning Commission minutes. Maybe it was in there and I missed it, with regard to their drive gravel. . . Kate Aanenson: Well I think that was a discussion in fairness to Mr. Bangasser that really wasn't talked about at the Planning Commission and that's the fact that there is a lot of hard surface, so if there's a way to try to get a 3 car garage, if the council felt strongly about that, what could you do to improve the amount of hard surface and that would be to remove some of the driveway. I know it provides access to the house for parking, to getting things in and out, but we saw that as an opportunity to again mitigate the amount of hard surface. I don't believe Mr. Bangasser would like to do that. Mayor Furlong: Okay. And I guess in looking at that, right now if they went with the. Kate Aanenson: Actually if you took the driveway out, which.. .of the front and I know this is shared portion over here. It will actually get you right about to 25% so it meets code. Mayor Furlong: Okay. So it looks like there's a way to do it. Kate Aanenson: Right. Yeah, it's whether or not that that's acceptable. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright. Okay, any other questions for staff at this time? Councilman Peterson: Just one last one Kate. Just so I understand, if we do this as one parcel, then we don't have to go after some kind of easement for the road? Kate Aanenson: No. We have this circumstance if you go up and down Minnewashta Parkway, we have lots on the other side of Minnewashta Parkway. We have other lots in actually the Carver Beach area that also have structures so, no. It is allowed. A zoning lot is allowed by city code. 11 City Council Meeting - February 27, 2006 Councilman Peterson: Okay. Mayor Furlong: Okay. If there's no other questions for staff at this time, is the applicant here this evening? Like to address the council. Good evening sir. Dave Bangasser: Hello. I'm Dave Bangasser and this is my wife Mary Jo. Our lakeshore property's been in Mary Jo's family for 60 years and as you may be aware, the property was originally platted in 1913, nearly a century ago and as a result of that nearly all of the properties in this area either have variances or some kind of non-conforming use. This past year a hail storm caused severe, came through and caused severe damage to our vehicles, and we're here tonight to try to avoid future damage, as well as minimize outside storage. There's a well known shortage of storage space in this area, and a high amount of exterior storage. City staff has cited multiple property owners for excess storage of boats and trailers and as a result there are many cars parked outside. We would like to store 2 cars and a boat. The key issue here is the definition of a reasonable sized garage and a reasonable amount of impervious surface. We believe the council has already established definitions for both of these issues by recently granting variances for neighbors on either side of us, and that we are well within these definitions. Three years ago the council granted a variance to the Gunthers, our neighbors to the north to build a garage that increased their total to 4 stalls. In reviewing the staff report and the minutes from the council meeting for the Gunther variance, the staff, nor the council questioned whether 4 stalls was reasonable. Further down the point, the council also approved a variance for the addition of a third and fourth stall at 3605 Red Cedar. That's this picture here. At least 7 variances that were listed on the staff report, at least the executive summary that just came out, at least 7 of those variances involved 3 stalls or, 3 or 4 stalls and 3 of those 7 were for properties that were immediately adjacent to our parcel. The staff has stated that the majority of the property owners in the area have 2 stalls and that is the basis for the recommendation for 2 stalls tonight. We disagree with that assessment. This drawing here, the pink areas show properties that have in excess of 2 stalls. 22 of 38 lakeshore property owners have in excess of 2 stalls, which I believe is a majority have more than 2 stalls. The staff in coming up with their numbers is only counting the number of garage doors, not the total storage capacity of the garages. If we look at the properties that are immediately adjacent to our property, two of these properties have the capacity of 5 stalls with 4 doors. And 3 of the properties have capacity of 3 stalls with what's in excess of 30 feet with 2 doors. We own significantly more land than all 3 of the neighbors with 30 foot wide garages. Why restrict us to a smaller garage than they have? Based upon the council's past variances and the existing conditions in the area, we feel that our proposal for a 3 stall garage is well within the definition of reasonable. Concerning the second issue, impervious coverage, 2 years ago the council granted a variance to the Johnson's, our neighbors to the west, for an identical front yard setback and 40% impervious coverage. Three lots further west the council granted a variance for 50% coverage. We have proposed 31. Looking again at the adjacent properties, our proposed 31 % coverage is well below the surrounding properties of 40%, 52%, 54%, 35% and 46%. You can see from the drawings, pictures from the road, how much hard cover they have. These figures are somewhat different then what the staff figured in their 29% calculation. The staff had limited information to work with and we believe they're miscalculation of 29% average hard cover is a gross misrepresentation of reality. I could show you many pictures to illustrate my point. However 12 City Council Meeting - February 27,2006 allow me two quick examples. This survey was one of those used by a staff in calculating the 29% average hard cover. They figured the impervious surface for this property at 20.7%, which was the lowest of all that they looked at. If that were true, that would mean that there would be 4 times as much white as pink inside the blue lot area. Clearly this is not the case. The pink area divided by the lot size is 41.4%, exactly twice what the staff figured. Also the staff does not count sidewalks, rock, or the roof over the main entrance off to the side of the house. They have to walk around the garage to get to their entry. In fact I listed all of the staff's surveys, in many cases they excluded sidewalks, patios, and rock. Our second example involves the Johnson variance granted at 40%. However the staff used 31 % in determining their calculation of 29% average cover. Tom and Jackie are doing the majority of the work themselves and simply have not finished their project. Nobody called them to ask if they were done, and yet the 31 % was used. With the inaccuracies I just described, it's easy to see how the 29% average becomes skewed dramatically. If we use the staff's method calculating only footprint and driveway, our proposed 31 % coverage would be reduced to 20%, which would be lower than any of those that the property, that the staff looked at. We purchased this back lot 4 years ago in order to mitigate these types of issues, which we believe the council encourages. Our goal was to transfer density from the lake lot to the back lot, which we believe is also a desirable goal. The neighborhood supports this plan and would rather see a well designed garage than outside storage. The 3 closest neighbors have taken the time to write letters of support which I believe Kate handed out right at the start of the meeting. Kate mentioned the existing driveway which was brought up about 3:00 this afternoon. The possibility of giving up the existing gravel driveway in order for staff to support this. We did consider that possibility. However I need to make you aware of some facts. The entrance to the house is 9 feet above the road, and I'll take back the survey that Kate... It may be difficult to show all the detail but there's 9 feet of grade change between the road and the front door, and you'll notice there's a retaining wall basically all along the road, except right at the driveway, and that retaining wall curves as it approaches the driveway. With 9 feet of grade change, that's a very steep driveway. In fact the curve is there because you can't go straight up that driveway without bottoming out in a normal vehicle. You have to take that curve and get a little bit of run at it to get up that relatively steep portion in order to get up into a flatter area in which to park and get out of the vehicle. With that steep grade it's very difficult to provide access. It's difficult for people to walk up the elderly, the handicap. We had a handicap daughter in a wheelchair that could not have made this. There's been other times when we've had people in wheelchairs that had a difficult time getting up that driveway. In fact, Mary Jo's uncle lived next door in the property to the east, basically on the other side of the house. Lived there for many years and in his elderly years he used to park in this driveway because it was easier for him to get across and into his house from there, then to park in that shared area where there's a stairs and get up. We have no stairs. The stairs belongs to our neighbors. In addition the access issue, we also think we need to be able to drop things off that are closer to the house. The new driveway that we're proposing with the 3 stall garage is approximately 140 feet from the front door. It's a long ways to travel if you're trying to carry groceries or whatever. At some point we hope to be able to improve the access to try to deal with that 9 feet. I don't know exactly how we'll deal with that but at some point we hope to be able to deal with the access and when we do deal with that, we are willing to give up the gravel driveway and put sod there, but it's not something we can do at this time. We did, as Kate mentioned, that they were trying to find ways to mitigate and, mitigate the situation. We are open to that. We have proposed to staff providing a permeable pavement design. It's a design, there's a number of alternatives. 13 City Council Meeting - February 27, 2006 Ecostone is one of them. The Minnesota DNR endorses the use of permeable design. The Landscape Arboretum has a demonstration installation of this, and both the cities of Mound and Minnetonka accept permeable pavement as an acceptable solution. With that, before I close, do you have any questions for me. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any questions for the applicant at this time? No? Alright, very good. Thank you. Dave Bangasser: Thank you for your consideration. Mayor Furlong: You bet. Ms. Aanenson, any I guess quick response in terms of some of the information that he provided. Kate Aanenson: Sure. Again the nexus that we're looking at is between, it's hard when you segment it, the variances and on every variance that we do, we always try to find mitigation, so that was a component that was left out in each of these. Sometimes we achieved a greater setback from the lake, so we would have to go back through and find out, and that's a key component that was missing because each one we try to put, is there something else that we can achieve by giving here. Is there something else that we're gaining? Maybe it was lakescape or maybe it was a reduction of a non-conforming setback so that component was left out by this part. We just did follow through what the Planning Commission had asked us to do. Again, I'm not going to argue the percentages. There might have been a few that were off, but I don't think in generalities, if you want to talk about the Johnson's. That lot's a lot bigger. They also took down the existing structure and made sight lines better, so again we look at each case individually as you're supposed to on a variance request. As we did on this one, we said is there other things that we can do to try to get, making the situation better. So in this circumstance they're saying well, we added more pervious but what did we do to make the situation better? And that's what we're trying to find. That area. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Any follow up questions for staff? Councilman Peterson: The only other one Kate was the question of 3 stalls versus 2. It's not a stall issue... Kate Aanenson: Exactly, thank you. It's not a stall issue. If you could get 4 on there, great. That's not the issue. We didn't look at it to say it was a hard surface coverage issue. That was really the nexus to say, that third stall is what pushed over the impervious. This is already over so we said okay, well two is reasonable. And if we weren't so far over on the impervious, or we could get some better setbacks or something else that we could compromise or find some mitigation to say well we got something back to improve the lake, maybe we would have gone that way but it wasn't because we always felt 2 was what we should get. It's the hard surface coverage. And that number we cast the difference between the 2 and the 3 and... Mayor Furlong: And I guess a clarifying question there, the alternative motion includes a 2.28% hard surface coverage variance, which was some estimate with regard to what the. 14 City Council Meeting - February 27,2006 Kate Aanenson: The third stall I believe. Mayor Furlong: Or the difference between what was being requested and that number was the third stall. Or in the area. Councilman Peterson: ...31 and we're recommending 27. Mayor Furlong: As the alternative. Kate Aanenson: Right, so that would give you the additional, yeah. Councilwoman Tjornhom: In the Planning Commission minutes of their meeting, and I read the notes and watched the meeting actually, some of the commissioners you know were having, were struggling because they're were saying water runoff would be going different directions. What do you say about that? The fact that you know, some, the house, the runoff from the house would be going down to the lake, but with the garage it'd be going an entirely different direction. Kate Aanenson: Well I don't know if that's actually going to make a difference because the house itself which is adjacent to the lake isn't changing. It's just what's behind. I mean we could put gutters on the garage and mitigate that so I'm not sure that that was really. The Chairman of the Planning Commission's here if you wanted to ask him to kind of summarize, if you had any questions for him, I'd be happy to. Mayor Furlong: Yeah, given the topography I guess my question is even if it starts out on the triangle piece where the garage is now to the west, it's going to north or south. Todd Gerhardt: It's going to make it's way to the lake. Mayor Furlong: Other questions? Okay. Kate Aanenson: And then just the one other comment. You know when we talked about the driveway, I certainly recognize that that's a good access to the house. Nobody can dispute that. I guess our concern was that, you know if you went with a 3 car garage, what would be the... that there still would be storage there for convenience sake to park next to the house and if the goal is to get 3, then could you get a commitment that they're going to be outdoor storage. Or some parking out there, you know because that would be the goal, as I understood for the 3, the boat and 2 cars, would there not be storage or parking that's occurring now. Councilman Peterson: If we got that though, how enforceable is it? Kate Aanenson: Yeah, exactly. That'd be a good will or good faith. Mayor Furlong: That's the challenge. Okay. Alright, well let's bring it to the council for discussion then. Thoughts or comments. Councilwoman Tjornhom: I still have one more question. 15 City Council Meeting - February 27,2006 Mayor Furlong: Certainly. Councilwoman Tjomhom: How does the applicant feel about the proposal of a 2 stall garage? Kate Aanenson: They want the 3. Councilwoman Tjomhom: They don't want to compromise. Kate Aanenson: They would like 3, certainly. Dave Bangasser: Well what's the definition? You're talking...what's the definition of a 2 stall. I don't know what that is. I mean one, if we go down to a 2 stall garage, you're just encouraging us to have, almost forcing us to store outside, and so are we flexible? Yes, to a point but we've got to be realistic too. There are certain storage needs. We live on a lake. You've got boats. You've got other you know water toys, what not. Why not put it inside? That's what the neighborhood wants. The neighborhood wants us to put it inside and not have all this storage outside. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright, thank you. Thoughts. Council members, discussion. Councilman Lundquist. Councilman Lundquist: A tough one, as Mr. Bangasser was giving his presentation, which was very well done. Obviously I always try to strive to be fair and reasonable to everyone. But the, the thing that keeps striking me is that for exactly the same reason why the neighborhood may be higher is precisely why you should try to limit it whenever possible because, just because everybody else has a 50% hard cover variance, you know that's essentially why you want to try to minimize when possible. The thing that strikes me with the lateness of the, talk about the driveway and other things is, is I would be okay to considering it a 2 week delay to allow staff to work on that a little bit more rather than you know after 3:00 thing, unless the Bangasser's have a construction deadline they're trying to meet or something like that, to at least give that some due. If it comes back that it doesn't work, then you know that's fine. At least we tried. To mitigate that, so I guess I'd like to explore that a little bit more. At the end of the day I think there's some give and take. I'd be interested to see what the other members, I think I'm still on the fence here. If I had to make a decision tonight, I'm not sure so I'd like to explore that driveway piece a little bit more potentially. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Other thoughts. Councilwoman Tjomhom: I too would be willing to give them an extra 2 weeks to work things out and figure out a more creative way to handle it. But it's a hard thing to decide on. I guess the whole issue is the hard surface coverage and, what I'm confused about is, obviously 2 stalls are better than 1. 3 is even better than 2, I understand that but during the season, and maybe I'm wrong about this but usually your boats and your jetskis are up on the dock or they're not in the garage, so that's when you can park your cars in the garage when you're using your lake home. During the winter, when the season is over, that's when you put your boats in the garage and you 16 City Council Meeting - February 27, 2006 don't need to be too worried about protecting your cars as much. So that's the argument I have that they still would have reasonable use of a 2 stall garage and you wouldn't necessarily have to be storing things out in their lot, so I'd like to see the 2 week, 2 weeks to kind of hammer things out. Ifthey...otherwise I think I'm more inclined to vote in favor of staff's recommendation. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Councilman Peterson. Councilman Peterson: Yeah this is all about keeping the lake as clean as possible. I think we kind of lose sight of that on occasion. And the variances that were cited this evening, as Kate reinforced, you don't want to, I hate to say we negotiated something for the betterment of the lake but that's essentially what we've done in those other cases. Where those variances and the impervious surfaces might be higher, we did get, we did better the lake making those decisions. And in this case I'm struggling with the thought that we're bettering the lake by making that decision. And that's what I'm struggling with. I quite frankly don't know what 2 weeks will do, but I'm certainly willing to do that and I think ifthere's something creative that we haven't found, I'm certainly amenable to affording the opportunity to search for that but you know I just come back to what's the lake getting here, and without being overly punitive to our residents but you know I don't like the feeling of horse trading here but I don't know a different alternative to maintaining the lake so, I'll struggle with that so. I would look to staff to see if it would benefit by a 2 week delay. If not, I'm ready to vote on it tonight. Mayor Furlong: I guess my thoughts are similar in that each time we receive these requests you look to see what else can be done to avoid providing a hard surface coverage variance. I never enjoy approving these because it's a storm water runoff issue, especially for properties this close to any of our lakes. It's important. I think here there's an opportunity, because the property owner owns property and the intensification here is further away from the lakeshore than it would be near the lakeshore. That's good when we can do that, but it is an intensification. It's whether they go from 1 to 2 or 1 to 3, they're going and having driven by there, the one that's there now is not a very large one so whatever they do with is going to be an intensification. .. .that there's an opportunity for the property owner to achieve the inside storage that they're looking for, by talking about number of stalls, and with other mitigation across the combined parcel or the two parcels becoming one, and not, and be in a situation where we don't have to provide a hard surface variance coverage at all, I think we should pursue that. If that's 2 weeks, if that's longer, just looking at the staff report, the application was received January 4th, so that tells me if we've got 60 days plus another 60, if that counts here, we've got time. But I would not be inclined tonight to approve either of these given that there may be an opportunity for the property owner to achieve the inside storage that he's talking about and avoid a hard surface coverage variance at all. And so I would be hesitant going forward tonight. I'd like to, for reasons that some of you stated, Councilman Peterson I think in particular, where's the advantage here? Of the examples that were mentioned that I was involved in, I know that there was mitigation as well. That driveways were taken out or reduced or there were setbacks from the lake that didn't exist before that we increased. There were changes to it and here it is, it's an expansion and so, while I believe there's an opportunity here to provide the inside storage that the applicant's looking for, I don't know that we're there yet and I'd like to spend some time to find a way to work together with staff and the applicant to see what they can do to even eliminate the need for hard surface coverage at all across the two parcels. That would be my 17 City Council Meeting - February 27, 2006 recommendation because knowing that that might be out there, I couldn't see moving forward with either of these two this evening. Other thoughts or are people consistent with that or is there? Councilman Peterson: Well I mean Kate, do you think that there's value in getting you guys some time to continue pursuing or do you think? Kate Aanenson: Yes, be happy to meet with Mr. Bangasser. Come up with some other solutions. Mayor Furlong: With the extent that we've got some newer information, let's dig into it and let's make sure that everybody understands what's available and maybe there's an opportunity here. Councilman Peterson: Motion to table. Councilman Lundquist: Second. Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any further discussion? Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded to table the request for hard surface coverage and two front yard setback variances to construct a 3 stall garage at 3633 South Cedar Drive. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to O. GA TEW A Y NORTH/GA TEW A Y PLACE. NORTHWEST INTERSECTION OF HIGHWAY 101 AND FUTURE HIGHWAY 212. APPLICANT. CHANHASSEN GA TEW A Y PLACE. LLC: REQUEST TO SUBDIVIDE 6.2 ACRES INTO 3 LOTS AND 1 OUTLOT AND SITE PLAN WITH VARIANCES FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A MUL TIF AMIL Y BillLDING. Kate Aanenson: Thank you. I have a few exhibits here. This is the subject site. We talked about this most recently in your work session. The new 1011212, so this application includes a couple of things. One, the subdivision. Creating a parcel, a lot for this to be built on. And then also site plan approval with a variance. In your staff report we went through the history of this property, this area in itself. We did a PUD for the entire piece. Again the property's actually on both sides of the new 212. The property that we're talking about specifically is this piece right here with the apartment building. When we did this PUD it was always anticipated that that would be apartment building. On the property immediately to the west will come in at a future date. This property right here is being built by the Sand Company. As I indicated, this will be the one lot that will be built on. It's, the building itself will be 47 units and will include multifamily, excuse me. 48 apartments and will include 2 and 3 bedroom units. In the architecture itself, where we looked at putting this again, while we looked at the apartment building in this location, the fact that it's close to the park and ride we felt had a lot of benefits. A nice transition as you come from the 101. Easy access. Some of the issues that we changed in the staff report, which I know the applicants have some disdain with is the sidewalk being built 18