Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-14-2016 Board of Adjustment-�1-V/ CITY OFIOWACITY IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT September 14, 2016 5: 15 P.M. Emma Harvat Hall STAFF REPORT CITY OF IONA A CITY Department of Neighborhood & Development Services IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING Wednesday, September 14, 2016 — 5:15 PM City Hall Emma Harvat Hall AGENDA A. Call to Order B. Roll Call C. Consider the August 10, 2016 Minutes D. Appeal Item APL16-00001: Discussion of an appeal of a decision by Development Services to issue a building permit for a residential use on property located in the Low Density Single-family (RS-5) zone at 101 Lusk Avenue: alleging an error in the classification of the property as a residential use, wrongful approval of a site plan, and other zoning code errors. E. Board of Adjustment Information G. Adjourn NEXT BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING: Wednesday, October 12, 2016 Emma Harvat Hall, City Hall City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM TO: Board of Adjustment FROM: Sarah Walz, Associate Planner DATE: September 14, 2016 RE: APPEAL OF A DECISION BY THE DEPARTMENT OF NEIGHBORHOOD AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES TO ISSUE A BUILDING PERMIT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE LOW DENS!T`! SINGLE-FAMILY (0ss.5) ZONE AT 101 LUSK AVENUE The purpose of this memorandum is to set forth the rules that govern your consideration of the above -referenced appeal. In deciding the appeal you must first determine: Whether Neighborhood and Development Services (NDS) exercised its powers and followed the regulations established in the Zoning Code with regard to classification of the structure as a residential use; site plan approval requirements for sanitary sewer; compliance with fire safety regulations for street access and provision of water for firefighting; and 2. Whether the actions of NDS staff were patently arbitrary or capricious. You will receive a memo from NDS staff on the background of the appeal, the record produced by the staff, and the zoning code regulations that apply to the regulations cited in the appeal. Element No. 1 above requires you to determine whether NDS staff properly followed (used/relied on) the zoning regulations. Element No. 2 requires you to determine whether the Development Services decision to approve the application was patently arbitrary and capricious. A decision is "arbitrary" or "capricious" when it is made without regard to the law or the underlying facts of the case. Arora v. Iowa Board of Medical Examiners, 564 N.W. 2d 4, 7 (Iowa 1997). A decision is also "arbitrary" or "capricious" when it involves an "abuse of discretion". An "abuse of discretion" occurs when the action rests on grounds or reasons clearly untenable, unreasonable, or lacking rationality in light of the actors' authority. D Inc. v. Iowa Employment Appeal Bd., 576 N.W.2d 352, 355, (Iowa 1998). The above -stated "standard of review" is a narrow one. The Board is not entitled to simply substitute its own judgment for that of NDS staff. In other words, you may not reverse the decision merely because you disagree with it. Rather, if you find that the NDS staff exercised its powers and followed the guidelines established by law, and that its decision was not patently arbitrary or capricious then you must uphold the decision. If, however, you find that NDS staff did not exercise its powers and follow the regulations established by law, abused its discretion, or acted patently arbitrarily and capriciously you may, in conformity with the provisions of the Zoning Code, affirm (for a different reason), wholly or partly; reverse, wholly or partly; or, modify the decision of the NDS staff to grant the building permit. In other words, you will stand in the shoes of the staff and make such September 8, 2016 Page 2 decision as ought to have been made based on the regulations with regards to the approval of an accessory structure. The motion to decide the appeal will be in the form of a motion to affirm the appeal to overturn the decision of NDS staff. Again, in making your decision, you step into the shoes of and have all the powers of the NDS staff. The reasons for your decision must be clearly articulated based on the regulations in the zoning code. APPLICATION TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPEAL DATE: 06/29/2016 PROPERTY PARCEL NO. iO0915S004 APPEAL PROPERTY ADDRESS: 101 LUSK AVE APPEAL PROPERTY ZONE: RS-5 APPEAL PROPERTY LOT SIZE: 16.650 sq. ft. ADDi irenirc NAME ADDRESS PHONE Neighbors of Manville Heights Association, Karin Southard, President 420 Lexington Ave. (319) 337-6337 Anne Lahey 111 Lusk Ave. (319) 339-6100 Craig Syrop & Anne Sadler 117 Lusk Ave. (319) 621-2192 Bill & Karen Ackerman 631 Bayard St. (319) 338-8449 Bradley & Catherine Erickson 11 Rowland Ct, (319) 356-7221 CONTACT PFRSON NAME ADDRESS PHONE James C. Larew 504 E. Bloomington St. (319) 541-4240 PROPERTY OWNER NAME ADDRESS PHONE Frederic & Sandra Carlson 101 Lusk Ave. cC : CDS gape !,l pS - Selz m The Applicants: The Applicants are comprised of the following group and Individuals: Neighbors of Manville Heights Association, whose members are real property owners and electors who reside in Manville Heights and who believe that proposed structure at 101 Lusk Avenue will adversely affect their property and associational interests and rights; Anne Lahey, who owns and resides at 111 Lusk Avenue, which is located immediately to north of 101 Lusk Avenue; Craig Syrop and Anne Sadler, who own a rental property at 117 Lusk Avenue, which is immediately to the north of the Lahey property; Bill and Karen Ackerman, who own a rental property at 631 Bayard Street, and whose entire southerly property line is shared with a portion of the northerly property line of 101 Lusk Avenue; Bradley and Catherine Erickson, who own and reside at 11 Rowland Court, which is just around the corner from 101 Lusk Avenue. The decisions being annealed: The Applicants allege that errors have been made by the following administrative official: John Yapp, Development Services Coordinator, and/or others in his Department during the week of June 26, 2016, pursuant to the Iowa City Zoning Ordinance ("Zoning Code") , as applied to a proposed structure to be located at 101 Lusk Avenue. The errors have been made in dimensions: • The City's wrongful misclassification of the proposed building at 101 Lusk Avenue as a single family residential structure, when, in fact, the structure has been designed for, and will be used by, the owners as an entertainment venue for large tail -gate -type parties related to University of Iowa sports events. • The City's wrongful approval of the Site Plan for this proposed building which fails to comply with provisions of the Code's Title related to Site Plans; and • The City's wrongful approval of the Building Permit for this proposed building plans that fail to comply with essential Code provisions. Purpose of the Appeal: The Applicants challenge the above decision(s) based on the interpretation of the following section(s) of the Zoning Code: • The Applicants' appeal the City's misclassification decision arises under one or more of the following Zoning Code Sections: 14-1A-3A, 14-lB-1.A,14-2A-1.13, 14-4A-2, 14-4A-2.A.l.b, 14-4A- 2.A.1.c, 14-4A-2.A.1.h, 14-4A-2.A.l.j, 14-4A-2.A.1.a, 14-4A-2.A-1.K, 14-4A-A1. • The Applicants' appeal the City s approval of the Site Plan arises under one or more of the following Zoning Code Sections: 18-3-2, 18-3-2.A, 18-3-2.C, 18-3-2.1), 18-3.2.F. • The Applicants' appeal the City's approval of a Building Permit for the subject propertyviolates one or more of the following Zoning Code Sections: 14-SA-3.5, 14-lA-3.B.1, 14-1-3.13.2 14-1A- 3.8.4, 14-1A-3.B.8, 14-16-1.A, 14-16-3.A, 14-2A-4.B.3.e, 14-2A-4.C.1, 14-2A-6.A.3, 14-4:13�1.13.1-S, 14-4B-1.B.2.A.1-5, 14-413-3.A.1-7,14-4E-4, 14-4E-4.D, 16-3D-S, 16-3D-7, r� �� IA Pppeai to Fown City Board of Ad usttre7. -101 Lusk Avenue Page 1 Summary of the bases for the appeal, referring to the Code sections listed above and providing sound reasons for overturning the decisions: 1. The provisions of the Iowa City Zoning Code are "intended to implement the City of Iowa City's comprehensive plan in a manner that promotes the health, safe, order, convenience, prosperity, and general welfare of the citizens of Iowa City} Iowa City Zoning Code (hereafter, "Code") § 14-1A-3.A. (emphasis added). In this instance, material provisions of the Zoning Code have been applied and interpreted in a manner that will be injurious to citizens of Iowa City. The City's Misclassification Decision 2. The proposed building at 101 Lusk Avenue has been misclassified as a Single Family Residence whereas, in fact, it should be classified as a structure to be used in exactly the manner that the owners have described: for large private group events —ones that the owners describe as tailgating. The City's characterization of property in the classification process must be based on use definitions set forth in the Zoning Code. Code § 14-4A-2. Land uses are assigned to the use category that most closely describes the nature of the principal use. Code § 14-4A-A.1. When a property has more than one use, then the City must determine whether a use is a "principal" use or an "accessory" use. Code § 14-4A-A.1. In determining a property's principal use, the Zoning Code sets forth evaluative criteria to be applied to that property. Those criteria include the following: a. The description of the use or activities in comparison to the stated characteristics of each use category. Code § 14-4A-2.A.1.a. b. The intensity of the activity or use in comparison to the stated characteristics of each use category. Code § 14-4A-2.A.1.b. c. The amount of site or floor area and equipment devoted to the use or activity. Code § 14-4A-2.A.1.c. d. The building site and arrangement. Code § 14-4A-2.A.l.h. e. The number of vehicle trips generated by the use or activity. Code § 14-4A)-2.A.1.j, f. How the use advertises itself. Code § 14-4A-2.A.l.k. One need not go much further than reviewing the planned uses of the various rooms of the entertainment structure and the public statements made by the owners to determine that the principal use of this building will not be as a single family residence for owners who do not even reside in Iowa City. This is a venue designed to hold more than 200 people; its owners describe it as a tailgate venue; its layout Is intended to entertain crowds; its building plans show a separate entrance for the "owners"; the structure will be equipped with commercial -grade kitchen fixtures; its multiple toilets and urinals and showers far exceed in number what a single family would normally use; a two-story basketball court will assure Appeal to Iowa City 3oard of'A.dijastmant - 101 Lusk Avenue Page 2 that all of those who come will, in fact, be entertained —a viewing deck is provided in what drawings depict as an interior "courtyard." 4. The Zoning Code's Scope provides that no use shall be "...established nor shall any structure be installed, converted, enlarged, reconstructed or structurally altered, except in conformity with the regulations and standards of this title." Code § 14-18-3.A. The Code further provides that the Low Density Single -Family Residential Zone (RS-5). "...is primarily Intended to provide housing opportunities for individual households. The regulations are intended to create, maintain, and promote livable neighborhoods." To the extent that non-residential uses and structures are permitted in the RS-5 zone, they are to be "...planned and designed to be compatible with the character, scale, and pattern of the residential development" Code § 14-2A-1.B. The proposed structure at 101 Lusk Avenue violates these provisions in one or more of the following ways: a. The properties immediately to the north of the proposed entertainment structure are single family dwellings, early 20`h century bungalows with front porches, located at Ill Lusk Avenue and 117 Lusk Avenue, respectively. Each of them are comprised of well -under 1,000 square feet of living area. b. According to the owners, Sandy and Reed Carlson, in one widely published account, "...they live full time in Decorah, Iowa," and that if they are "going to build a house to tailgate at, it should mimic the [Iowa Hawkeyes' Kin nick] stadium." ("Couple plans to replicate University of Iowa's KinnfckStadium with nearly 7500 square foot house," http://abcnews ¢o com/Lifestyle/couple-plans-replicate-university iowas ki nni ck-stadium-7500/story?id=40041402 ). c, Mr. Carlson, describes himself "as a kind of a theme guy," and, so "thought it was a great idea." d. The structure, according to the Mr. Reed's own description, "includes touches like pink restrooms to mimic Kinnick Stadium's famous pink locker room for visiting teams. The home's'press box' will be a "bunk room." e. According to Mr. Carlson, the home's roof "...will be sloped down towards the courtyard to resemble stadium seating." f. In the middle of the entertainment venue will be an "inner courtyard" to "tailgate," a place where, according to Mr. Carlson, "no one else will see us. We're self- contained." g. The drawings submitted to the City have been changed from time to time;vresent drawings continue to depict one set of doors, located at the back of the IM, as the "owner's entrance." - r� The Cfy's Site Plan Approval Error S. The City has required, and, has approved, a Site Plan. Site Plan approval by the Gt� is a pre- requisite to the issuance of a Building Permit. The Site Plan, as approved by the City, faits to Appeal to 9owa. City 3oarti cl Midsttrerl -101 Lusk Avenue Page 3 conform to a number of minimum design standards of Title 18 of the Code, the only provisions that address Site Plan criteria and review processes. Code § 18-3-2. The Site Plan's deficiencies include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following: a. Drainage. The design of a proposed project must make adequate provision for surface and subsurface drainage to limit the rate of increased runoff of surface water to adjacent and downstream property and so that the project will not substantially and materially increase the natural flow onto adjacent downstream property. Code § 18-3-2.A. The proposed building covers nearly the entirety of two adjacent lots with impervious materials on the roof, courtyard and driveway areas. The Site Plan offers no means to control storm water run-off. In fact, no provision is made for the handling of surface water which will rapidly move away from the impervious surfaces (roofs, courtyard, driveways) that will cover almost all of this sloping double -lot. There are no street storm water sewers in the vicinity. Large quantities of storm water run-off will cover public right-of-ways (already subject to erosion) and adjacent private property. b. Fire Safety. A Site Plan must provide for adequate fire protection and other measures to ensure fire safety. Code § 18-3-2.C. The narrow paved street (20 feet wide, with curbs), with parking allowed on one side, and the absence of a turn- around point at its dead end, will place the public at risk and prevent reasonable access to, or egress from, this location by fire trucks, ambulances and police cars. The City's failure to address this issue is particularly notable in light of its decision, only a few years ago, to deny the construction of a residential home on the north end of Woolf Avenue, less than four blocks away because that public right of way did not have a safe place for emergency vehicles to turnaround. Woolf Avenue, at that location is wider than Lusk Avenue's twenty -foot width; there is no parking on either side of Woolf Avenue, whereas parking is allowed on one -side of Lusk Avenue; only low -density use was proposed for the Woolf Avenue project, whereas here, the whole purpose of the proposed building is to high -density entertainment events. c. Erosion and Sedimentation Control. A Site Plan must provide for and co`m`ply with standards for erosion and sedimentation control to protect adjoining or sairounding property. The design must achieve the lowest potential for ercsi6n. Cod@ � 18-3 2.0. The Site Plan submitted to, and approved by, the City makes.no provision for either erosion or sedimentation control. d. Vehicle and Pedestrian Circulation. A Site Plan must be designed to al`owo for safe and convenient flow of vehicles and the movement of pedestrians. Code § 18-3- 2.F. The approved Site Plan makes no such provision and, in fact, the intended use of the property is to attract large numbers of people to an area of the City marked by the intersection of two narrow, dead-end streets (Lusk Avenue and Rowland Court) where parking is already extremely tight and lightly enforced by the City normally, and virtually not -at -all on University of Iowa game and special event occasions. The adjacent streets have sidewalks on only one side (Lusk Ave; Bayard Appez ;o sown City Boars cf M),7usn eat ' -101 Lusk Avenue Page 4 Street; Lexington Avenue) or not at all (Rowland Court; parts of Bayard Street). Neither the vehicular nor pedestrian infrastructure is prepared for the large crowds that this venue is designed to accommodate. Property owners who, on a daily basis, walk in the neighborhood, including children, will be placed at added risk by the construction of this project. e. The Basis for a Fifteen root Front Yard Set -Back is Not Demonstrated. The Code requires a minimum fifteen -foot front -yard set -back of a residential structure in the RS-S zone. In established neighborhoods where there are a variety of set -backs used by various residential structures, the Code tails for an averaging of existing set- backs to determine the appropriate set back to use when a new residential structure is built. The City's file provides no rationale for the fifteen -foot setback that is depicted in the approved Site Plan; no measurements of existing set -backs, for existing homes on bath sides of Lusk Avenue ; no averaging computations are presented. f. Minimum Side Yard Requirements are Ignored. The Code requires a minimum of five feet distance between the outside edge of a structure's exterior wall and the location of a lot line. [CITE CODE SECTION] The revised Site Plan, approved by the City, shows, at the Northwest Corner of the structure, a five-foot distance to the property fine shared with a private property easement. However, the building plans depict a foundation whose buried feet extend outward from the base of the foundation wall. If the documents approved by the City are accurate, the structure will violate the five-foot distance requirement, or, the City intends to except the owners from that obligation for reasons not supported by the Code. g. Compliance with State and Federal Environmental Rega!ations is Not Demonstrated. Applicable state and federal laws prohibit the felling of trees with greater than a three-inch diameter after April 1 of each year to protect certain endangered mammal species. See http://www.iowadot.gov/erl/current/CM/content/CM%206.10.htm. Yet, the Site Plan for 101 Lusk Ave implicitly call for the cutting down of a significant number of mature trees of that size to accommodate the footprint of the structure 4N' impose no limitations upon when that cutting will occur. The City's Building Permit Approval Was Issued in Error ; 6. The City's approval of the owners' Building Permit for a building at 101 Lusk Ave, = mischaracterized by the City as a single family residential structure, is in error bedause building plans do not conform to the minimum requirements of Titles 14 and 16 6f,.the Code, The Zoning Code is intended to achieve specific goals, including: a. To conserve and Protect the value of property throughout the city. Code § 14 lA 3,6.1. However, Applicants' property values will be diminished by the presence of the entertainment venue that has been planned for construction at 101 Lusk Avenue. Appeal; to :owe City Board ofAdjustment-101 Lusk Avenue Page 5 b. To encourage the most appropriate use of land and foster convenient compatible and efficient relationship among land uses Code § 14-1A-3 B 2 By contrast, the Site Plan makes no provision for storm water drainage (also called storm water runoff) that will be gushing off of the property's impervious surfaces and either onto the street and public right of way without any stream storm water sewer protection, or onto adjoining private property. Further, Applicants believe that this property's sanitary sewer is wrongfully and unlawfully tied to, and will cause burdens upon, adjoining property owners, none of whom has been given formal notice of this project and none of whom has granted permission for the use of the properties in this manner. c. To promote the economic stability of existing and future land uses that are consistent with the comprehensive plan and protect them from intrusions by incompatible land uses. Code § 144A-3 B 4. Instead, the proposed structure at 101 Lusk Avenue, one designed to host tailgate parties and to accommodate up to 200 persons per event, is not consistent with the RS-5 low density single-family residential zoning district that characterizes the Manville Heights neighborhood, generally, nor with any of the properties that surround 101 Lusk Avenue. d, To lessen congestion in the streets and promote safe and effective access to property. Code § 14-1A-3.5. The design of the proposed entertainment venue, located at the far end of a dead end street, is completely antithetical to Code provision. Lusk Avenue is one of the most narrowly -paved streets in all of Manville Heights, if not Iowa City, with a width of 20 feet, six-inch curbs. It has sidewalks on only one side of the public way. It connects to another narrowly -paved dead-end street (Rowland Court). Parking, which is extremely scarce, generally, and on University of Iowa athletic event days, in particular, is permitted on one side of the street, only. Parking restrictions are poorly enforced —if at all —by the City on those days and at those times. Emergency vehicles will not be able to pass safely through this street to attend to calls from the event venue / party house. And, if such vehicles do reach that destination, they will not be able to turn around safely and efficiently, placing members of the public at great risk. e. To conserve open space and protect natural scenic and historic resources 14-1A- 3.8.8. Although this property may not be subject to the sensitive areas provisions of the Code, the proposed structure at 101 Lusk Avenue poses risks to mature trees and will add to soil erosion and water pollution because no provision has been made for storm water runoff from a large lot that will be nearly entiraly covered with impervious materials, ranging from roofing materials to large expanses of paved surfaces, with no place for that water to go except for neighboring propertpts. rr Appeau to Iowa City 3oari2 of Ac jt:striter_t -101 Lusk Avenue v Page 6 The Proposed Structure Does Not Qualify as a Mon -Conforming Use and Dees Mot Qualify to Have E:cceptions to the Code "Grandrathered-In" 7. The City's issuance of a Building Permit for the proposed entertainment venue at 101 Lusk Avenue violates the spirit and purpose of many of the Code's provisions; none of those deviations can be rescued under the guise of so-called Non -Conforming Single -Family Uses because the original home, characterized by some non -conforming uses, was demolished by the owners. Code § 14-4E-4. A Non -Conforming Single -Family Use may be restored only when a structure is destroyed or damaged by fire, explosion, act of God, or by a public enemy. Code § 14-4E-4. D. In this instance, the owners demolished an existing home. They may not, now, build upon or extend any non -conforming uses that characterized the prior, much smaller, single family dwelling that they destroyed. Forexample: a. The absence of street Pavement alone the entire length of the lot does not conform with and, therefore, violates the Code Only approximately 40 feet of a 123-foot long property line along Lusk Avenue is paved, and cannot be grandfathered-in as a non -conforming use after the owners demolished the original residential structure. And, at the end of the pavement there is no storm water street sewer. The City states that it has no intention to lengthen the street or to invest in infrastructure. The City has approved a non -conforming use that threatens public health and safety without any finding that the property is entitled to non -conforming status. b. The Code requires the owner of every house or building used for human occupancy, at the owners' expense to install suitable toilet facilities and to connect such facilities directly to the proper public sanitary sewer. Code b 16-3D-5 Here, the absence of an independent sewer line running from the property at 101 Lusk Avenue to the City's sewer main (instead of hooking onto and traveling under two neighboring lots to the north, before reaching the City sewer main) violates Code and cannot be grandfathered-in as a non -conforming use after the owners demolished the original residential structure. Code § 14-4E-4-D. c. The Code requires that all storm water, ground water and all other unpolluted water shall be discharged only to such sewers as are specifically designated as storm sewers or to a natural outlet approved by the City, Code § 16-3D-7 In this instance, even though the owners of a double lot intend to cover almost all of it with impervious materials, no plans are made for the discharge of the storm water and ground water that will flow from those surfaces. The fact that the owners demolished the prior residential structure precludes them from claiming any right to grandfather earlier practices with respect to storm water run-off. Code § 14-4E-4-D. d. Any insufficiency of a front -yard set -back measurement characterizing the prior, demolished home cannot provide a grandfathered-exception to the frortS.-Yard set back requirement under the existing Code which calls for a minifnum set -back equal to or greater than the average set -backs of the other residences on Lusk Avenue 8. The Scope of the Code requires that when any structure is "occupied, converted> -Enlarged, re -constructed or structurally altered, the regulations and standards of the present Code Appeal `.o'owa Lity Boa-d ofAdjust:ne:tt-101 Lusk Avenue Page 7 must be followed. Code § 14-113-3.A. Yet, in approving the Site Plan and in issuing a Building Permit, the City has implicitly and inexplicably "grandfathered" in the use of non -conforming practices in effect in the early part of the last century, even though the proposed structure is massively larger, and is built for entirely different purposes, than the pre-existing single family dwelling that the owners demolished to accommodate their planned amusement venue. For example: a. The Code requires residential structures to have their own direct access to the City's sanitary sewers. This proposed entertainment venue violates that provision, apparently the result of a wrongful-grandfathering in of conditions that characterized the prior single family dwelling, built in the early 20t' century, before the present owners demolished it. The property at 101 Lusk Avenue is unlawfully connected to, and transverses over the back yards of two adjoining lots (111 Lusk Avenue and 117 Lusk Avenue) without the permission or consent of those owners. The proposed expansive entertainment structure, complete with multiple toilets, urinals and showers, will be hooked to 4" sewer pipes installed in the early 20`h century, pipe dimensions normally used to accommodate one residential structure, alone. Although the magnitude of the proposed entertainment structure dwarfs the prior residential home that the owners demolished, the City had wrongfully approved the nqw-unlawful use of the old residential sewer lines. b. The Code requires a lot upon which a residence is built to have street pavement alone the entire front of that lot. Although the easterly lot line for 101 Lusk Avenue extends for 123 feet along the City's right-of-way, but only about one-third (about 40 feet) is a paved surface. The Site Plan documents submitted to, and approved by, the City misrepresent the reality of the street frontage, making it appear as though the City's entire Lusk Avenue right-of-way is paved to a point beyond the lot's southeast property corner. Yet, the City makes no commitment to pave the street --let alone install a storm water sewer to capture the significant quantity of drainage that will flow from the impervious roof surfaces and driveway payment that are planned for this entertainment venue. c. The Code requires that a residential structure may not be closer to the street that the average set -back of other residential structures on the same street Code § 14- 2A-4.B.3.e. But, the proposed plans for this structure indicate a fifteen-fogtt set- back from Lusk Avenue, which appears to be less than the average set-bac�or the other two residential homes on the same side of the same street and the iet-back for the only existing residential structure on the other side of the street. Aythe very least, nothing in the City's file for this project indicates that the owners hab� complied with this averaging requirement. 9. Those who are empowered to interpret and apply provisions of the Iowa City Zoning Code to specific instances are directed by the Code that such provisions "shall be held Q be the r•, minimum requirements for the promotion of the public safety, health, convenience, order, prosperity and general welfare" of the citizens of Iowa City. Code § 14-16-1.A. In virtually every objected -to instance cited by the Applicants, however, the City has interpreted and .e Appeal to Iowa City Board of Adjustment -101 Lusk Avenue Page 8 applied the Code in a manner that has minimized requirements for the owners, contrary to the public interest and the spirit of the Code. For example: a. The Code prohibits three-story residential structures in low -density residential neighborhoods to discourage buildings that visually dominate other buildings in the vicinity. Code § 14-2A-4.C.1, table 2A-2. However, the drawings submitted by the owners of 101 Lusk Avenue indicate that the structure is three -stories tall. A basketball court located on the lowest level has no ceiling at that level; rather, the ceiling is placed to the top of the next floor-22 feet above the basketball court's floor surface. Elevation drawings taken from the southerly side of the structure show a wall laid bare by the declining elevation of the lot (the same decline that will result in significant storm water runoff to flow unlawfully into neighboring properties and city right-of-way). b. The Code limits the height of a residential structure to 35 feet . Code § 14.2A-4.C.1, table 2A-2. Yet, the drawings approved by the City when issuing a Building Permit indicate that the structure is at least 37.5 feet tall —most visibly measured on the structure's southerly side. The fully -finished lowest -level, complete with movie theater and basketball court, is completely integrated with the middle floor: the basketball court is two -floors high. Above the second floor are third -floor roams cast in the role as press box. While the Applicants believe that this is no residential structure —and, on that basis, alone, should not be permitted for construction —the building plans do not meet even the most basic rules applicable to residential structures. c. The Code establishes design standards for single family dwellings that are intended to enhance the "...pedestrian oriented character of the neighborhood by preventing blank facades and large expanses of concrete along the street. Code § 14-2A-6.A.3. Yet, the approved plans depict the easterly end of the building as nearly 80 linear feet of blank brick wall facade, a surface broken only by one door and two windows. The Proposed Structure Cannot be Approved Under the "Minor Modifica'cions" Provision of the Code 10. The planned entertainment venue cannot qualify as a residential structure under the so- called "Minor Modification" provisions of the Code. Code § 14-4B-1.B.1-5. That is, no minor modification to the plans would allow it properly to be categorized as a single fanSY-N residence. Even with minor modifications, the proposed structure would-be detriwental to the public health, safety or welfare or be injurious to other property in the Manvliie Heights neighborhood, which is properly zoned as RS-5. '. ti -i he Proposed Structure Cannot Qualiry Under any Variance - 11. Nor can this property qualify for a variance from the RS-5 and other applicable zoning Code provisions. Code § 144B-1.B.2.A.1-5. The way that building is designed and the p'roject as described in the Site Plan threaten the integrity of the Manville Heights neighborhood and Appea; -a low? City Board of Adjusz-1:ant - 10 1 Lusk Avenue Page 9 its presence will substantially adversely affect the uses and values of other properties in the area adjacent to 101 Lusk Avenue. The proposed structure is not in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the RS-5 zone. Any uniqueness or hardship to be suffered by the owners as the result of the City's denial of the intended use of this property resides in the poorjudgment of the owners and not in the fair, just, reasonable and efficient application and interpretation of the Code. The ?ropcsed Structura Cannot Qualify as a Special Exception 12. The planned entertainment venue cannot qualify for a special exception to the provisions of the Code. Code § 14-4B-3.A.1-7. Any exception allowing construction of this building at 101 Lusk Avenue will be detrimental and/or endanger the public health, safety, comfort and/or general welfare of those who reside in Manville Heights. Further, such use will injure the enjoyment and use of property in the immediate vicinity and diminish the values of properties in the neighborhood. The proposed building will cause substantial drainage problems in an area of the neighborhood that is without adequate storm sewers and significant erosion on adjacent City and private property already exists. The proposed building will cause significant traffic congestion, dangerous roadway conditions and will preclude emergency vehicles from accessing the property or, once there, from turning around. Remedies desired by Applicants: • That the Board of Adjustment over -rule the City's mis-classification of this proposed project as a single family residential structure and re-classify it according to the function(s) for which it has been designed: an entertainment venue. • That the Board of Adjustment make a series of factual findings as to the problems that this structure will pose to the public if it is constructed pursuant to the present Site Plan and Building Permit. • That the Board of Adjustment determine that there is no exception for, or variance to, or special accommodation under, the Iowa City Zoning Ordinance that should allow its construction to be approved, or approved as proposed, or with conditions. • That any approval of the structure's Site Plan be stayed. • That any approval of the structure's Building Permit be stayed. it_ peal to Iowa Ci_v, Board ofAdlustment - 101 Lusk Avenue Page 10 LAREW LAW OFFICE LareWLaWOffice.com Phone: 319.337.7079 Fax: 3 19.337.7082 504 E. Bloomington St. 210 Cedar St. 252 E. 3rd Street Iowa City, Iowa 52245-2858 Muscatine, Iowa 52761-2504 Des Moines, Iowa 50309-4114 James C. Larew Claire M. Diallo James. Larew a LmwLawOMi .com Admitted only in NY and NJ PRE -HEARING SUBMISSION TO THE IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT BY NEIGHBORS OF MANVILLE HEIGHTS ASSOCIATION, Karin Southard, President, ANNE LAHEY, CRAIG SYROP & ANNE SADLER, BILL & KAREN ACKERMAN, and BRADLEY & CATHERINE ERICKSON, APPELLANTS I. INTRODUCTION Appellants Neighbors of Manville Heights Association (NMHA), Karin Southard, President, Anne Lahey, Craig Syrop & Anne Sadler, Bill & Karen Ackerman and Bradley & Catherine Erickson (hereafter, collectively, "Appellants") seek a determination by the Board of Adjustment that the building proposed for construction by F. Reed Carlson and Sandra Carlson at 101 Lusk Avenue, an approximately 7500 square foot structure, a replica of Kinnick Stadium, must be classified as an entertainment venue of some sort, and not as a residence and, as such, is not an allowed use in the RS-5 Zone that covers Manville Heights. Appellants seek a further determination, in the alternative, that even if the Board of Adjustment was to decide that the proposed structure could be classified as a single family residential structure, the proposed Site Plan and Building Permit should not be approved by the City due to multiple disqualifying characteristics of the proposal, with flaws so numerous and so fundamental that to allow its construction would likely pose adverse effects upon the health, welfare and safety of others residing in the neighborhood and upon those who might attend planned functions at the facility. When Appellants filed their initial Application to Appeal, they had had limited access to relevant information. Subsequently, in response to a series of public records requests made by Appellants under Chapter 22 of the Code of Iowa LAREW LAW OFFICE Appellants' Submission to Board of Adjustment Page 1 to the City of Iowa City, to the City of University Heights and to the University of Iowa, Appellants have learned more, but, still, not all, of the story with respect to the City's wrongful decisions. Certain of those documents are referred to in this Pre -Hearing Submission. Further, and at their own expense, Appellants have retained the services of qualified and expert civil engineers and planners HBK Engineering (hereafter, sometimes, "HBK" ), whose professional staff members have conducted their own factual review of certain issues related to the Site Plan and Building Permit. Their findings, set out in a formal Report are attached, in support of Appellants' requested relief to deny approval of the Carlsons' Site Plan and Building Permit Application. II. FIVE FUNDAMENTAL FATAL FLAWS Building Official Douglas Boothroy's decision' to approve a Site Plan and to issue a Building Permit to F. Reed Carlson and Sandra Carlson for their proposed building at 101 Lusk Avenue must be reversed because such actions constituted legal error, on multiple fronts, in one or more, of the following five ways: 1. UNLAWFUL BUILDING MISCLASSIiFICATION The Buildin Official's mis-classification of the proposed Kinnick-replica building as a residential structure violated Iowa law and the Iowa City Code of Ordinances because the primary use of the structure is intended for entertainment purposes and any residential use of the building will be only accessory to its entertainment use, and the Iowa City Code does not allow entertainment venues to be built in RS-5 Zones. A. The very same project proposed by the Carlsons for construction at 101 Lusk Avenue, although considerably smaller, was earlier proposed to, and rejected by, the City of University Heights. Upon receiving initial drawings concerning the project, University Heights City Attorney Steven E. Ballard, on behalf of himself and University Heights Building 1 Major concerns of Appellants, based on the limited access they have thus far had to information and materials related to Mr. Boothroy's approval of the Site Plan, is that approval decisions were result -driven, rather than based on an objective assessment of full facts, that only a limited number of City staff people contributed meaningfully to that process, and that of those who were allowed to participate in the decision -making process, some of the decision -participants were biased and should have been removed from the decision -making process. LAREW LAW OFFICE Appellants' Submission to Board of Adjustment Page 2 Official Terry Geordt2 concluded that it did not comply with applicable zoning ordinances of that city. More specifically, and with reference to permissible uses under the Zoning Ordinance of University Heights, City Attorney Ballard, on September 17, 2014, issued an opinion letter to Mr. Carlson that included the following: The University Heights Building Official, Terry Goerdt, and I have reviewed the drawings submitted by Al Zahasky concerning proposed use of Lot 115, University Heights First Addition. Our conclusion is that the proposed development, as shown in the drawings, does not comply with applicable University Heights ordinances, particularly the City's Zoning Ordinance and Sensitive Slopes Ordinance. Here's why: 2. The drawings appear to show a commercial recreational use, which is not permitted in the R-1 Zone. The zone permits one single-family dwelling per lot. See Ordinance 79(6)(A)(1). Such features as a full bar, separately marked "men's"and "women's" bathroom facilities, and gym lockers appear to depict a commercial recreational use constituting the principal use. The Zoning Ordinance permits "customary accessory uses " but they must be "incidental to the principal use". See Ordinance 79(6)(A)(4). Well less than half of the square footage of the proposed construction, as shown on the drawings, relates to a residential use. 3. The drawings do not show any parking on the lot; off-street parking is required. See Ordinance 79(10)(A). 'Appellants are deeply unsettled that the City would choose Mr. Geordt, the very some person who had been the reviewing building ofcial for University Heights, would also be assigned responsibility for performing the City of Iowa City's Building Code and Use Categories analyses (that latter of which analysis appears not have been performed at all; regarding the very same project for proposed by the very same owners. Coming to the regulators tasks that are the subject of this Appeal with pre -formulated opinions and pre-existing close working relationships with the very persons promoting the Kinnick structure precludes the kind of objective, dispassionate analysis of legal provisions that implementing the Zoning Ordinance and Building Code presumes. LAREW LAW OFFICE Appellants' Submission to Board of Adjustment Page 3 B. The City of Iowa City, through its Zoning Ordinance, published at chapter 14 of the City Code, provides that the zoning laws should be implemented in a manner that "...promotes the health, safety, order, convenience, prosperity, and general welfare of the citizens of Iowa City." City Code § 14-lA-3. C. At City Code § 14-2A-1, the Zoning Ordinance establishes and sets forth the intent for single family residential zones. The purpose for one of those zones, RS-5, Low Density Single -Family Residential, is described as follows: The low density single family residential zone ... is primarily intended "...to provide housing opportunities for individual households. The regulations are intended to create, maintain, and promote livable neighborhoods. The regulations allow for some flexibility of dwelling types to provide housing opportunities for a variety of household types. This zone also allows for some nonresidential uses that contribute to the livability of residential neighborhoods, such as parks, schools, religious institutions, and daycare facilities. Related nonresidential uses and structures should be planned and designed to be compatible with the character, scale, and pattern of the residential development. D. The Manville Heights neighborhood, including the area where 101 Lusk Avenue is located, is zoned as RS-5. Entertainment venues (commercial or otherwise) are not one of the types of structures that are listed in the Code as permitted uses in RS-5 Zones. Unless specifically allowed in that Code section, a proposed building may not be constructed unless a Variance or Special Use Exception status is granted by the Board of Adjustment. City Code § 14-4A-1. E. To determine whether a particular building is appropriate for a particular zone, the City Council legislated an evaluative process that is to be used and that is set forth in "ARTICLE A. USE CATEGORIES." That provision establishes a protocol for classifying land uses and activities into use categories on the basis of common functional, product, or physical characteristics. City Code § 14-4A-1. LAREW LAW OFFICE Appellants' Submission to Board of Adjustment Page 4 F. The "purpose" of the "use categories" described in that City Code Article, is to "...provide a systematic basis for assignment of present and future uses to zones .... The decision to permit, permit with provisions, or allow by special exception a particular use or use category in the various zones is based on the goals and policies of the comprehensive plan and the stated purpose of the base zones." Id. G. City Code § 14-4A-2 provides a list of "factors" to be considered and a mode of analysis to be used to determine whether a proposed building does, or does not, comply with the purpose of the Zone according to the structure's "principal use," as contrasted with one or more "accessory uses." That analysis should include, in instances such as the Carlsons' proposed building, the following: a. The description of the use or activities in comparison to the stated characteristics of each use category. City Code § 14-4A- 2.A.11.a. b. The intensity of the activity or use in comparison to the stated characteristics of each use category. City Code § 14-4A- 2.A.1 I.b. c. The amount of site or floor area and equipment devoted to the use or activity. City Code § 14-4A-2.A.1 Le. d. The building and site arrangement. City Code § 14-4A- 2.A.1 l.h. e. How the use advertises itself. City Code § 14-4A-2.A.1 La. f. Any other relevant evidence regarding use or activity that would help to classify a particular land use. City Code § 14-4A- 2.A.1 l.p. H. Under that mode of analysis, an impartial city official is required to determine a proposed building's principal use. Only if a structure's principal use is compatible with a Zone's purpose and allowed uses may it be located in that Zone. I. No such analysis was performed by the City. Had it done so, fairly, objectively, and without bias, Appellants believe that the City would have easily determined that the intended principal use of the Kinnick structure, if built, will be for large entertainment events, and that residential uses will be only accessory to that principal use. LAREW LAW OFFICE Appellants' Submission to Board of Adjustment Page 5 J. Article A does not provide for the use of self-serving affidavits issued by owners of proposed buildings to determine the classification of structures. K. In cases where a specific use is not listed as an example for a particular zone, the director of housing and inspection services is required to determine the appropriate category for a use based on the factors listed in subsection Al of Article A. City Code § 14-41-2.A.2. L. Any use that cannot be clearly classified within an existing use category by the procedures listed in City Code § 14-4A-2 is prohibited unless later permitted by a zoning code text amendment. A specific use that cannot be classified into an existing use category shall not be listed as permitted, provisional, or a special exception in any zone without first establishing a new use category by zoning code amendments. City Code § 14-4A- 2.A.4. M. As originally described by Carlson family members to the press and to members of the public, the building's central purpose is as an entertainment venue, a structure to be infrequently occupied residentially by its owners, and, then, always in conjunction with entertainment events. [Katie Kindelan, Couple Plans to Replicate University oflowa's Kinnick Stadium With Nearly 7,500-Square-Foot House, ABC NEWS, (June 24, 2016), http://abcnews.go.com/lifestyle/couple-plans-replicate- univcrsity-iowas-kinni ck-stadium-7500/story?id=40041402] N. As originally designed by F. Reed and Sandra Carlson, and as earlier submitted to the City of University Heights, City Attorney Steve E. Ballard and Building Official Terry Goerdt, the Kinnick Stadium replica entertainment venue was analyzed using essentially the same process that is set forth under the Iowa City Code; the officials determined that the principal purpose was for entertainment and that any residential use of the building would be accessory to its primary purpose. The proposed building was later rejected by the University Heights City Council based on legal issues that are not present in this appeal. [Exh. 7, P. 001-002] O. In the course of the City of University Heights consideration of the Carlson building proposal, the City of Iowa City received notice of the controversy. For example, a letter signed by 56 University Heights residents, objecting to the project, and depicting it as a commercial LAREW LAW OFFICE Appellants' Submission to Board of Adjustment Page 6 entertainment venue, and not a residence, was copied to the Iowa City Attorney. [Id P. 015-018] P. Upon being denied the right to build their Kinnick entertainment building in a University Heights residential neighborhood, the Carlsons, through their attorney, Matthew J Hektoen3, filed a lawsuit against the City. [Exh. Id ,P. 019-0271 Q. While in the course of pursuing a lawsuit against the City of University Heights, the Carlsons purchased 101 Lusk Avenue and proposed building virtually the same building —only, this time, a substantially larger version of it —that the City of University Heights had rejected. R. The City was therefore on notice, upon receipt of the proposed Site Plan and Building Permit Application, of the type of "dispute" that City Code § 14-4A-2.A.3 anticipates resolving by objective reviews and written determinations by the zoning code interpretation panel and/or the Board of Adjustment before a Site Plan or a Building Permit is approved. S. That citizens of Iowa City, generally, and residents of Manville Heights did not object earlier in the process is the result of processes advanced in secrecy, and not for any other reason. T. Once notified hundreds of people have voiced and evidenced their strong disagreement with the City's acceptance of the Carlsons' representation that the principal purpose of their proposed structure is residential and the Building Official's approval of the Site Plan and Building Permit Application. U. The Building Official was required to invoke, objectively, but did not, in fact, utilize in the City's classification decision -making process, the analytical methodology set forth in Iowa City Code § 14-4A-2, to a Appellants are also deeply troubled that the Carlsons' attornev, Matthew J. Hektoen and Assistant City Attorney Sara Hektoen were not arranged to assure that no bias or conflict —or even the appearance of bias of conflict —would arise. In their respective roles in processes involving the fate of the Carlsons' proposed projeci (Mr. Hektoen, as legal representative of the Carlsons in their unsuccessful negotiations and litigation against the City of University Heights on zoning issues related to the Kinnick proposal; Ms. Hektoen, as legal representative for the City of Iowa City, ostensibly charged with representing the interests of the City and the public in negotiations related to what appears to have been (thus far) the Carlsons' successful efforts to obtain controversial and contested zoning and building code enforcement approvals. LAREW LAW OFFICE Appellants' Submission to Board of Adjustment Page 7 determine the principal, as contrasted to any accessory, use(s), of the proposed structure. V. Instead, the Building Official directed the Carlsons to execute an Affidavit, in which the Carlsons offered their subjectively -based self - assessment as to their intended use of their own property. W.Nowhere in the City Code is it contemplated that, when classifying the use of a building for zoning purposes, a Building Official will rely solely upon self-serving affidavits issued by Site Plan and Building Permit Applicants, in lieu of objective assessments as to the true function and use of proposed structures. X. Appellants believe that the use classification process used by the Building Official in this instance unlawfully abdicated the central role of City government in applying the City's Zoning Ordinances to protect the health, safety and property interests of its citizens. Y. Not only was the City's use classification decision -making methodology flawed in this instance, the process it used, instead, resulted in the City's wrongful classification of the Carlson project and its unlawful approval of the Carlsons' Site Plan and Building Permit Application, thereafter. Z. A reasonable use -classification process of the Carlsons' proposal would have resulted in a determination that the principal use of the building, if constructed, will be for entertainment and that any residential use(s) will be accessory to that principal entertainment use. AA. Dennis Befeler, a resident of Manville Heights, an officer of NMHA, and a facilities and event planner by professional training and employment, has performed such an analysis, which is set forth as a part of an Affidavit executed by him. [Exh. 5] His opinions and conclusions, based on drawings submitted by Reed and Sandra Carlson, include the following: a. That, if calculated by square footage uses, comparing entertainment versus residential uses, less than one-third of the space has been designed for residential use. The rest has been designed to host large group entertainment events. b. That, if calculated by estimated time -usage calculations, comparing the amount of time that users of the facility will be there for entertainment purposes versus residential time spent at LAREW LAW OFFICE Appellants' Submission to Board of Adjustment Page B the facility, he has conservatively estimated the ration of those two uses as 16:1 (entertainment: residential). c. That when considering how the proposed facility has been and will be advertised, and because its exterior is designed to emulate Kinnick Stadium, a very large public entertainment venue, the advertised use is more commercial -entertainment than residential. BB. If properly classified as an entertainment venue, this building cannot, as a matter of law, be constructed at 101 Lusk Avenue until such time as the Carlsons succeed in amending the RS-5 Zone to include such a use category. City Code § 14-4A-2.A.4. 2. UNLAWFUL SITE PLAN APPROVAL. The Building Official's approval of the Site Plan violated the Iowa City Code of Ordinances and Iowa law because the Site Plan omits reference to fundamental Code requirements that, because they are not addressed, pose threats to neighboring Appellants', and to the general public's health safety, order, convenience, prosperity, and general welfare. A. The Iowa City Code of Ordinances, at Title 18, sets forth procedures for reviewing certain proposed improvements of property within the City to ensure the orderly and harmonious development of property. Iowa Code § 18-1-1. B. To assist in that process, the City requires, in some instances and, in other cases, may request, the submission of a Site Plan. A Minor Site Plan is defined as those Site Plans that are not Major Site Plans. Iowa Code § 18- 1-2. C. If Minor Site Plans are requested by, and submitted to, the City for approval, they must include a series of up to 17 different elements, plus, "other data and information as may be reasonably required by the building official." City Code §§ 18-2-2.A. D. With respect to the Carlsons' mini-Kinnick entertainment building proposal, the City required a Site Plan approval before it would agree to issue a Building Permit. In fact, when the first Site Plan did not conform LAREW LAW OFFICE Appellants' Submission to Board of Adjustment Page 9 with the City's decision to require the owners to change the location of their driveway, from the south side of the property to the north side, the Building Permit Application, earlier approved, was placed on suspension. E. The Carlsons' representative lifted the suspension when an amended Site Plan was filed with the City. F. However, the Site Plan —both in its original and in its amended form —is lawfully deficient and should not have been approved by the Building Official. G. As originally -submitted, Site Plan and Building Permit Application depicted a wood framed building, with a footprint dimensions of 7500 square feet, not including in interior courtyard; if the courtyard is included, the size of the proposed structure increases to nearly 9,000 square feet. H. The structure, as proposed, is covered and surrounded by impervious materials, including roofs, courtyard floors and driveway materials. I. As depicted in those drawings, it is estimated that very little rain water will be captured and retained by the property, and virtually all if it will be dispensed down the structure's driveway, to Lusk Avenue, from which, because there are no storm water sewers, the water will be dumped onto adjoining properties owned by the City (the unpaved portion of Lusk Avenue, where a series of mature oak trees stand and the CRANDIC right of way). J. It is estimated by HBK that the volume of storm water flowing off of the impervious surfaces of the Carlson building will be 1.37 cubic feet / second, assuming a 1-in-10 year rain fall, or, 2.09 cubic feet/second assuming a I-100-year rain fall. That volume of water, if placed in the neighboring home at 117 Lusk Avenue, property owned by Anne G. Sadler and Craig H. Syrop, (780 square feet and assuming 8 foot ceilings) would fill it in 76 minutes in the 1-in-10 year rainstorm, but would take only 50 minutes to fill in a 1-in-100 year rainstorm. K. When Manville Heights residents, in early June 2016, began to stir, in response to rumors they had heard about the Carlson project, the City suddenly changed gear and determined that it would not allow the Carlsons' to construct their driveway on the south side of their property, LAREW LAW OFFICE Appellants' Submissionto Board of Adjustment Page 10 but, rather, would now insist that the driveway be constructed on the North side. L. The City "suspended" the Building Permit that it had earlier issued and required the Carlsons to submit another Site Plan document showing that the driveway would now be placed on the north side of the lot, directly abutting the real estate parcel owned by Anne Lahey. [See Appellants' Exhibit 1,1BK Engineering Site Investigation Report (hereafter, "BBK Report"), Appendix, p. 21] M. When creating the revised Site Plan, the Carlsons' own consultants raised a series of "concerns" that, to date, have not been answered in public records available to Appellants: 1) The depth of the City's sewer main had not been verified to determine problems that could arise if the structure were now to be lowered to account for the driveway's relocation. 2) Storm water, previously designed to drain away from the building's south side, would now be draining on paved surfaces adjoining the building's north side and the Site Plan provides no indication of how storm water will be prevented from flowing into the building's lower level. 3) The southeast corner may require deeper footings that the approved plans had indicated insofar as the land slopes off in that area. [See Appellants' Exhibit 7, P. 0401 N. Upon receipt of the revised Site Plan the City lifted its "suspension" of the Building Permit, allowing the project to move forward until Appellants filed this Appeal. O. The Site Plan is legally deficient and should not have been approved in its present configuration, and the suspension of the Building Permit should not have been lifted, for one or more of the following reasons: 1) The proposed driveway, now located on the north side of 101 Lusk Avenue, runs right over and conflicts with the existing fire hydrant. LAREW LAW OFFICE Appellants' Submission to Board of Adjustment Page 11 2) There is no showing as to how the construction site, one that has substantial sloping from the northwesterly to the southeasterly part of the property, and from the lot to the public sidewalks and street, will be graded. 3) No calculations were made by the City or by the owners as to the volume of storm water that will be created by the project or how it will be managed to prevent erosion at 101 Lusk Avenue, or at adjoining properties owned by the City and by private owners. 4) There is no showing as to how adjacent properties will be protected from damage during construction. 3. UNLAWFUL OMISSION OF SANITARY SEWER. The Buildin Official's approval of the Carlsons' Site Plan and Building Permit Application for a residential structure violated the Iowa City Code of Ordinances and Iowa law because the submitted documents do not show, and the building, as proposed, does not have a private separate sanitary sewer and, under the Code of Ordinance and under Iowa law, by definition, a single family dwelling must have a Private separate sanitary sewer that connects to the City's sewer main. A. Perhaps without precedent in the history of the City's issuance of Building Permits for new residential construction, the proposed building at 101 Lusk Avenue, as approved by the City, has no provision for a private separate sanitary sewer —no such sewer for a building equipped with a gymnasium, locker rooms, multiple bathrooms with toilets, sinks and urinals, and a commercial grade kitchen that is designed to host 200 people for party events. B. This is contrary to the Uniform Plumbing Code 2015 (UBC 2015 331.0), which states that, "The drainage system for each new building... shall be separate and independent from that of any other building and, where available, every building shall have an independent connection with a public or private sewer." C. This is also contrary to the definition of many states and jurisdictions throughout the United States. For example, "single family dwelling" LAREW LAW OFFICE Appellants' Submission to Board of Adjustment Page 12 contained in the Iowa Uniform Landlord Tenant Act, Iowa Code § 562A.6.13 (2016) which states as follows: "Single family residence" means a structure maintained and used as a single dwelling unit. Notwithstanding that a dwelling unit shares . one or more walls with another dwelling unit, it is a single family residence if it has direct access to a street or thoroughfare and shares neither heating facilities, not water equipment, nor any other essential facility or service with another dwelling unit. D. As considered in Iowa City code 14-4E-4A, the prior residential home at 101 Lusk Avenue was not destroyed or damaged by fire, explosion, act of God or by a public enemy. When the Carlsons demolished the century - old residential home at that location, they also terminated its access to a non -conforming, aging sanitary sewer that had been tied to neighbors' private sewer lines —unbeknownst to those neighbors. In addition, while the existing home may have been grandfathered-in to this use, the sanitary sewer at 101 Lusk Avenue had not been used for years prior to the Carlsons' demolition of that property and resulting termination of its connection to this shared sewer. E. A prior owner of 101 Lusk Avenue, Mr. Oliveira, with Prestige Properties, LLC, hired licensed civil engineers to review the shared sanitary sewer situation and reported to the City that the aged sanitary sewer line, in its present condition, was not capable of handling safely the waste for new homes. F. The City, with respect to the prior owner of 101 Lusk Avenue (Prestige Property), insisted that the owner either install a new sewer line to Lusk Avenue, or show proof that there existed a written Easement Agreement between 101 Lusk Avenue and neighbors to the north (Anne Lahey; Anne Sadler & Craig Syrop) whose property interests would be threatened by the added sewerage of newly constructed buildings to the existing shared sanitary sewer line. G. No such written Easement Agreement was created or existed at the time the Carlsons purchased 10 i Lusk Avenue or submitted their Site Plan and Application for Building Permit to the City. H. The Carlsons have not subsequently secured the right, by way of any written Easement Agreement with any neighboring property owner(s), to impose their sewage into the shared sewer line or to construct a new sanitary sewage line to traverse adjacent properties owned by the very persons who object to the Carlsons' proposed entertainment venue. LAREW LAW OFFICE Appellants' Submission to Board of Adjustment Page 13 I. The Carlsons have not proposed any plans to the City, nor has the City reviewed or approved as a part of the Site Plan or Building Permit process, to construct a sanitary sewer on City right of way on Lusk Avenue to connect with the nearest City sewer main on Bayard Street. J. The absence of a private sewer line required of all single family residences in Iowa legally disqualifies the Carlsons' Site Plan and Building Permit Application for approval. 4. UNLAWFUL OBSTRUCTION TO FIRE TRUCK AND EMERGENCY APPARATUS ACCESS --NO REQUIRED FIRETRUCK TURN -AROUND PROVIDED. The Building Official's approval of the Carlsons' Site Plan and Building Permit Application violated the Iowa City Code of Ordinances and Iowa law because the proposed building fails to comply with fire safety regulations applicable to paved streets longer than 150 feet which require the installation of turn -around areas for firetruck and emergency vehicles. A. The Carlsons' proposed entertainment venue, as described by them in the Building Permit Application approved by the City, will be an approximately 7500 square foot wood -frame structure and appears to be designed to accommodate crowds in excess of 200 people per event. The structure has no egress from the lowest level. It has two standard -size exits, one facing Lusk Avenue, the other in the rear, requiring entry into spaces described in drawings as private quarters for the owners. Drawings depict three bedrooms on the top floor, in a "press box," one of them located in the southwest corner of the structure. B. Lusk Avenue is a very narrow (20 feet)" paved dead-end street that extends 155' 5" from Bayard Street. C. The Iowa City Code of Ordinances adopts certain internationally - recognized standards to assure fire safety. D. Amongst those standards is the requirement that for dead-end paved streets longer than 150 feet, such as Lusk Avenue, there must be turn- around areas to allow firetrucks and emergency vehicles to prevent such vehicles from getting stuck or delayed. 4 Oddly, throughout the City's files Lusk Avenue is wrongfully described as 25 feet wide. LAREW LAW OFFICE Appellants' Submission to Board of Adjustment Page 14 E. If the installation of any of the approved designs for an emergency vehicle turn -around were to be installed at the end of Lusk Avenue will cost well in excess of $100,000, which amount does not include the acquisition or condemnation of adjacent private property that will be required to allow for such construction. F. The Carlsons' Application for a Building Permit does not include or contemplate the construction of, or the effects on buildable lot size imposed by, such a turnabout required to protect public safety. Indeed, the City's approval of the Building Permit does not even acknowledge that the issue exists or the costs that will be imposed on either the Carlson or upon taxpayers to accommodate this entertainment venue, if it is constructed.5 5. UNLAWFUL AND INADEQUATE FIRE WATER FLOW PROVIDED AT EXISTING CITY WATER MAIN AS REQUIRED FOR A BUIiL.DING OF THIS SIZE AND CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS The Building Official's approval of the Carlsons' Site Plan and Building Permit Application violated the Iowa City Code of Ordinances and Iowa law because the Proposed building fails to comply with fire safety regulations regarding minimum water main pressures at fire hydrant located near 7500 square -foot wood framed residential structures A. The Carlson' proposed entertainment venue, as described by them in the Building Permit Application approved by the City, will be an approximately 7500 square foot wood -frame structure and appears to be designed to accommodate crowds in excess of 200 people per event. The structure has no egress from the lowest level. It has two standard -sized exits, one facing Lusk Avenue, the other in the rear, requiring entry into spaces described in drawings as private quarters for the owners. 5 Appellants, as a part of their public records request to the City, asked for information about City fire trucks and turning radii for various firetrucks. The City did not produce such information. Rather, City Attorney Eleanor Dilkes reported that the fire chief reported that only the length of fire hoses were dispositive, not the size or turning radii of the fire trucks and that the fire department had hoses of sufficient length to reach the planned structure. Appellants respectfully disagree that this statement accurately reflects the extent of the City's legal obligation with respect to fire safety regulations under the IFC. LAREW LAW OFFICE Appellants' Submission to Board of Adjustment Page 15 Drawings depict three bedrooms on the top floor of what is described as a 36 '/z foot -tall building, in a "press box," one of the bedrooms located in the top southwest corner of the structure. B. 101 Lusk Avenue is served by the Iowa City water department. C. The water main is located near the centerline of Lusk Avenue and the water service connects to this main. D. There is a fire hydrant located in the Lusk Avenue right-of-way near the northeast corner of the 101 Lusk Avenue lot. E. Each of these fire hydrants is within 400 feet of the proposed structure. F. The 2015 International Fire Code (IFC), which has been adopted by the City of Iowa City, establishing minimum and objective water flow ("fire flow") requirements to assure effective fire mitigation efforts necessary to protect life and property. G. The applicable IFC provisions, to serve a building of the size and construction described in the Carlsons' Site Plan and Building Permit Application, must have access to a fire flow of at least 2,250 gallons per minute (gpm). H. The City of Iowa City performed flow testing on August 22, 2015, after the Carlsons' Site Plan and Building Permit Application had been approved. The test indicated that the available fire flow at 101 Lusk Avenue is 1,584 gpm—only 70% of the minimum fire flow requirement. I. To compound this issue, as earlier noted, it is not clear that the City's firetrucks could get close enough to the building to compensate for the insufficient water pressure: the street is only 20 feet wide, it has parking on one side on most game days and fire trucks are frequently 12 feet wide or wider. J. If this entertainment structure were to be built and then were to catch fire, perhaps occupied by hundreds of people, with access to what appears to be only two exits —one of them located in the private quarters of the owners, it is likely that the inadequate water pressure in the City mains would prevent firefighters from successfully reaching all parts of the structure effectively enough to protect the inhabitants. LAREW LAW OFFICE Appellants' Submission to Board of Adjustment Page 16 III. CONCLUSION AND PRAYER FOR RELIEF In addition to and as a part of the issues described in Appellants' initially - filed Application to Appeal the Building Official's decisions to approve the Carlsons' Site Plan and Building Permit Application, Appellants believe that any one of these five legal errors, standing alone —to say nothing of their combined effects —should serve as a basis for the Board of Adjustment's determination that the Carlsons' Applications for Site Plan and Building Permit should not have been approved by Building Official Doug Boothroy and that his decisions to do so must now be reversed. WHEREFORE, Appellants respectfully pray that upon the submission of all evidence and upon the hearing of all arguments made to the Board of Adjustment on September 14, 2016, the Board Members shall decide the following: 1) That the proposed structure at 101 Lusk Avenue by owners F. Reed Carlson and Sandra Carlson is neither intended to be, nor shall it be classified, as a single family residence; and 2) That the Building Official's approval of the Site Plan and Building Permit for the structure at 101 Lusk Avenue, as presented by owners F. Reed Carlson and Sandra Carlson, shall be rescinded and revoked and the stay imposed upon the appeal of this matter shall remain in effect. for Appellants Enc: Appellants' Exhibit 1; HBK Site Investigation Report Appellants' Exhibit 2; Timeline for University Heights and Lusk Ave Appellants' Exhibit 3; Affidavit of Karin Southard Appellants' Exhibit 4; Affidavit of Anne G. Sadler and Craig H. Syrop Appellants' Exhibit 5; Affidavit of Dennis Befeler Appellants' Exhibit 6; Affidavit of Patricia C. Koza Appellants' Exhibit 7; Public Records Documents LAREW LAW OFFICE Appellants' Submission to Board oFAdjustment Page 17 A-D-Dellants' Exhibit 1 uB � Site Investigation Report 509 S. Gilbert Street 319.338.7557 un 11v hb- k Iowa City, IA 52240 hbkengineering.com 'FRASTP' n ii SOLUTIONS ENGINEERING: Project Number: A16-0760 SITE IFIVESTIGATWU REPORT 101 tusk Avenue, Iowa City, 52246 Manville Addition, Lot 1, Block 14 Prepared for: Neighbors of Manville Heights Association August 30, 2016 I i HBK Site Plan 001 Exhibit 1 - 001 ovmr/' INRASTRUCTURE����0�' SOLVT/0NS|������^�JN�k�� /E0[GIN3E82NG Project Number: /\16^O881 Contents Introduction and Summary ofFindings ....................................................................................... 2 SanitarySewer .......... ........................................................................................ ........................ 3 Fire Department Access and Coverage............................................. ........................................ 3 Site Plan ^~~—`~~^---~`~^—`^~~-----~` 4 Storm Sewer and Ston»wa*erManagement ............................................................................... 4 SiteHistory .......................................................................................... ......................................... 5 SiteTopoQnaphy,................. .............. ...................................................................................... 5 Easements and Encroachments ........... .................................................... .--.—.......5 Floodplain................................ --`~~~~^~^—~~~--~~^----`~^^—~~^' ...... — 5 6eolwnhniceConditions ............................................................................................. 5 SensitiveArea .......................................................................................................... .....,.~5 Zoning................................................... ...................................................................................... 5 Figure 1:Site Topography ........................................................................................ 5 FiQune2: International Fire Code ' Selected Sections ..... ... ............ ......................... 7 Figure 3:Project Site ~2D14.................................................................................. 11 Figure 4:Project Site ~2D12.................................................................................. 11 Figure 5:Project Site —%011................. ................................ ............................ 12 Figure O:Project Site ^2UO8............................................................ ..................... 12 Figuoa7: Project Site ~1S9Os........................................ ....................................... 13 Figure 8:Project Site ~1g70a......................... .............................. ....................... 13 Figure 9:Project Site ^1S6Um................ ............................................................... 14 Figure 10:Project Site ^1Q50a............................................................................... 14 Figure 11:Project Site ^193Ua................................... ..................................... ..... 15 Fbxune12: Zoning Map ........................................................................................... 1W Appendix......................................................................... ..... ......................... ........................ 17 Appendix 1:NYWYGConsultants Site Plan Appendix 2: Hart -Frederick PCLetter Appendix 3: Proposed Sewer Improvements Appendix 4:Fire Access Improvements —Option 1 Appendix 5:Fire Access Improvements ~ Option 2 Appondiu0: City nfIowa City Fire Flow Information Appendix 7:Runoff Information Appendix W:Opinion ofCost UTILITY i INFRASTRUCTURE bk SOLUTIONS ENGINEERING Project Number: A16-0760 Introduction and Summary of Findings HBK Engineering prepared this report to evaluate the proposed site plan submitted to the City of Iowa City for the property located at 101 Lusk Avenue. The 0.38 acre site is located at the south end of Lusk Avenue in the Manville Heights neighborhood in Iowa City. HBK Engineering evaluated the proposed site plan as it relates to zoning regulations and public utilities. The proposed site plan submitted to the City of Iowa City is depicted in the Appendix. The following summarizes HBK Engineering's findings: The site has a non -conforming sanitary sewer service as it relates to current code and standards • Service is shared with 2 other properties (I I I Lusk Avenue & 117 Lusk Avenue) • Service crosses multiple properties • There is no documentation of an easement or other agreement for the shared sewer • There are no cleanouts provided on the existing sanitary sewer line There is inadequate fire flow available for the proposed building • 2,250 gallons per minute (gpm) fire flow is required for the proposed building (assuming Type V-B construction) • 1,584 gpm fire flow is projected by the City of Iowa City to be available at the property via the existing water main on Lusk Avenue There is inadequate access for fire apparatus • Access road (Lusk Avenue) is 20'-8° wide and parking is allowed on one side • Fire code requires unobstructed access road that is at least 20 feet wide and marked with "No Parking — Fire Lane" signs • Lusk Avenue is 155' long and dead ends with no means for turn around • Fire code requires "approved' turn around for access roads longer than 150 feet There are concerns with the site plan • Proposed driveway conflicts with existing fire hydrant • How will the site be graded? • How will storm water be managed to prevent erosion? • How will adjacent properties be protected from damage during construction? 2 HBK Site Plan 003 Exhibit 1 - 003 SOLUTIONSUTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE bk I ;ENGINEERING Project Number: A16-0760 Site Location and Description The project site is approximately 0.38 acres and is located on the west side of Lusk Avenue approximately 150-feet south of the intersection of Lusk Avenue and Bayard Street in the Manville Heights neighborhood in Iowa City. The Lusk Avenue pavement terminates in a dead end in front of the subject property without a cul-de-sac or other means of vehicle turnaround. Sanitary Sewer The site is currently served by a private sewer line that runs across the adjacent property to the north. This line is shared by the subject property (101 Lusk Avenue), 111 Lusk Avenue, and 117 Lusk Avenue. There is no record of an easement for this sewer. The service varies in size from 8 inches at the downstream, 6 inches at intermediate points, and 4 inches when it reaches the subject property. The 6 inch portion of the pipe is believed to have sections both cast iron and clay pipe. The 4 inch portion is cast iron. The private sewer was televised by Action Sewer on August 8, 2016. The televising started at the manhole in Bayard Street and proceeded upstream for approximately 81 feet at which point the crew was unable to advance the equipment further. HBK was able to document the location of the line in the field during this work. This same sewer line was also televised on September 23, 2015 by the previous owner of 101 Lusk Avenue. At that time, they were able to enter the service line from the residential home located at 101 Lusk Avenue and traverse the entire length of the service line. The previous owner hired Hart -Frederick Consultants, PC (HFC) to review the data collected. HFC concluded that the existing 4-inch portion of the service line should be replaced with a new 6-inch line and the existing 6-inch portion of the service line should be lined to prevent future intrusion of tree roots. Relaying and lining the private service would require the approval from the other property owners served by the private sewer. Refer to the Appendix for a copy of the HFC letter. City staff has reviewed the downstream public sanitary sewer located in Bayard Street and has determined that these sewers are capable of handling the sanitary discharges from the proposed building. The Uniform Plumbing Code 2015 (UBC 2015 311.0) states that "The drainage system for each new building ...shall be separate and independent from that of any other building, and, where available, every building shall have an Independent connection with a public or private sewer.' Installation of a separate and independent sewer would require the construction of approximately 330 feet of public 8 inch sanitary sewer and two manholes in Bayard Street and Lusk Avenue. Refer to the Proposed Sewer Improvement exhibit and associated cost estimate in the Appendix. Fire Department Access and Coverage The property is served by the Iowa City water department. The water main is located near the centerline of Lusk Avenue and the water service connects to this main. There is a fire hydrant located in the Lusk Avenue right-of-way near the northeast corner of the subject property and another located at the intersection of Bayard Street and Lexington Avenue. Each of these hydrants is within 400 feet of the proposed building. Refer to the Fire Access exhibits in the Appendix. The following items are required by the 2015 International Fire Code (2015 WC). Refer to Figure 2. (http:ffcodes.iccsafe.oralaoo/book/toC12015/1-Codes/2015 IFC HTMLlindex html) 3 HBK Site Plan 004 Exhibit t - 004 UTILITY ; 1NrRASTRUCNShbk SOLUTIONS i i ENGINEERING Project Number: A16-0760 • 507.5.1' — onsite hydrants shall be provided if any point of building is more than 400 feet from a hydrant located on an access road • B105.1 — required fire flow is 2,250 gpm for a 2-hour duration • C102.1 — 2 hydrants are required for the proposed building a C103.1 — maximum hydrant spacing shall be 400 feet • D103.1 — required width of fire apparatus access road is 26 feet where road is adjacent to fire hydrant • 0103.4 — fire apparatus access roads in excess of 150 feet shall provide approved turnaround. Minimum unobstructed road width is 20 feet. The building permit application does not specify the type of construction; therefore, the construction type is assumed to be Type V-B as defined in the International Building Code, 2015 edition. According to the plans submitted to the city, the proposed building has a total floor area of 7,476 square feet. This results in a required fire flow of 2,260 gpm as depicted in Table B105.1 of the 2015 IFC. The City of Iowa City performed flow testing on August 22, 2016. This test indicated that the available fire flow at 101 Lusk Avenue is 1,584 gpm (Refer to the Appendix for a copy of the flow data). This does not meet the code requirements for available fire flow. The existing pavement on Lusk Avenue is 20-feet wide and extends 155'-50 south of Bayard Street. Parking is allowed on one side of the street. The existing pavement terminates prior to reaching the south property line. The street does not meet the access requirements. There is insufficient room for parking while allowing a 20' unobstructed lane. The street also lacks an approved turn around. The public right-of-way on Lusk Avenue is 50-feet wide. This is insufficient width for the required turn around options. Refer to the Fire Access exhibits in the Appendix for evaluation of the improvements required to meet the access requirements. A cost estimate was prepared for Fire Access Option 2. This cost estimate is included in the appendix. Site Plan The Site Plan that was prepared by MMS Consultants on March 15, 2016 was reviewed for completeness and concerns impacting the neighborhood. Refer to the Appendix for a copy of the site plan. HBK Engineering has identified the following items of concern: 1. The proposed driveway appears to conflict with the existing hydrant located near the northeast property corner. 2. It is unclear how the site will be graded and how this will Impact adjacent properties. There Is approximately six feet of elevation change along the west wail of the building and four feet of elevation change along the east wail of the building. In addition, there is minimal separation between the driveway and the north property line. The site plan does not indicate how these elevation changes will be accounted for and what, if any, impacts this may have on adjacent property owners. Storm Sewer and Stormwater Management The site is not currently or planned to be served by storm sewer. Runoff from the site flows overland generally from the west to the east to Lusk Avenue where it then flows south along the pavement. Upon reaching the end of the pavement the runoff continues to the south into the ravine located along the CRANDIC railroad. Once in the railroad right-of-way, the runoff flows east and ultimately discharges to the Iowa River. HBK Site Plan 005 Exhibit 1 - 005 UTILITY INMASTRUCTURE SOLUTIONS hbk SOLUTi0N5 ENGINEERING Project Number: A16-0760 There is evidence of erosion at the point where the runoff leaves the pavement at the south end of Lusk Avenue. The Iowa City code has no post -construction stormwater requirements for a single- family residence that is not part of a larger, common plan of development. The site is less than 1 acre; therefore, there are not any Iowa DNR requirements related to stormwater management or construction site runoff. The projected runoff from the developed site is calculated to be 1.37cfs and 2.09 cfs for the 10-year and 100-year rainfall events, respectively. Refer to the Runoff Information exhibit in the Appendix. Site History The 1,700 square foot single family residence that had formerly occupied the property was demolished. City assessor records indicate that this house was constructed in 1917. There are presently no structures on the site. Review of the City Assessors' data indicates that the houses on the adjacent properties were constructed at the beginning of the 20th century and available aerial photography from the Johnson County Property Information View (httos:l/ois.iohnson- countv.com/oiv/) indicates that there has been little change to these properties since the 1930s (first period aerial photography is available). The area surrounding the site has not seen major changes other than the construction of the VA Hospital in the 1950s and subsequent expansions to the VA facilities. Refer to Figures 4 — 12. Site Topography This site slopes from the northwest corner towards the southeast corner with approximately 13-feet of fall across the site. The site generally drains from the northwest to the southeast. Refer to Figure 1. Easements and Encroachments A desktop review of the subject property did not find any easements on the property. A boundary survey has not been completed; however, there are no obvious encroachments from adjacent properties. Floodp/ain Consultation of FEMA flood plain mapping indicates that the site is not within or adjacent to a floodplain. The site is contained on FEMA Panel 19103C0195E. Geotechnical Conditions Geotechnical exploration has not been performed on the property; however, review of the Soil Survey of Johnson County Iowa indicates that the soils are generally classified as Fayette Silt Loam which is generally well drained and found on gently sloping sites. When surface vegetation is removed erosion is a hazard. Sensitive Areas The site does not contain features subject to the Iowa City Sensitive Areas Ordinance. Zoning The property is currently zoned R55 (Low Density Single Family Residential). Refer to Figure 12. The applicable zoning requirements for RS5 zoning are: 1) Building height. The maximum building height shall be 35 feet 2) Front yard setback a. A front yard of 15 feet is required b. No more than 60% of the front setback maybe covered with impervious surface 3) Side yard setback a. Aside yard of 5 feet is required for the first two stories b. Two (2) feet must be added for each additional story beyond the first two stories 5 HBK Site Plan 006 Exhibit 1 - 006 INFRASTRUCTURE ' SOLU'MIONsILI TV NS hb ENGINEERING Project Number: A16-0760 4) Rearyard setback a. A rear yard of 20 feet is required. The proposed site plan appears to meet the setback requirements; however, it is unclear how the height of the structure will be determined. This could increase the required side yard setback. f ¢^ Y i Figure 1: Site Topography 6 HBK Site Plan 007 Exhibit I - 007 UTILITY iNFRASTRUCTURE SOLUTIONS: hbk ENGINEERING Project Number: A16-0760 Figure 2: International Fire Code - Selected Sections SECTION BIDS FIRE -FLOW REQUIREMENTS FOR BUILDINGS 0105.1 One. and two-family dwellings, Group R.3 and RA buildings and townhouses. The minimum fire -Row and flow duration requirements for one- and two-family dwellings. Group R-3 and R-4 buildings and townhouses shail be as specified in Tables B105.1(1) and B105.1(2). TABLE 8105.1(1) REQUIRED FIRE -FLOW FOR ONE. AND TWO-FAMILY DWELLINGS, GROUP R-3 AND R-0 BUILDINGS AND TOWNHOUSES FUZE -FLOW MINIMUM FIRE. CALCULATION AREA AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER SYSTEM FLOW FLOW DURATION (square I"U IDealgn Smadard) Igamns Per (ham) minute) 0300 No aVlomabt sprmklar system 1,0m i 3,601 mud greater No aula.Wk Wmkiar system VW aNTable 0UM1mrm Tabte61D5.1(2)aldle e1W.12 tired ftwilow rals 0-3,6W Section 03.3.1.3 otitis lemab P290d a S C in 9 fva Coda. ection 500 rp of IhR C a lNemaam.W Res+derrae! ode 3,601 and greatm Beeuen 903 3.1.3 olds Inkmehonel Fre Code a SeOM P29U '/; value rn Table oflha InNmns'pal Rcaldennai Code e1051(2) 1 For S1.1 square fool= 0.D929 m1.1 gallon par minute = 3.TM 11m. TABLE B105t1(2) REFERENCE TABLE FOR TABLES 8105.141) AND B105.2 FW.r-LOW CALCULATION AREA a Bare fmtj FIRE -FLOW lqalfo.a per minute)• FLOW DURATION TIMM) Type to and IW T kA end MA Type W and VA ype 116 arrd M T V43• 1-22,700 0.12,100 "2W I 0-5,N0 0.3.6D0 1,600 220791-30.200 12,701-t7,DW 8.201-10,900 5,901-791X] 3,6014,80g 1.750 30.201-30,7g0 17001-21,80) 10901-12,9W 7,901-9,81141 4.8016.200 2,0W 38.701-d8300 21M-24,2W 12.901.17,d00 9.801-12,600 6,201.7,700 2,250 2 omi-69.0W 24,201.33,20D 17.401-21,300 12,60146,4og 7.701-9,40g 25g0 59.001-70,9W 33]01-39,700 21.301.25,500 15,401.18.400 9.401- 11,300 2,750 70.90163300 39.7DI47,100 25,501.30,100 10,401.21.SW 11,301-13.400 3,00 63,701-97.700 47,101-54,900 31)101-35,200 21,801-25,9W 13.401-15,6W 3,2W 97,701-112,7C0 54,90T4i3,4W 35,201406W 25,901-29,3W 15,601-16.0W 3.0 3 /12.701-128.7 63 dot-72,4W Q$01-46.4W 29,301-33,5W 18,W1.20.GW 3,750 129,701-IdS, 72,d01�2,1W 415A0I-5Z5W 33,601-37,9W MMI-23,300 4.M Fw SI: 1 aquas teot = 0,0929 mc, I gotten per minute = 3.785 Lim, 1 pound par square inch=6.895 kPa. a. Types of caraWction tie based w the lOwta8anai Banding Code. b. Measured at 20 psi residual peasure 7 HBK Site Plan 008 Exhibit 1 - 008 UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE hblk SOLUTIONS i 'ENGINEERING Project Number: A16-0760 SECTION C102 NUMBER OF FIRE HYDRANTS 0102.1 Minimum number of fire hydrants for a building. The nlanber of Ore hydrants available to a building shall be not fees than the minimum specified in Table C102.1. TABLE C102.1 REQUIRED NUMBER AND SPACING OF FIRE HYDRANTS FIRE -FLOW REQUIREMENT (gran) MINIMUM NUMBER OF HYDRANTS AdERAGESPACING BETWEEN HYDRANTS` k�re llaet) MAXIMUM DISTANCE FROM ANY POINT ON STREET OR ROAD FRONTAGE TOA HYDRANT C- 1350 or leas 1 call 250 2,oa0-2,3so 2 4bo 22c 2.600 3 450 225 3,000 3 400 225 3.50",Wp 4 350 210 4.C-065,000 5 30D 180 5,500 5 30D 1W 6.OW 6 250 150 6,5npJ,000 7 1 250 150 T,500 or more 8or ra"e 1 200 120 Fm SI 1 bat = 304 8 man. 1 VIM per annuls = 3.785 Lhn a Reduceby Ilpfaelf"deMd daheets"roads. b. Where streels are provided will, nwdlan di wders Meat cannot be "ahead by fire fighlars pidlhg hose sne , m where Menial aveals are provided wall low "more trend larres and hava a basic cant of mere than 3D,0D0 whktss par day, hydrant spacing slW average 50D feet m each side of Iha street and be arranged on an allemaMrg basis c. Where new water means are extended a" streets where hydrants are not needed for pr"ection orassesses "similar the problems, Me hydrants be pnridetl al spacing ad to exceed 1,000 feet b puvide for harsporta rm hazards. d. Reduce by 501ee1 fordeed eM streets or rowts. e. One hydrant An inch 1,000 gallons perminute"fraction themof. f A50-pecan spacing mrsass shall be pennihed while the building is equipped otmughow with an approved a nrs0c sprinkler syaRan in accordance vAh &than 903.3.1.1 of the bfemerronai Fire Code. g. A 25-percent spacuV increase shag be permided wirers the beddmg is equipped throughout w4b an appmvad aubmes, spnnkW system in aaordarax ants Session 903.3.1.2"9p3,3.1.3 orthe lydamebonel Fire Dade m Se4tim p2904 altlte hdemalwnal Readenriel CMe. SECTION C103 FIRE HYDRANT SPACING C103.1 Hydrant spacing. Fire apparatus access roads and public streets providing required access to buildings In accordance with Section 503 of the International Fire Code shall be provided with one or more fire hydrants, as determined by Section C102.1, Where more than one fire hydrant is required, the distance between required fire hydrants shall be In accordance with Sections C103.2 and C 103.& C103.2 Average spacing. The average spacing between fire hydrants shall be in accordance with Table C102.1. Exception: The average spacing shag be permitted to be Increased by 10 percent where existing fire hydrants provide all or a portion of are required number of fire hydrants, C103.3 Maximum spacing. The maxhnum spacing between fire hydrants shall be in accordance with Table C102.1. SECTION C104 CONSIDERATION OF EXISTING FIRE HYDRANTS C104.1 Existing fire hydrants, Existing fire hydrants on public streets are allowed to be considered as available to meet the requirements of Sections C102 and 0103. Existing fire hydrants on adjacent properties are allowed to be considered as available to meet the requirements of Sections C102 and C103 provided that a fire apparatus access road extends between properties and flat an easement is established to prevent obstruction of such roads. 8 HBK Site Plan 009 Exhibit 1 - 009 UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE ! bk SOLUTIONS ` ENGINEERING Project Number: A16-0760 SECTION 0101 GENERAL D101.1 Scope. Fire apparatus access roads shall be in accordance with this appendix and all other applicable requirements of the International Fire Code. SECTION D102 REQUIRED ACCESS D102.1 Access and loading. Facilities, buildings or portions of buildings hereafter constructed shag be accessible to Ore department apparatus by way of an approved fire apparatus access road wilh an asphak concrete or other approved tldving surface capable of supporting the Imposed load of fire apparatus weighing at least 76,000 pounds (34 050 kg). SECTION D103 MINIMUM SPECIFICATIONS 0103.1 Access road width with a hydrant. Where a Ore hydrant Is located on a fire apparatus access road, the minimum road width shall be 26 feet (7925 mm), exclusive of shoulders (see Figure 0103.1). sv \Y/ —II ryp. Ttt 9b'04AIETER a]FOOT"Y` MNMUM CLEARIACE gILLESY .tli�IMDAFmME 1B'R ea —I 1 rrR. 1 � vo �R mJ TW d /�'CFFiA9lENTEPNA h7D'N/wNERNEM TO taYHLLaIERNE4D F., 81.1 focl = 30d.9. FIGURE D103.1 DEAD-END FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROAD TURNAROUND 9 HBK Site Plan 010 Exhibit 1 - 010 UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE lhbk SOLUTIONS ', i ENGINEERING Project Number: A16-0760 D1032 Grade. Fire apparatus access roads shell not exceed 10 percent in grade. Exception: Grades steeper than 10 percent as approved by the fire chief. 0103.3 Turning radius. The minimum turning radius shall be determined by the fire code official. D1O3.4 Dead ends. Dead-end fire apparatus access roads in excess of 150 feet (46 720 mm) shell be provided with width and turnaround provisions In accordance with Table D103.4. TABLE D103.4 REQUIREMENTS FOR DEAD-END FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROADS ENGTH R MUTH few TURNAROUNDS REQUIRED 4150 20 N. aired *iZoo 20 1?0-fool Harnmerhmtl, 60-kM-1^w 96 fooh tliamelar cui de-ax in xcardance wiN F are 01031 501-750 26 120-fod HammeTeatl.80.fool'Y'er%-botdumerer culde-aac in accordmce wish F' are 0103.7 OW750 Sp W proralmgwred Fw Sk I root = 30e.8 mm. D103.6 Signs. Where required by the fire code oftlal, fire apparatus access roads shall be marked with permanent NO PARKING —FIRE VANE signs complying with Figure D103.6. Signs shall have a minimum dimension of 12 inches (305 mm) wide by 18 inches (457 mm) high and have red letters on a white reflective background. Signs shall be posted on one or both sides of the fire apparatus road as required by Section D103.6.1 or M03.62. sGNP -X BpN TYPE`C BHAITYPE'D' on MUNDING ARE T Rea f— 1 FIGURE 0103.6 FIRE LANE SIGNS D103.6.1 Roads 20 to 26 feet In width. Fire lane signs as specified in Section D103.6 shall be posted on both sides of fire apparatus access roads that are 20 to 26 feet wide (6096 to 7925 mm). 0703.62 Roam more than 26 feet in width. Fire lane signs as specified in Section D1O3.6 shall be posted on one side of fire apparatus access roads more than 26 feet wide (7925 mm) and less than 32 feet wide (9754 mm). 10 HBK Site Plan 011 Exhibit 1 - 011 ;h'FRASTRDCTI ra, SOLUTION-' hu"Uk ItITV ENGINEERING Project Number: A16-0760 Figure 3: Project Site - 2014 Figure 4: Project Site - 2012 11 HBK Site Plan 012 Exhibit I - 012 INFRASTRUMATYE SOLUTIONS ENGINEERING Project Number: A16-0760 Figure 5: Project Site - 2011 Figure 6: Project Site - 2008 12 HBK Site Plan 013 Exhibit 1 - 013 0 a OIL Adlk�� Figure 7: Project Site - 19905 Figure 0: Project Site - 1970s UTSUTY j hbk iNfWASTROCTUR£ SOLUTIONS , ENGINEE,ZING Project Number: A16-0760 13 HBK Site Plan 014 Exhibit 1 - 014 U11LITI 114FOH51 UC URE SOLUP.ONS hbk . ENGI,NEERING Project Number: A16-0760 Figure 9: Project Site - 1960s Figure 10: Project Site - 1950s 14 HBK Site Plan 015 Exhibit I -015 UTILITY hbk INFRASTRUCTURE I SULllTi0N5 ENGINEERING Project Number: A16-0760 Figure 11: Project Site - 1930s 15 HBK Site Plan 0 t 6 Exhibit I - 016 Utlrll"y iNFRA51RU-' 111RE hbk 5t'.lUii0N5 ENGINEERING Project Number: A16-0760 ri �1 0'fi Figure 12: Zoning Map Legend Rural Resldentlai(RR1) _ �. Comrlwoif, Commercial(CC2) Low Density Single -Fatuity Residential (RS5) Central Business Service tCB2) hledmin Density Single-€amily Residential (RS8) Central Business Support (CB5) �j High Density single -Family Residential (RS12) �I Central BusinesP (CB 10) �i Neighborhood Solarization Residential (RNe-,,) �! Intensive commercial fcll) ' Low Density hluld-Family Residential (RM 12) I� General industrial (1I) - Neighborhood &abafizahon Residential (RNS20) ® Heavy Industrial (12) Medium Density Multi -Family Residential RM20., Research Development Park (RDP) - High Density MulbFi miry Residential (RM44) .: Office Research Park (ORP) Fi:• - Planned High Density Mulli-Family Residential(PRMI6 �.. Interim Development Multi-FaiMyResidential 110-RM)- Mixed Use (MU ., � Inteim Development Single -Family Residential (ID-RS) ` Commercial Office (COI) EM� Interim Development Research Park (ID-RPj Neighborhood Commercial (CNI) _ NsigFiborhood PulGc (Pt) Highway Commercial (CHI) Institutional Public(P2) 16 HBK Site Plan 017 Exhibit 1 - 017 UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE ' SOLOTIQNS k I (ENGINEERING Project Number: A16-0760 APPENDIX Appendix 1: MMS Consultants Site Plan Appendix 2: Har:-Frederick PC Letter Appendix 3: Proposed Sewer Improvements Appendix 4: Fire Access Improvements — Option 1 Appendix 5: Fire Access Improvements — Option 2 Appendix 6: City of Iowa City Fire Flow Information Appendix 7: Runoff Information Appendix 8: Opinion of Cost 17 HBK Site Plan 018 Exhibit I - 018 Appendix 1 gig o m Z. � o �jg<m v m $ a dY ¢ W _' so co o RD3°- $� HBK Site Plan 019 Exhibit 1 - 019 Appendix 2 HARD 1 October, 2015 Prestige Proparhes 239-R Court St, Ste 2 Iowa City, IA 52240 Attu: Mike Oliveira lic ENGINEER$ & SURVEYO& Ra: Sanitary Sewer Service to 101 Lusk Avenue —Iowa City, Iowa Dear NIr. Oliveira: We have reviewed the video footage from the inspection of the sanitary sewer service to 101 Lusk Avenue in Iowa City performed on September 23, 2015. Based ontha video, we would not recommend using the existing service line in its current condition for the proposed additional single family homes. The tuberciilation in the 4-i ach diameter east iron section of the service line will impede flow and possibly cause blockages and backups. The roots protruding tiuoughthe pipe joints in tltc vCP section have been removed, but mayra-grow in the future. These would con become sources ofpoteetial blockage end infiltration. Many of&e joints are offset slightly from each other. The offsets could be considered minor and do not severely impede flow. The video eameaa did reach the manhole in this inspection and only two services discovered. The service to 631 Bayard Street was not found. This makes atotal of Rw residential conneets on the service line that is believed to be &inches at diameter. Typical standard practice for most cities is to require aminimum pipe diameter of 6-Motes when more them one building is served by s single service line. Accoi ft to the sewer iaspedlon equipment operator, OW iron portion of this service line is4-itnehes in diameter. Based on the latest video inspection, we, recommend a now 6-inch service line be installed to replace the 4-inch east iron section of the existing service line, The remaining existing service hue should be lined to pmvemt lhtore root growth and infiltration. Should you hatx any questions, please do cot hesitate to call Soott Rittea, L.S., or myself at our office. SineffalYe Benjamin A. Catitoit, Y.15. Ihn-Fredcd* Consultants P.C. cc: Jason navel, City Of Iowa city enc: video oaUSB FlmhDme file 510 Some Sneer P.O. Hera 560 • MW44 IA 52340.0560 • 31"0-7215 • 11= 319 545-7220 wwwI- "Wwj&=M Eporkeeft • B • Pleanins HBK Site Plan 020 Exhibit i - 020 Appendix 3 PROPO 702 I BAYARD J SED_SE U 2zIZ k�l� W Q < L J I2 WER IMPROVEMENTS 204 PROPOSED LE.XI GTON SANITARY MH 612 BAYARD 8"INV = 706.66 W 8'INV = 700.76 S BAYAND STREET 1 iTING SANITARY W MANHOLE EX WATERMAIN (6" CI) 8"INV=705.94E w—w—w—w—w—w---w—w— (— (-. PPROP. 186 LF 8" SANITARY 0.40% EXISTING HYDRANT — PROPERTY LINE FROM GIB 4 631 BAYARD PRIVATE SEWER (LOCATION MARKED IN FIELD) I 117 LUSK t t r i ISO I�a I U I Iwo 77f la 701 I t � p LUSK O BAYARD d j EXISTING HYDRANT a I I a (TO BE RELOCATED) PROPOSEDA SANITAI2Y8C( PROPERTY LINE `.'I.. _, PROPOSED SANITARY MH 8' INV = 707.36 N PROPOSED BUILDING 101 LUSK � II CRA(D/ORA/LROAD 9 RELOCATED FIRE HYDRANT L RObYLq D LEGEND N — ) — ) — EXISTING PRIVATE SEWER (LOCATION KNOWN) 0 40 80 - - - - - - - - - - - EXISTING PRIVATE SEWER (LOCATION ASSUMED) FEET • — • — - • - PROPOSED PRIVATE SEWER ® EXISTING PUBLIC SANITARY MANHOLE O PROPOSED PRIVATE SANITARY MANHOLE EXISTING PAVEMENT EDGE 110 LUSK HBK Site Plan 021 Exhibit 1 .021 Appendix 4 FIRE ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS - OPTION 1 U j702 ~ I z SAYARD Z W Q 204 LEXINGTON BAYARD STI Bit BAYARD EX SANITARY EX WATERMAlN (6" CI) MANHOLE w—w—w—w—w—w—w—w—w—w _TwrF� R �.-._.-..�. I CO�ND �/RT EXISTING HYDRANT PRIVATE SEWER (LOCATION MARKED IN FIELD) s PROPERTYINE LGIS i FROM I j L117 USK ! 0 W 631 BAYARD- I ? Z - 0 155'-5" w I ` ¢ �� `S IS' V IX y 1}0 j m D 1>1 s IM J LUSK 701 BAYARD PROPERTY LINE LEGEND %I 1 I i 1 o LUSK a EXISTING HYDRANT (TO BE RELOCATED) PROPOSED BUILDING 101 LUSK 1� CRAND.1; RAILROAD — W — W — EXISTING WATER MAIN (LOGATION FROM MAPPING) • • • • • • — PROPOSED WATER MAIN yeti �•cr PROPOSED EDGE OF PAVEMENT ,\n�'�j,h• PROPOSED EASEMENT PROPOSED PAVEMENTEDGE PROPOSED EASEMENT c, (4,272 SF) RELOCATED FIRE HYDRANT 0•. HBK Site Plan D22 Exhibit 1 - 022 Appendix 5 FIRE ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS - OPTION 2 Lj LL_ 702 20q �BAYARD LEXINGTON s12 BAYARD BAYARD STREET EX SANITARY Lu MANHOLE EX WATERMAIN (6" CI) w—w—w w—w—w w—w w w_ _ /D RD C'a . COUR� EXISTING HYDRANT s I� ///--- PRIVATE SWE ER (LOCATION MARKED IN FIELD) PROPERTY LINE I FROM GIS 117 LUSK I I jI 631 BAYARD ; D o Cu� I a 110 701 I i F o LUSK I 1 J LUSK w BAYARD i 0 EXISTING HYDRANT : 1128 a (TO BE RELOCATED) I PROPOSED s PAVEMENT EDGE R28' � PROPOSED PROPERTY EASEMENT LINE , •� (1,808 SF) PROPOSED FIRE HYD RELOCATED BUILDING Tor 70' LUSK �R28\ °RANoic2gicRDAo LEGEND N - W - W - EXISTING WATER MAIN (LOCATION FROM MAPPING) D 40 80 • • • • • • PROPOSED WATER MAIN FEET PROPOSED EDGE OF PAVEMENT 777.'�&7777 PROPOSEDEASEMENT HBK Site Plan 023 Exhibit 1 - 023 216 Appendix 6 209 Q Z204 612 702 CAST L-4 6 CAST 6 CAST BAY 4RD ST ROW4-4ND CT 117 ~ U I m 111 701 110 101 ♦'""^ ALL UTILITIES ARE GRAPHICALLY REPRESENTED AND ARE NOT GEOREFERENCEO. N ®.,..,... THIS MAP IS NOT INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES. NO PRIVATE WATER SERVICES OF ANY SIZE ARE SHOWN. NOTTO SCALE. w E Dab: B2l2016 H8K Site Plan 024 Exhibit 1 s024 Appendix 6 BY: RPOSE OF TEST: IOWA CITY WATER DIVISION Hydrant Flow Test Report 101 LUSK AVE MIKE SANSEN JR DAVE EXLINE, ERIC GRINGER DATE: 22-Aug-16 TIME: 1:15PM FLOW HYDRANT Al A2 A3 GPMJ 1070 STATIC B 82 RESIDUAL B 52 -CTED RESULTS: At 20 PSI Residual 1584 GPM Note: If the nozzle coefficient is assumed to be 0.9 REMARKS LOCATION MAP: Show the sizes and distance to the next cross connected line. Show the valves & hydrant branch size. Indicate North. Show flowing hydrants - Label Al and A2. Show the location of Static and Residual - Label B. Click here for drawing of this flow test area T:\Operations\Reports\l01 Lusk Ave.xlsWater Dept. HBK Site Plan 025 Exhibit 1 - 025 Appendix 7 RUNOFF INFORMATION tc) 702 204 612 BAYARD I Lu Ij I LEXINGTON 'BAYARO L k s 17— EX SANITARY MANHOLE EXISTING --- HYDRANT-_._,_ PROPERTY LINE FROM GIB BAYARD S T EX WATERMAN (67 CO w W— w w W— w w w IN w PRIVATE SEWER (LOCATION MARKED IN FIELD) 117 iI L USKI' 631 BAYARD 701 LUSK BAYARD EXISTING HYDRANT (TO BE RELOCATED) PROPERTY PROPOS LINE D PROPOSED _..BUILDING,._--.._ ', LUSK Cn*D1CA4&R A PAD LEGEND EXISTING CONTOUR UDHNSM COUNTY GIS) RUNOFF INFORMATION BUILDING AREA - ?.= SF LOT AREA - 16.B!XI SF RUNOFF COEFFICIE NT RAINFALL INTENSITY PAVEMENT AREA a 4.610 SF LOT AREA - O.M A. C(10-YEAR) c0.78 [ (I"m" -453G TOTAL IMPERVIOUS = 11,W0 SF %IMPEWOUS=n% C (I00-YENR) = 0,85 1 (1wyr) = Sim F m T- 4.0 80 MEAEK:JFE RATIONAL METHOD (0 - CIA) 0 (10-YEAR)=I.S7ds O(I00-YFAR)m1MIft H13K Site Plan 026 Exhibit 1 - 026 Appendix 8 OPINION OF COST Item No. Sid Item f°stimated Unit Extended Quantity nk rice rice Hydrant Relocation 1 Traffic Control 1 LS $ 500.00 $ 5D0.00 2 Removal of Pavement 17 SY $ 10.00 $ 170.00 3 Watermain, Trenched PVC, 6-inch _ __ _ 30 LF $ 30.00 $ 900.00 4 H rant. Reset 1 LS $ 1,500.00 $ 1 500.00 5 Pavement, PCC, 7-inch 17 SY $ 45.00 $ 765.00 6 Filter Socks, 84nch 25 LF $ 3.00 $ 75.00 7 Conventional Seeding, Seeding and Fertilizinq 17 SY $ 4.00 $ 68.00 Su6fateI = $ 3,978.00 Sanity Sewerl vemettts 1 Traffic ConVol 1 LS $ 2,500.00 $ 2,500.00 2 Removal of Pavement 200 SY $ 10.00 $ 2,000.00 3 Removal Sidewalk 44 SY $ 8.00 $ 352.00er, 4 Saanitynda!yof SewTrenched, PVC, 8-inch 330 LF $ 35.00 $ 11,550.00 5 Sanitaq Sewer Service Stub, PVC, 44nrh 25 LF $ 25.00 $ 625.00 6 nitaty Sewer Manhole SW-3D1, 484nch 2 EA $ 4,000.00 $ 8,000.00 7 Pavement, PCC, 7-inch 2D0 SY $ 45.00 $ 9,000.00 8 Sidewalk, PCC, 4-Inch 44 SY $ 35,00 $ 1.540.00 9 1 Fitter Socks 8-inch 150 LF $ 3.00 $ 450.00 10 Conventional Seeding , Seedin and Fermizi 167 SY $ 4.00 $ 668.00 Subtotal = $ 36,685o0 A aratus Access - Option 2 11 Traffic Cordml 1 LS $ 1,500.00 $ 1,500.00 12 Tree Removal 'le, 1 LS $ 3,0omuo $ 3,0D0.00 13 To oil, , and Res read 103 CY $ 15.00 $ 1 550.00 15 ifiedStoc Subbase, Modified ID4123 , 6-inch 620 SY $ 8.00 $ 4,980.00 16 Pavemem. PCC 7-inch 495 SY $ 45.0D $ 22,275.00 17 Filter Socks, 8-inch 250 LF $ 3.00 $ 750.00 18 Conven8onal Seeding. Seeding and Fertilizing 310 SY $ 4.00 $ 1 240.D0 19 Easement- 50% of assessed land value per SF $109,170/UK acres 1808 SF $ 2.27 $ 4,104.35 Subtotal = $ 39 379.35 Subtotal = $ 80 042.35 15% Mobilization $ 12.006.00 10% Contingency $ 8.004.00 Miscellaneous Total = $ 100,052.35 15°k En inead $ 15 008.00 5% Bidding $ 5,00100 Subtotal = $ 20,011.00 Estimated Project Cost $ 120,063.35 e13a/2016 HBK Engineering HBK Site Plan 027 Exhibit I - 027 ADDellants' Exhibit 2 i�i'� da ine 1VJU-nivers1by Heights and Lusk Ave tD E v t79 ir.r. CLCL N� W% lD �. u. v 47 G N y> 0 m i5 IA Ca .� �p Q to Co O m 0 to c Q 0 0f V 0 C0 4D rq 0. E N �o C O 61 Eto G 7 ti V O 0 00 dA U `) T-q v � `l V-4 = c -0 0 ai m 0 �b.0 .0 = u n c -a ++ 0 N in s _ > C! _0 c 9 WJ z a. 4J m r-i0 U0.°��Q N m tw 4C — 7 0 m O 0 cam, co ti }, rq ' �o i O iLp N E E ,..� •� N O m 0 d 3 ,- y 0 N Z L O C fn c 9 0 5 C � o ` "- O L a)N 0 = o N- __ E cLLn c�y 'G7 (D _ 7 N 0~Ci Ln � A m U oiJ 0 Ln -E mom E yy 0 c> +� 0 '" m u O^ a o ciJW h Ln` �J -00@E 0 u LW- Ct r-i0' O m > fl rl O V)i '' 'L M G O (,} a d v L 46 H 61 � E t0E to Y i N 0 G � wE N J C CL � O N 9 a: U W-Telmtmm Exhibit 3 Affidavit of Karin Southard AFFIDAVIT OF KARIN SOUTHARD COMES NOW, Karin Southard, and, being first duly sworn, hereby states as follows: My name is Karin Southard. 2. My husband, 'Tom, and i have lived in Iowa City for more than twenty-five years; we live at 420 Lexington Avenue, which is about two blocks from 101 Lusk Avenue. 3. My neighbors recently elected me President of Neighbors of Manville Heights Association (NMHA). 4. Our group formed approximately mid -June of 2016 when we gathered on a day's notice at the corner of Lusk Avenue and Bayard Street when we were informed by our neighbor Bill Ackerman of the planned "party venue" at 101 Lusk Avenue, to be constructed by persons identified as Reed and Sandra Carlson, from the Decorah area. Bill and his wife, Karen Ackerman, own a house on Bayard Street that is adjacent to the 101 Lusk Avenue property; Bill had inadvertently heard by hearsay about the Carlsons' plans to build a large Kinnick Stadium replica building and he alerted neighbors. 6. In our initial neighborhood discussions, we realized that none of us knew anything about the proposed building for certain and we decided to investigate. 7. On very short notice, we organized ourselves into the Association so that we could represent interests of the neighborhood and efficiently learn information about the Carlsons' project. 8. What little information we could obtain caused us to conclude that this project was inappropriate for our low density single family neighborhood, generally, and particularly for the location at 101 Lusk Avenue. We believed that, if constructed, and if used as intended, the building would cause a nuisance and would threaten the health and safety of the neighborhood and those who used it for large party events. AFFIDAVIT of KARIN SOUTHARD Page 1 9. Members of our group appeared at a City Council meeting on June 21, 2016, to express our distress. We were assured by the Mayor and members of the Council that we would be allowed time on the agenda of the very next meeting, two weeks later —which caused us to believe that there would be time for the community to address the issues of concern in an orderly and informed manner. 10. However, within a few days of that meeting we noted that City staff member Doug Boothroy, in an interview with ABC News, indicated that a Building Permit would be issued the very next week —even though, at the time he made such a statement, the Building Permit earlier -issued had been suspended and the only Site Plan that the Carlsons had submitted to the City showed a driveway leading to a place on Lusk Avenue where there was no paved surface. 11. The City rapidly moved forward just as Mr. Boothroy had predicted — approving a Site Plan that moved the driveway to the north side of 101 Lusk Avenue, but, this time, the driveway is located right in the way of a fire hydrant. This quick -approval appears to make a mockery of the Site Plan approval process. 12. Our concerns about this kind of conduct —the appearance that at least some City staff members have failed to play a neutral role when interpreting and applying the Code —have been amplified as we have learned more about the situation. 13. Some members of our Association have continued to meet to share information we have been able to learn about the 101 Lusk Avenue situation, including careful reviews of public records produced, at our written requests, by the City of Iowa City, University Heights and the University of Iowa. We are unsettled by what we have learned. 14. At first, many of us thought it was a bad joke —the kind of thing a person would read about in the Onion --to build this "mini Kinnick" building on such a quiet, half -paved, dead-end residential street with old growth trees, charming cottages and minimal parking. Now, we are just stunned that this could happen in Iowa City. Neighbors were never given any opportunity to be informed. Indeed, the public records we have reviewed show that a possible "meet and greet" with neighbors was discussed by City staff AFFIDAVIT of KARIN SOUTHARD Page 2 persons but dismissed them as a "lose/lose" situation. Since when, and why, has providing information to taxpayers about a major project been considered "lose/lose" by our City government? 15. The public records we have reviewed cause many of us to believe that the determination by and the apparent goal of at least some members of the City's staff to allow this project to be constructed has overwhelmed all other considerations —including issues of public safety and health. 16. Based on our review of the records it would appear that plans for this project in Iowa City evolved in a very deliberate, biased fashion by a select few City staff persons who operated with very little oversight and no public scrutiny. 17. We now know that at least some members of the City staff were aware of the true nature of this project when it was presented by the Carlsons to the City of University Heights as early as 2015. At that time, the University Heights City Attorney and its Building Official, Terry Goerdt, reviewed the drawings for the Carlson building and deemed the proposed building, then, initially, as an entertainment venue, and not as a residential structure. A petition was circulated in opposition to the Carlson building, signed by many residents, and was copied to the Iowa City City Attorneys. 18. The public records for University Heights show further that the Carlson filed a lawsuit against that community when the City did not approve his project. Two facts about the Carlsons' threat and filing of litigation in that community were of special note to us in our review. First, the City Council concurrently discussed paying for Mr. Goerdt's professional liability insurance --apparently in response to litigation concern. Second, one of the lawyers retained by the Carlson to sue the City of University Heights was Matthew G. Hektoen, spouse of Iowa City Assistant Attorney Sara Hektoen. That lawsuit was in effect with the Carlsons purchased 101 Lusk Avenue. 19. Remarkably, Mr. Goerdt's name : equently comes up in our .-. Aew of the public records produced by the City of Iowa City. Mr. Goerdt, the same person who was involved in the City of University Heights' controversies about the same Carlson-Kinnick project was placed in charge of approving, or not approving Site Plan and Building Permit Application for the same project in Iowa City. Additionally, Assistant City Attorney Sara Hektoen, the spouse of Matthew G Hektoen, the attorney who filed the lawsuit for the Carlsons against University Heights for that community's refusal to approve AFFIDAVIT of KARIN SOUTHARD Page 3 construction of the replica Kinnick Stadium building, was a recipient of documentation involving the Carlson structure, including, for example, on an occasion in which she was one of only 4 City staff member copied on a key internal memorandum to City Manager Geoff Frain summarizing the status of this situation, a memorandum that was generated when neighbors were alarmed and requesting information. 20. To avoid the possibility or appearance of bias, to assure a neutral frame of mind when applying City Code provisions, taxpayers, at the very least, expect that the City would remove from decision -making processes those persons, such as the ones involved in this case, who come to the matter with pre -established opinions or other real or perceived biases. That did not happen in this instance. 21, From what we can determine, Mr. Goerdt was the principal staff person responsible for rendering an opinion as to whether the building should be classified as a residential or other type of structure. Mr. Geordt was in repeated communication with the Carlson and their representatives. When one of the most important of the City Memoranda was completed, the City records reflect that Mr. Goerdt supplied the Carlsons with a copy of it --even before they requested it. 22. From our review of the public records, it would appear that at least some Iowa City staff anticipated the Carlsons' plans and expressed concerns as to the potential non -conforming nature of the building that they proposed to build. 23. Our reading of the record causes us to be concerned as to whether dissenting voices were considered or whether they, like earlier renditions of the Carlson' building plans, were air -brushed out of the way. 24. We know that select City staff went through multiple efforts to compose wording on the Plan Review list and :composed wording for a notarized affidavit to be supplied to, and signed by, the Carlsons. This odd affidavit is one that some members of our Association, having reviewed it, believe to be of dubious regulatory value. Perhaps it was intended to provide some sanctuary to City employees who are concerned as to the propriety of the City's approval of the Carlsons' Plan and Building Permit. AFFIDAVIT of KARIN SOUTHARD Page 4 25. Public records show that the City possessed unique and important knowledge not held by its citizens. Therefore, we are concerned that when inquiring citizens, such as Bill Ackerman, sought answers to their questions about issues such as private sanitary sewer lines, their capacities and locations, such persons were sometimes not treated respectfully and truthfully. 26. The City's absence of timely and substantive communications with nearby residents who would be adversely affected by the Kinnick Stadium -replica building, if it were to be built, stands in vivid contrast to the City's frequent communications with the Carlsons and their representatives in the same time period. Not only did the City fail to inform affected nearby residents in a timely and substantive way, further, it approved a Site Plan and a Building Permit to allow this frivolous project to move forward, a project that all neighbors we know of agree threatens the sewer, safety, security and property interests of adjacent owners downstream. 27. We note that one prior owner of 101 Lusk Avenue, Mr. Oliveira, of Prestige Properties, in response to his own Application to build two smaller homes, was appropriately required by the City to abide by provisions of the Code that assure public safety and health. We are concerned that the very next owners of that same property, the Carlsons, were treated very differently by the City and were excused from the reasonable application of the same, and similar, Code provisions. 28. We are just shaking our heads asking "how can this possibly be happening in Iowa City?" We are normally proud to reside in —and to pay taxes in support of-- a City that takes care of its citizens and neighborhoods. 29. Something has gone terribly wrong in this instance. We are grateful that Iowa law requires the establishment of a Board of Adjustment and empowers it to correct serious errors made by Building Officials. We are confident that, upon Lwe Board members' review of this situation, they will make the necessary corrections: (1) to determine that this project cannot be classified as a residential structure; and, (2) to revoke the Building Permit for 101 Lusk Avenue. AFFIDAVIT of KARIN SOUTHARD Page 5 FURTHER I SAYETH NOT. /1 % - f X'G-1lW o l d KARIN SOUTHARD Subscribed and sworn to before me this 5day of September, 2016. TARY PUBLIC l JAMES C ME- W Notarial Seal - IOWA My CrnmbN n QO No. 7714N F�ir8$l*M ry 02, 2016 AFFIDAVIT of KARIN SOUTHARD Page 6 ADDellants' Exhibit Affidavit of Anne G. Sadler and Craig H. Syrop AFFIDAVIT OF ANNE G. SADLER AND CRAIG H. SYROP COME NOW, Anne G. Sadler and Craig H. Syrop, being first duly sworn, and hereby state as follows: We, Anne G Sadler and Craig H Syrop, are the sole owners of Blitz, LLC. As such, since purchasing it in 2009, we have been and we are the sole owners of real estate whose street address is 117 Lusk Avenue, Iowa City, Iowa, which is located less than 100 feet from the 101 Lusk Avenue property. We are citizens of Iowa City. At the time of our purchase of 117 Lusk Avenue, at a location two lots to the south, at 101 Lusk Avenue, there was a modestly -sized single family dwelling. It was owned and occupied by Pauline Aspel. According to records we have seen more recently, that home had 1 full bathroom. Within the last year we observed that the Aspel home was demolished. It was not either in whole or in part "destroyed or damaged by fire, explosion, act of God or by a public enemy," but, instead, was removed by voluntary demolition. We have learned more recently that F. Reed Carlson and Sandra Carlson were the owners of that residential structure when it was demolished. When we purchased the property at 117 Lusk Avenue we were not informed, nor, until very recently, did we know, that our residential property had shared a sanitary sewer with the residence at 101 Lusk Avenue. We first received rumors of a shared sewer line only after the City of Iowa City had issued a Building Permit to the Carlsons for a new building at 101 Lusk Avenue. In response to that rumor, we did some investigation, including a review of records produced by the City of Iowa City in response to a public records request. We discovered in those records that City officials and a prior owner of 101 Lusk Avenue, Mike Oliveira, owner of Prestige Properties, LLC,—a party who had purchased the property after Pauline Aspel had died —knew AFFIDAVIT of ANNE G. SADLER and CRAIG H. SYROP Page 1 of the shared sewer and had had its condition reviewed by civil engineers and persons having sewer camera equipment. According to those records, the civil engineer who appears to have been retained by Mr. Oliveira, had filed a professional opinion that the shared sewer line in its then -current condition should not be used to take on additional sewage load that would be created by (at that time, by that prior owner) two new residential structures. City officials, according to the public records we have reviewed, noted concerns for the absence of any Easement Agreement between the owners of 101 Lusk Avenue and properties to the north, including our property, and insisted, as a condition precedent to W. Oliveira's constructing two relatively small homes, that the owner build new private sewer lines to the City's sewer main or, in the alternative, produce evidence of a written Easement Agreement amongst those who shared the sanitary sewer line. Nobody ever contacted us, however. In learning of the shared sewer line only through our review of public records, we hired a professional sewer maintenance company to conduct a video taping of the sanitary sewer and to track the location of the sewer line. Only then, and not before, did we gain knowledge equal to that of, and already held and used by, the City and owners of 101 Lusk Avenue during the City's Building Permit process. We are appalled at the situation whereby at least some members of the City's staff have been willing to act covertly with the owners of 101 Lusk Avenue and enable the Carlsons to now do what they would not let prior owners of the property do only a few months earlier. That is, to newly construct a building utilizing a shared sewer whose intended use and design —to host large entertainment events --will add a tremendous sanitary sewer burden on a line that, in the written opinion of a licensed civil engineer, cannot bear that burden without causing difficulties for the properties, such as ours, that are downstream from the crowds. We are appalled that at least some City officials who, only a few months earlier, had insisted upon proof of a written Easement Agreement amongst the owners of 101 Lusk Avenue and properties to the north of it (including AFFIDAVIT of ANNE G. SADLER and CRAIG H. SYROP Page 2 ours) before a Building Permit would be approved for two proposed smaller residential structures. Now, a short time later, for the Carlsons' huge entertainment structure, imposed no such comparable requirement and no action was taken by the City to inform us that the issuance of a Building Permit to the Carlsons would place our property at risk. We have read section 14-1A-3 of the City's code that purports it should be implemented in a manner that "promotes the health, safety, order, convenience, prosperity, and general welfare of the citizens of Iowa City". However, we believe the issuance of a RS-5 building permit for new construction at 101 Lusk Avenue occurred without due application of these tenets and instead promoted the use of a shared sewer and un-granted use against, and placed an unlawful burden upon, our private property. Further, we believe that allowing, and indeed encouraging, new construction to utilize a shared private sewer violates the very code requirement for a separate sanitary sewer line required for RS5 designation as set forth by the City under section 16-3D-6D of city code. It is clear from City's documents that the shared sewer line and relevant concerns for easements across other's private property were prominent in prior considerations by the City during the processing of applications for building permits by Mr. Oliveira. 1) Notably, we have had our abstract reviewed repeatedly by attorneys, we have had our property surveyed by a licensed surveyor, we have had the premises inspected by Iowa One Call with any located buried services marked by it. None of these investigative actions revealed any evidence of any documented easement. Nor has any consideration ever been delivered to us or to any prior owner of our property for the use of this sanitary sewer by any owners of 101 Lusk Avenue --including the Carlsons. However, by contrast, another easement of record for a shared driveway is both obvious in terms of use and is well documented in our abstract and survey. 2) In addition, at no time since our ownership, have we been contacted by any owners of the property at 101 Lusk Avenue, their representatives or any agent of Iowa City Housing or Public Works or City Attorney or any other representative of the City regarding the existence of a shared, private sewer line or opinions expressed by persons, and placed in City files, that our AFFIDAVIT of ANNE G. SADLER and CRAIG H. SYROP Page 3 property would be placed at risk if added sewage burdens were to be placed upon the existing sanitary sewer line. 3) At no time has our approval or permission to use, ;to re-establish use or to clarify responsibilities or liabilities for the use for this shared private sewer line ever been sought by any owner of 101 Lusk Avenue, their representative or any agent of Iowa City. 4) Our review of city records documents a clear fore knowledge by at least some members of the City's staff that a separate, lawful sewer line, as directed by RS-S code, directing egress of sewage contents from 101 Lusk Avenue directly to the City's sewer main, could be established by the owners of 101 Lusk Avenue by accessing available and public right of way on Lusk Avenue. Further, this could be done without the un-granted use of our private property. Therefore, it is our stance that by granting the Carlson' permit for new construction, the City has misapplied its own Code and thereby benefited asymmetrically these particular Building Permit Applicants and despite the City's own awareness concerning, and identification of, a clear and previously sought alternative. The City's failure to balance and protect our health, safety, convenience, and prosperity —citizens of the community —in clear favor of person who do not reside in our neighborhood, is deeply troubling and has caused us to consider all possible private actions we can take to defend our property interests in the absence of impartial and effective government conduct. FURTHER WE SAYETH NOT. ti JAMES O IAAEW Notarial Seal - IOWA GWW &per No. 77149, �We H. Subscribed and sworn to before me by Anne G�� and Craig H. Syrop this ``day of September, 2016. PUBLIC-IOWA AFFIDAVIT of ANNE G. SADLER and CRAIG H. SYROP Page 4 AaDellants' Exhibit 5 affidavit of Dennis Befeler AFFIDAVIT OF DENNIS BEFELER COMES NOW Dennis Befeler, being first duly sworn, and hereby states as follows: 1. My name is Dennis Befeler. 2. I reside at 234 Hutchinson Ave. with my wife and children. 3. That location is about 1 block away from 101 Lusk Avenue and is located in the Manville Heights neighborhood, zoned as RS-5, Low Density Single Family Residential. 4. When I heard about the controversy involving the planned construction of a large event space, a replica of Kinnick Stadium, I was interested, from the perspective of a planner and designer, and concerned as a father with a young family living not too far away. 5. The more I learned about this proposal, the more concerned I became and I have become active with my neighbors in trying to steer the City in a better direction. 6. To that end, in addition to my own personal advocacy, I have become involved and helped to establish the Neighbors of Manville Heights Association (NNERA), of which I serve as one of its officers. 7. I am employed as an audio-visual system consultant. 8. I possess over twenty years' experience overseeing construction aspects of event spaces. 9. I am currently employed by the University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics (UIHC), to design and oversee the installation of audio and video systems in event spaces, including the ongoing construction of over 30 event spaces in the Children's Hospital currently underway in Iowa City. I0.I hold a Master's degree from the University of Nebraska, Lincoln, in Theater Design and Technology, and dual BA's (Bachelors of Arts in Theater Arts and Business Administration), both from Coe College in Cedar Rapids, IA. 11.1 have worked the bulk of my professional career in the design and installation of event venues. I am a LEER (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) Accredited Professional and have been a member of USITT (United States Institute of Theater Technology). 12.I worked at The Savannah College of Art and Design, in Savannah GA, helping the Media and Performing Arts department establish new facilities, including the design and construction of several theater and event spaces. 13.I have supervised audio-visual system installations at the Paramount Theater in Cedar Rapids, IA; Kirkwood's Ballyntine Auditorium, Cedar Rapids, IA; Kinnick Stadium, in Iowa City, IA; St. Mary's Church, Iowa City; and numerous other conference room, theater, church, and athletic venues. 14.A common feature of my educational training and professional work is assessing spaces for performance and social functions. IS. To that end, I have taken special note of statements I have read in newspapers by the Carlson family, as they have described their intended use of the structure, as well as studying and reviewing drawings and plans submitted by the Carlson to the City —drawings and plans which seem to have changed frequently. 16.As I have educated myself better about the Carlson' proposed structure and applicable provisions of the City Code, as well as hundreds of pages of documents produced by the City of Iowa City in response to a public records request, I can find no evidence that any City employee of Building Official analyzed the uses and activities to which the Carlsons' structure will be put, if it is built. 17.My understanding of the City Code is that such an analysis should have been objectively and impartially performed by a Building Official —but, it was not. 18.In reviewing the Use Categories described in the City Code, I am of the view that a person with a reasonable background and training could perform the kind of analysis that the City Code anticipates. 19.1 believe that my own educational and professional training and experience allows me to offer the basis for my opinion that, as defined by the City Code, the Carlsons' proposed structure cannot be accurately classified as a residential structure. 20.Indeed, I don't believe that there is any classification for this building that is allowed under the permitted classifications for the RS-5 zone. Given that the exterior structure is designed to emulate the University of Iowa's Kinnick Stadium, the advertised use is more of commercial in character, not residential. 21.1n my professional view, Lhis project :s prnnar;ly designed and intended as a commercial -type large events venue ---even if products are not to sold on the premises. 22.The planned structure does not fit the definition of a single family home. 23.As a basis for formulating this opinion and conclusion I have reviewed the evolving plan, including views, dimensions, and lay -outs of the proposed construction project at 101 Lusk Avenue in Iowa City. 24.Based on industry standards with which I am familiar in the performance of my vocation, one normally plans for banquet seating a space allowance of 13.5 square feet per person. 25.The main level is designed to allow opening rooms on the same level to the courtyard. This configuration can comfortably seat over 200 persons, with access aisles to (what appears in some of the plans), built-in food catering serving lines and a beverage center in the three season porch. 26.Seating square footage within the courtyard area allows for roughly 100 people; interior space allows for 100 more. 27.The series of drawings submitted to the city show a clear intention for this property: it is designed to be used as an event venue for 200 person parties. 28.The plans for the event venue at 101 Lusk Avenue clearly show a different primary intent than for residential use. 29.The structure is principally intended to host large events first, and the bedrooms and living spaces are of secondary, or accessory use. 30.No series of small modifications to the plans for 101 Lusk Avenue (and, there have been many, as if to "air brush" details that speak to the large group intent e.g., lockers were recently removed from the bathroom drawings; bathroom names were recently changed from "men's" and "women's") will change the intent; an intent both publicly stated by the owners and clearly shown in plans. 31.If one were to analyze the numbers of hours that occupants would spend in particular activities as one measure of an appropriate use classification, it is notable that the owners have recently described an intent to be at the home only very occasionally —most of the time it will be empty. 32.If so, one can easily visualize the intensity of entertainment use (e.g. 200 persons per event lasting, say, four hours, or 800 entertainment hours) compared to the residential use for the same calendar period (2 owners staying for a weekend of 48 hours, or 96 hours) establishes a entertainment:residential use ratio of about 16:1, conservatively. 33.Alternatively, if one were to compare the floor space devoted to typical residential uses (bedrooms; a reasonable proportion of the dining and living spaces) compared to the floor space devoted to entertain.-nent uses, the ratio yields a similar outcome. For example: a. The planned structure has a Building Permit -described footprint of 7476 square feet ("sq.ft "). However, that square footage does not include a 1482 sq ft court yard, an entertainment space —or, a total of more than 8900 square feet of living and entertainment space. b. Of that amount of total space, the upper -most (third) level is 1528 sq ft. in size, and is described in some drawings as having three bedrooms. c. It is possible that any of the three bedrooms could have alternative uses, insofar as the owners, Mr. and Mrs. Carlson, would likely use the master bedroom which is on what could be called the main (second) level. d. The main (second) level has the following rooms and spaces: i. The master bedroom / bathroom and "owner entrance" (there are two entrances —this back door, one that faces to the West and that enters into private space; and one front door, one which opens to Lusk Avenue, to the East. ii. An exercise room, which appears to be an adjunct to the master bedroom and owner entrance. The master bedroom / bath and this exercise room have a footprint of 807 sq ft. iii. The kitchen is 480 sq ft in size (not counting the "dining area" by the stairs). 1. Average kitchens in Manville Heights that I have observed and worked on are most frequently sized in thel00-200 sq ft range, and even lavish luxury homes typically do not very often exceed 350 sq ft in size as it is hard to cook in such a huge space. 2. With a 16-long island (which is larger than some commercial bars in Iowa City), the kitchen is designed more for entertaining (or impressing), than for food prep. e. Even counting the full kitchen, and not counting the courtyard, living, residential space constitutes about 38% of the whole interior space. If one were to include the courtyard area, the space devoted to residential uses would shrink to about 33%. f. If one were to deduct for a "normally lavish" kitchen, and include the courtyard, living space is approximately 29% of the available "party" space. g. By any reasonable measure, it would appear that less than 1/3 of the space has been designed for residential use. The rest is designed to host large -group entertainment events. 34.While Carlson's official statement is that "he plans to host family gatherings" and the structure `will stand vacant most of the year," by any reasonable, objective measure, I am of the opinion, and I conclude, that, on the basis of common functional and physical characteristics, combined with multiple public statements such as made by Carlson to ABC news (6/24/16), that their intended use of this structure "is to build a house to tailgate at". If it is built, the structure is designed for high volumes of pedestrian flow, and will be used as, an events venue for up to 200 people, for which it is designed, and not as a residential structure. 353he City Code allows —although I see no evidence that the City's Building Official ever considered —an evaluation of vehicle use, building and site arrangements and the number of vehicle trips generated by the use of the property when classifying a building's use. 36.In this instance, it is clear that the civil infrastructure on Lusk Avenue in Iowa City is intended to support RS5 single-family homes, and not a structure of this size and constructed for entertainment purposes. 37.This infrastructure is not designed to support 200 people in an event venue. There are safety concerns, as emergency vehicle access is very limited, slowing response times. There is not adequate parking for the events this venue is designed to accommodate, and there is not safe or adequate pedestrian egress in and out of the venue. Restroom facilities are used in a different way in event venues, where heavy water use often occurs in a very short period. Aging infrastructure in a residential neighborhood is likely not designed for the intended use of this facility. 38.A 200 person -capacity event venue should not be built at 101 Lusk Avenue. Event venues do not meet RS5 zoning classifications and the location is inadequate for this expected use. FURTHER I SAYETH NOT. nnis Befeler Subscribed and sworn to before me 2016. ARY PUBLIC Befeler this t/0 day of September, JAMEE C'LAREW Not fal seal • Iowa %4mlowa r l.2oia UIT$Mtmm Exhibit 6 lC-ffiGaAn v .1 i v 1 Patricia C. Koza AFFIDAVIT OF PATRICIA C. KOZA COMES NOW, Patricia C. Koza, having been first duly sworn, and hereby states as follows: My name is Patricia C. Koza. I live with my husband John Koza at 209 Lexington Avenue, which is less than one- half block North from the proposed Carlson building at 101 Lusk Avenue. I was born and raised in Manville Heights and have lived most of my adult life there. In my opinion, the proposed Carlson building has been misclassified by the City in the Building Permit process. It is nothing more than some kind of adult entertainment venue, such as a sports bar with bedrooms, masquerading as a residence. Iowa City, being a college town, has more than its share of entertainment venues and bars. The City has enacted comprehensive codes for these types of structures for the protection and safety of those who use them ... certainly not for the convenience of those who own them. If it were properly classified as an entertainment venue, this building would be held to high standards of safety to protect the up to 200 persons who can occupy it at one time. The commercial kitchen would have to meet a myriad of health standards. There would be sprinklers to slow the advance of any fires. There AFFIDAVIT of PATRICIA C. KOZA (� i , Page 1 would be doors opening to the outside with crash bars to assure rapid exit in the event of danger. As it is, this 7,400 square foot building has one single door leading directly to the outside from the main level. A second door exits into the garage but it is only accessible by going through the kitchen and then through the Owner's Suite. There is one egress stairway and door from the lower level and there are no egress windows, yet that level is designed to attract crowds, holding a sports court and a large theatre. By comparison, in our 2400 square foot home, located within a block of the Carlson property, we have three doors on the main level that exit directly to the outside. Because the Carlson proposal has been misclassified as a residence, it is not being held to conform to the safety codes that have been painstakingly drawn by generations of City staff members and enacted into law by responsible, elected officials. The people who are entertained in this space will not enjoy the protections that they deserve from our City. It is the fervent hope of myself; my family and my neighbors that you embrace your duty as members of the Board of Adjustment to revisit the misclassification of this entertainment venue and that you come to the conclusion that there is no building classification for a structure such as this in the RS-5 Zone. AFFIDAVIT of PATRICIA C. KOZA 1 1 /u ' Page 2 Please revoke the Building Permit that was issued in error. FURTHER ISAYETTH NOT. PATRICIA C. KOZA Subscribed and sworn to before me by Qaicis-,C. Koza this _day of September, 2016 PUBLIv[ / JAMEB C LAREW Notarial Seal - IOWq Y COMMIS !on No. 77141W MCpmmdsslon Ireg . ��ry 02, 2018 AFFIDAVIT of PATRICIA C. KCIZA Page 3 Exiii1 bit .. lic Records Documents Subject Re: University Heights - Lot 115 From <silvia@university-heights.org> To Steve Ballard <Ballard@lefflaw.com> mike@university-heights.org <mike@university-heights.org>, Silvia Quezada <silvia@university- Cc heights.org>, jbilskemper@shive-hattery.com <jbilskemper@shive-hattery.com>, goerdt@netins.net <goerdt@netins.net> Date 2014-06-29 09:53 Priority Normal Steve - thank you for your note below, hope all went well with the family matter you mentioned! Your note has reassuring points, but I also see ordiance improvement points. what is your availability in the next week or the following? I have some ideas I'd like to toss -out there and see what comes about. Terry and Josiah - I will be reaching out to you on impact -type questions. what is your availability in the next week or so? Mike - let's regroup. I have some suggestions to help our ordinances catch up with the times. thank you all. SQ Subject RE: University Heights - Lot 115 From Steve Ballard <Ballard@lefflaw.com> To silvia@university-heights.org <silvia@university-heights.org> Cc mike@university-heights.org <mike@university-heights.org>, jbilskemper@shive-hattery.com <jbilskemper@shive-hattery.com>, goerdt@netins.net <goerdt@netins.net> Date 2014-06-29 09:55 Silvia, I am only in Monday (tomorrow) of this week, then out until July 8 (a week from Tuesday). I have good availability the July 8-11 and the week after that. Steven E. Ballard Leff Law Firm, L.L.P. P.O. Box 2447 222 South Linn Street Iowa City, Iowa 52244-2447 office: 319/338-7551 mobile: 319/430-3350 facsimile: 319/338-6902 email: ballard@lefflaw.com Subject University Heights - Lot 115 From Steve Ballard <Ballard@lefflaw.com> To Frederic Reed Carlson <frcarlson@mchsl.com> Cc terry-goerdt@university-heights.org <terry-goerdt@university- heights. org> Date 2014-09-17 06:37 Good Morning Mr. Carlson, Appellants' Exhibit 7 - 001 The University Heights Building Official, Terry Goerdt, and I have reviewed the drawings submitted by Al Zahasky concerning proposed development of Lot 115, University Heights First Addition. Our conclusion is that the proposed development, as shown in the drawings, does not comply with applicable University Heights ordinances, particularly the City's Zoning Ordinance and Sensitive Slopes Ordinance. Here's why: 1. Initially, the drawings submitted lack significant detail. a. They do not comprise a building permit application. b. There is no site plan. c. There is no description of the slopes involved on the lot and how the proposed construction complies with Ordinance 128, which regulates development and disturbance of sensitive slopes. 2. The drawings appear to show a commercial recreational use, which is not permitted in the R-1 Zone. The zone permits one single-family dwelling per lot. See Ordinance 79(6)(A)(1). Such features as a full bar, separately marked "men's" and "woinen's" bathroom facilities, and gym lockers appear to depict a commercial recreational use constituting the primary use. The Zoning Ordinance permits "customary accessory uses" but they must be "incidental to the principal use". See Ordinance 79(6)(A)(4). Well less than half of the square footage of the proposed construction, as shown on the drawings, relates to a residential use. 3. The drawings do not show any parking on the lot; off-street parking is required. See Ordinance 79(10)(A). 4. The drawings appear to show substantial concrete construction. Anticipating the weight and loads involved, an engineer's certificate will be required for the City to consider a building permit related to what's shown in the drawings. I want to stress that the above list is preliminary and responds onlyto the drawings as submitted. No building permit application has been submitted, but these items, among others, would need to be addressed before a permit could be considered. Please let me know if you have further questions or wish to discuss this matter. I trust that Mr. Zahasky might be in a position to speak with Mr. Goerdt about many of the items noted, as well. Steven E. Ballard Leff Law Firm, L.L.P. P.O. Box 2447 222 South Linn Street Iowa City, Iowa 52244-2447 office:319/338-7551 mobile: 319/430-3350 facsimile:319/338-6902 email: ballard0lefflaw.com Subject UH - Lot 115 From Steve Ballard <Ballard@lefflaw.com> To terry-goerdt@university-heights.org <terry-goerdt@university-heights.org>, jbilskemper@shive- hattery.com <jbilskemper@skive-hattery.com> Cc Louise From <louisebob@mchsi.com> Date 2014-10-0916:29 Terry and Josiah, I just sent you each a text on this. Word from neighbors (at least 2) is that there is someone with a skid loader and/or bulldozer at Lot 115 on Highland Drive in University Heights. The guy is clearing trees and dumping gravel. He told someone he was dumping gravel to level out the parking area for tailgating. Appellants' Exhibit 7 - 002 Sue Dulek From: Jason Havel <Jason-Havel@iowa-cily.org> Sent: Friday, January 23, 2015 4:39 PM To: Roger Overton Subject: RE: 101 Lusk Ave Would we want/require any repairs/changes in this location? Thanks. Jason From: Roger Overton Sent: Monday, January 05, 2015 7:37 AM To: Ron Knoche; Dave Elias; Ed Moreno; Jason Havel Cc: Josh Slattery; Kevin Slutts; Paul Druivenga Subject: RE: 101 Lusk Ave Ron, It appears that the 3 houses on the west side of Lusk, which would include 101 are on a private 6" line that goes into the MH at Bayard and Lexington. See attached plat #215. Roger From: Ron Knoche Sent: Sunday, January 04, 2015 6:18 PM To: Dave Elias; Ed Moreno; Jason Havel Cc: Josh Slattery; Roger Overton; Kevin Slutts Subject: RE: 101 Lusk Ave There is no site plan. I will have Barb sketch something and we will send it out. Thanks, Ron Sent from my U.S. Cellulum) Smanpbow ---- Original message -------- From: Dave Elias <Dave-Elias@iowa-city.org> Date:01/04/2015 5:24 PM (GMT-06:00) To: Ron Knoche <Ron-Knoche@iowa-city.org>, Ed Moreno <Ed-Moreno@iowa-city.org>, Jason Havel <Jason-Havel@iowa-city. org> Cc: Josh Slattery <Josh-Slattery@iowa-city.org>, Roger Overton <Roger-Overton@iowa-city.org>, Kevin Slutts <Kevin-Slutts@iowa-city.org> Subject: RE: 101 Lusk Ave Is there a digital site plan? Dave Elias Appellants' Exhibit 7 - 003 Sue Dulek From: Julie Tallman <Julie-Tallman@iowa-city.org> Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 10:40 AM To: Jason Havel Cc: Doug Boothroy; Tim Hennes; Jann Ream; John Yapp Subject: Proposed lot split on Lusk Attachments: Lusk Lot Split 2.25.15.pdf The lot split requires approval by Doug Bcothroy. The plat of survey, creating a new Auditor's Plat, will have to be signed by the PE or licensed surveyor, and submitted to Doug for approval. Summary of earlier conversations regarding this particular lot split: 1. Ron Knoche, at the end of December 2014, estimated that the street would need to be extended approximately 80 feet south to provide the required street frontage specified in the zoning ordinance. 2. In Ron's email to Mr. Oliviera, he also specified that a turn -around at the end of the street would have to be required. 3. Ron also raised the question of how water and sanitary sewer services would be extended to the lots. 4. A copy of Ron's email is available in the Building Division. Today's comments: 1. There must be 45 feet of street frontage along the south lot, with said frontage providing a means of vehicular access to the new home. In other words, Lusk Avenue must be extended to provide vehicular access for a minimum of 45 feet along the east lot line of the new lot. The presence of platted right-of-way alone is not sufficient. 2. The Fire Department should be included in discussions regarding the street design, as the turn -around would be used for emergency vehicle apparatus. 3. Driveway spacing standards require three feet (3') between the lot line extended and the curb cut on Lusk. 4. The sanitary sewer as proposed raises several questions. One, will it function? The plan shows 5 bends in the line. Two, would it not make more sense to abandon the sanitary sewer where it entered the original structure, re-route it to the Lusk Avenue right-of-way, and stub the services west from a new sewer main in the right-of-way? Is there an existing easement around the sanitary sewer where it crosses private property? 5. The trees indicated "to be saved" cannot all be saved with the necessary extension of pavement on Lusk. Appellants' Exhibit 7 - 004 Sue Dulek From: Paul Druivenga Paul-Druivenga@lowa-city.org> Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 201511:24 AM To: Jason Havel Subject: RE: 101 Lusk Ave. Request to subdivide lot. Attachments: Lusk.pdf Perhaps something like this. I know Jeff Maxwell can bore lines. From: Jason Havel Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2015 10:05 AM To: Paul Drudvenga CC: Roger Overton Subject: Re: 101 Lusk Ave. Request to subdivide lot. What would be your preferred option? Thanks. Sent from my iPhone On Feb 25, 2015, at 9:52 AK Paul Druivenga <Paul-Druiven¢a(@iowa-citv.org> wrote: Jason - The proposed house farthest to the south would have its sewer service cross 3 different properties. I'm not a fan of this proposal. Future repairs of the private line could get dicey. Generally when I'm asked about similar older sewers "why did the City OK this?'. Paul From: Jason Havel - --- - Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2015 9:19 AM To: Roger Overton; Paul Druivenga; Chris Paraek; Tim Hennes; Julie Tallman; Josh Slattery Subject: FW: 101 Lusk Ave. Request to subdivide lot. All, Attached is a drawing for splitting a lot on Lusk Avenue. Please review and let me know if you have any questions/concerns. Tim/Julie, do you want the response to come from your department or would you like me to respond to Mike with comments? Thanks. Jason From: Mike Oliveira rmaiito:moliveira(clprestigeprop.coml Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2015 12:27 PM To: Jason Havel Cc: 'Robert Carlson'; 'J. Scott Ritter' Subject: 101 Lusk Ave. Request to subdivide lot. Appellants' Exhibit 7 - 005 Sue Duiek From: Josh Slattery <Josh-Slattery@iowacity.org> Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 2:49 PM To: Jason Havel; Roger Overton; Paul Druivenga; Chris Parizek; Tim Hennes; Julie Tallman Subject: RE: 101 Lusk Ave. Request to subdivide lot. Jason, i have the following comments: 1. The proposed houses do not have separate and independent building sanitary sewer services as required in 16- 3D-6D. It appears that the sanitary sewer that is shown extending from a manhole at the intersection of Bayard St and Lexington Ave down to underneath the northern proposed house is a private service line. It is indicated that way in the legend on the drawing and our maps and plats do not show any sewer in this location. 117 Lusk Ave, 111 Lusk Ave, and both of the proposed homes will use this sewer service. 2. The water service for the south home runs 2 to 3 feet within the ROW and may be hard to maintain without encroaching on the neighboring property to the north. 3. Will the vacated ROW become part of the south lot so that it meets the frontage requirements? 4. If this ROW is vacated then the property across the street will not be able to split and do the same thing (if this matters). If you have any question regarding these comments, please let me know. Josh From: Jason Havel Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2015 9.19 AM To: Roger Overton; Paul Druivenga; Chris Partzek, Tim Hennes; Julie Tallman; Josh Slattery Subject: FIN: 101 Lusk Ave. Request to subdivide lot. All, Attached is a drawing for splitting a lot on Lusk Avenue. Please review and let me know if you have any questions/concerns. Tim/Julie, do you want the response to come from your department or would you like me to respond to Mike with comments? Thanks. Jason From: Mike Oliveira[mailto:moliveira@prestigeprop.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2015 12:27 PM To: Jason Havel Cc: 'Robert Carlson'; 7. Scott Rit er' Subject: 101 Lusk Ave. Request to subdivide lot. Hi Jason, Appellants' Exhibit 7 - 006 Sue Dulek From: Jason Havel <Jason-Havel@iowa-city.org> Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2015 8:52 PM To: Jason Havel Subject: Lusk Ave Attachments: Lusk Avenue Comments.docx Appellants' Exhibit 7 - 007 General 1. A plat of survey, creating a new Auditor's Plat, will have to be signed by a PE or licensed surveyor, and submitted to the Director of Neighborhood and Development Services for approval. 2. Zoning (RSS) requires 45 feet of street frontage. Lusk Avenue should be extended to provide vehicular access for a minimum of 45 feet along the east lot line of the new lot. Anything less than that would require a variance request. 3. Driveway spacing standards require three feet (3') between the lot line extended and the curb cut on Lusk. 4. Turn -around at the end of Lusk Avenue sufficient for fife department? Sanitary 1. Is there an existing easement around the sanitary sewer where it crosses private property? 2. The City's preference would be to provide a sanitary sewer within the Lusk Avenue ROW and tie the services into the new line (see attached drawing as a possible option). Appellants' Exhibit 7 - 008 Sue Dulek From: Jason Havel <Jason-HaveI@Iowa-city.org> Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 20151:58 PM To: John Grier; Brian Greer Subject: Turnaround on Lusk Ave Attachments: Lusk Ave Lot(s).pdf Good afternoon, A developer is looking to possibly divide an existing lot on Lusk Avenue. As part of the process, we would require a turnaround at the end of the street. Is the proposed turnaround (see attached) sufficient for the Fire Department. Thanks. Jason Havel, P.E. City Engineer City of Iowa City 410 E. Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 Phone: (319) 356-5410 Fax* (319)356-5007 1 NA& CITY OF IOWA CITY unrscoarvorureNnxar Appellants' Exhibit 7 - 009 Appellants' Exhibit 7 - 010 Sue Dulek From: Brian Greer <Brian-Greer@Iowa-city.org> Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2015 3:11 PM To: Jason Havel; John Grier Subject: RE: Turnaround on Lusk Ave Attachments: Fire Apparatus Access Roads.pdf Jason, I have attached the 2012 International Fire Code (IFC) appendix for fire apparatus access roads. With the space you have to work with there, it appears that it would be impossible to provide a conforming turnaround to meet the requirements of the code. In relationship to this proposed turnaround, our fire engines are 38+ feet long, and the ladder truck is 47+ feet long. The proposed turnaround definitely would not accommodate the ladder truck and quite possibly the fire engines. Are there any other options you are looking at in regards to this proposed turnaround/development? Let me know if you have any. Thanks. Stay safe, Brian Iowa City Fire Department 410 E. Washington Street Iowa City, la. 52240 319-356-5257 brianetreer&-iowa-citv.orn From: Jason Havel Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2015 1:58 PM To: John Grier; Brian Greer Subject: Turnaround on Lusk Ave Good afternoon, A developer is looking to possibly divide an existing lot on Lusk Avenue. As part of the process, we would require a turnaround at the end of the street. Is the proposed turnaround (see attached) sufficient for the Fire Department. Thanks. Jason Havel, P.E. City Engineer City of Iowa City 410 E. Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 Phone: (319) 356-5410 Fax: (319) 356-5007 Appellants' Exhibit 7 - 011 Sue Dulek From: Mike Oliveira <moliveira@prestigsprop.com> Sent: Sunday, June 07, 2015 7:57 AM To: Jason Havel Subject: RE: 101 Lusk Ave Sewer Line Easement I will work for Friday morning right now keep that open I will get back to you with an exact time. From: Jason Havel [mailto:Jason-Havel@iowa-city.org] Sent: Saturday, June 06, 2015 7:00 PM To: 'Mike Oliveira' Cc: 'Michael Kennedy Subject: RE: 101 Lusk Ave Sewer Line Easement Mike, What days/times would work for you this upcoming week? Friday (12 h) is pretty open for me, but I may be able to fit it in another day if you were wanting it to be sooner. Thanks. Jason From: Mike Oliveirajmailto:moliveira@a,prestiggprop.coml Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2015 5:04 PM To: Jason Havel Cc: 'Michael Kennedy' Subject: 101 Lusk Ave Sewer Line Easement Hi Jason, We have engaged our attorney, Mike Kennedy, to try and nail down the easement language that will satisfy your departments concerns while balancing the concerns with the multi of property owners that use the service. You and the other property owners are the last hurtle in this project. I believe the other property are going to be a huge challenge. Appellants' Exhibit 7 - 012 HART FREDERICK CONSULTANTS, P.C. ENGINEERS & SURVEYORS, 1 October, 2015 i Prestige Properties 239 E. Court St, Ste 2 Iowa City, IA 52240 Attn: Mike Oliveira Re: Sanitary Sewer Service to 101 Lusk Avenue — Iowa City, Iowa Dear Mr. Oliveira: - We have reviewed the video footage from the inspection of the sanitary sewer service to 101 Lusk Avenue in Iowa City performed on September 23, 2015. Based on the video, we would not recommend using the existing service line in its current condition for the proposed additional single family homes. The tuberculation in the 4-inch diameter cast iron section of the service line will impede flow and possibly cause blockages and backups. The roots protruding through the pipe joints in the VCP section have been removed, but may re -grow in the f ture. These would again become sources of potential blockage and infiltration Many of the joims are offset slightly from each other. The offsets could be considered minor and do not severely impede flow. The video camera did reach the manhole in this inspection and only two services discovered. The service to 631 Bayard Street was not found. This makes a total of four residential connects on the service line that is believed to be 6-inches in diameter. Typical standard practice for most cities is to require a minimum pipe diameter of 6-inches when more than one building is served by a single service line. According to the sewer inspection equipment operator, cast iron portion of this service line is 4-inches in diameter. Based on the latest video inspection, we recommend a new 6-inch service line be installed to replace the 4-inch cast iron section of the existing service line. The remaining existing service line should be lined to prevent future root growth and infiltration Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call Scott Ritter, L.S., or myself at our office. Sincerely, Benjamin Carhoff, P.E. Hut -Frederick Consultants P.C. cc: Jason Havel, City of Iowa City enc: Video on USB Flash Drive file 510 State Street • P.O. Box 560 • Tiffin, 1A 52340-0560 • 319-545-7215 • Fan 319-545-7220 • wwwJurt-'cedeti&xom Fbgineenng • Surveying a Planning Appellants' Exhibit 7 - 013 . Sue Dulek From: Jason Havel Jason-Havel@iowa-city.org> Sent: Friday, October 23, 2015 7:15 PM To: 'Mike Oliveira' Subject: RE: 101 Lusk Ave Next Steps Mike, Yes, i did receive the letter, and supporting information on a thumb drive, from Hart -Frederick. Thanks. Jason From: Mike Oliveira[mailto:moliveira@prestlgeprop.com] Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2015 5:16 PM To: Jason Havel Subject: RE: 101 Lusk Ave Next Steps Did you get the letter from the engineering company? From: Jason Havel [mailto:Jason-Havel@iowa-city.org] Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2015 4:56 PM To: 'Mike Oliveira' <moliveira@a prestigepmp.com> Cc: U. Scott Ritter' <sritter@hart-frederick.com> Subject: RE: 101 Lusk Ave Next Steps Mike, Sure, what day/time works for you? Thanks. Jason From: Mike Oliveira fmailto:moliveira(a)i)restieeproi).coml Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2015 12:37 PM To: Jason Havel Cc: I Scott Ritter' Subject: 101 Lusk Ave Next Steps Appellants' Exhibit 7 - 014 May 2, 2015 Frederick Reed Carlson 1202 Pleasant Avenue Decorah, IA 52101 Dear Mr. Carlson: You have indicated in the past that your intent is to be a good neighbor and to strengthen neighborhood bonds. The first step in this process is to rescind your site plan and submit a plan for a residence that blends into the architecture and culture of the neighborhood. Lot 115 was created as a split from the lot that encompassed the dwelling immediately north and east some years ago and hence it remained zoned R1 because the lot from which it was divided was R1. However this lot is comprised of steep and sensitive slopes, normal flora and habitat providing natural drainage. Today areas such as this are set aside by cities and are protected as greenspace to preserve the environment, promote natural wildlife habitat and enhance the communities therein. This lot is not conducive to construction, but if you persist in building a residence, it would seem reasonable that you would desire to keep within the ambiance of the surrounding community. The site plan you submitted, however, is not such a dwelling— but rather a very large mini-Kinnick stadium party venue which simply does not fit within the charm and integrity of our "small town" neighborhood. Sincerely, Your Neighbors Enclosure cc: Steve Ballard, U Hts City Attorney U Hts City Council, c/o Mayor Louise From Eleanor Dilkes, City Attorney, Iowa City Sue Dulek, Attorney, Iowa City Appellants' Exhibit 7 - 015 NAME dtlL r) L ADDRESS Atli, Coo I U,- jq C)-n, Appellants' Exhibit 7 - 016 11 b NAME u Ule C 11UL,kt Lao, uro�.,�-A ADDRESS hilli L/Ad lk .. . ...... p 40 So hi r C- '40 OV mc I+vt. b kv-C, 8`S- I-earoe-, Appellants' Exhibit 7 - 017 NAME ADD�yRESSJ f CI P; Le 4-3 /'�-a� ,'l!_�C22.mac•'-cJ,-•�";.C'.�dz''6�'L, 17rTjjrLr 7._l it l J 6)V-: ol-_0 :.; Appellants' Exhibit 7 - 018 E-FILED 2015 SEP 16 4:26 PM JOHNSON - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT SIMMONS PERRI E MOYER B A LC By MATT EW J. HE TOEN A 00000297 115 Third Street SE, Suite 1200 Cedar Rapids, IA 52401-1266 Telephone: 319-366-7641 FAX 319-366-1917 mhektoen0simmonsperrine.com ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS Appellants' Exhibit 7 - 019 NEF Page 1 of 1 ****** IMPORTANT NOTICE - READ THIS INFORMATION ***** NOTICE OF ELECTRONIC FILING OR PRESENTATION [NEF] A filing has been submitted to the court RE: CVCV077589 Judge: Official File Stamp: Court: Case Title: Document(s) Submitted: Filed by or in behalf of; 09-17-2015:11.46:16 TRIAL COURT Johnson CARLSON V. CITY OF UNIVERSITY HEIGHTS PROPOSED ORDER TO ISSUE WRIT Matthew J. Hektoen You may review this filing by clicking on the following link to take you to your cases. This notice was automatically generated by the courts auto -notification system. The following people were served electronically: MATTHEW JOHNSON HEKTOEN for REED CARLSON, SANDRA MARIE CARLSON PARTIES NOT SERVED BY EDMS The Iowa Electronic Document Management System will not serve the following parties because they are not registered tilers. Per rule 16.317(l)(b), the filing party must serve a paper copy of the filed document(s) on the following parties in the manner required by Iowa Court Rules. " CITY OF UNIVERSITY HEIGHTS, IOWA CITY COUNCIL FOR THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY HEIGHTS IOWA Now The rules define the clerk of court as responsible for service of court -generated documents. Additionally on small claims cases that by statute can be served by certified mail, when the filer has selected and paid for certified mail in the electronic filing system or at the clerk of court office, the clerk of court is responsible for service of the original notice and answer and appearance by certified mail in accordance with the Code of Iowa, *The moving party or the individual who filed it is responsible for service of a document if it was not served by the electronic filing system. That includes, but is not limited to, service of all petitions and original notices [rule 16.316(3)], service of documents on all parties seeking to intervene hi confidential cases [16.321(l)(c)], and service of all documents on non -registered parties [16.3i7(I)(b)]. https://www.iowacouits.state.ia.uslEfitelnotifyl2l7O l294notification,html?pageAction=D6ppell tgAM$t 7 - 020 E-FILED 2016 SEP 17 12:06 PM JOHNSON - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT IN THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT FOR JOHNSON COUNTY AT IOWA CITY F. REED CARLSON AND SANDRA CARLSON No. Plaintiffs. VS. ORDER FOR WRIT CITY OF UNIVERSITY HEIGHTS, IOWA AND CITY COUNCIL FOR THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY HEIGHTS, IOWA, Defendants. On this 17th day of September, 2015, the Petition for Writ of Certiorari and Judicial Review Pursuant to Iowa R. Civ. P. 1,1401-1.1412 having been presented to the Court, and the Court having reviewed said Petition and being fully advised in the premises, finds that the Writ of Certiorari should be issued. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Clerk of the Johnson County District Court shall issue a Writ of Certiorari under its seal commanding Defendants to certify to the Iowa District Court for Johnson County, at the Johnson County Courthouse in Iowa City, Iowa, within twenty (20) days after service of the Writ of Certiorari upon them, a transcript of the entirety of Defendant's records and proceedings as are complained of in the Petition for Writ of Certiorari and Judicial Review Pursuant to Iowa R. Civ. P. 1.1401-1.1412, together with the facts of the case, describing or referring to them or any of them with reasonable certainty. copy to: Matthew J. Hektoen Appellants' Exhibit 7 - 021 E-FILED 2015 SEP 17 12:06 PM JOHNSON - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT State of Iowa Courts Type: ORDER TO ISSUE WRIT Case Number Case Title CVCV077589 CARLSON V. CITY OF UNIVERSITY HEIGHTS So Ordered OIJ440 Mary E. Cqcrhelly. Oimid Coup Judo Sb Judinnl OWd M fi p Electronically signed on 2015-00-17 12:06:08 page 2 of 2 Appellants' Exhibit 7 - 022 E-FILED 2015 SEP 17 3:02 PM JOHNSON - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT IN THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT FOR JOHNSON COUNTY SANDRA MARIE CARLSON FREDERIC REED CARLSON Plaintiff -Petitioners ) Vs. CITY OF UNIVERSITY heightS, IOWA CITY COUNCIL FOR THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY heightS IOWA Defendant/Respondent(s) To the Sheriff of JOHNSON County, Case No.06521 CVCV077589 WRIT OF CERTIORARI Without Bond Clerks Docket Events are: WOAT, WOCT, WOHC, WIDA, WOIJ and WRIT You are hereby commanded DEFENDANTS TO CERTIFY TO THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT FOR JOHNSON COUNTY, AT THE JOHNSON COUNTY COURTHOUSE IN IOWA CITY, IOWA, WITHIN TWENTY (20) DAYS AFTER SERVICE OF THE WRIT OF CERTIORARI UPON THEM, A TRANSCRIPT OF THE ENTIRETY OF DEFENDANT'S RECORDS AND PROCEEDINGS AS ARE COMPLAINED OF IN THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI AND JUDICIAL REVIEW PURSUANT TO IOWA R. CIV. P. 1.1401-1.1412, TOGETHER WITH THE FACTS OF THE CASE DESCRIBING OR REFERRING TO THEM OR ANY OF THEM WITH REASONABLE CERTAINTY. Other (specify) SEE ATTACHED COURT ORDER AND PETITION DESCRIPTION: Date: 09/17/2015 Requested by ATTORNEY MATTHEW HEKTOEN Isl ALISON MEADE, DESIGNEE CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT JOHNSON COUNTY IOWA Appellants' Exhibit 7 - 023 E-FILED 2015 SEP 17 3:02 PM JOHNSON - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT IN THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT FOR JOHNSON COUNTY SANDRA MARIE CARLSON FREDERIC REED CARLSON Plaintiff-Petitioner(s) vs. CITY OF UNIVERSITY heightS, IOWA CITY COUNCIL FOR THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY heightS IOWA Defendant/Respondent(s) Date of Service Date Served Who Served Address Served PROOF OF SERVICE Fees Mileage Total By Case No. 06521 CVCV077589 Proof of Service Writ Date Writ Issued: 0911712045 Docket Event Code: RSOT County Sheriff , Deputy Appellants' Exhibit 7 - 024 E-FILED 2015 SEP 16 4:26 PM JOHNSON - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT IN THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT FOR JOHNSON COUNTY AT IOWA CITY F. REED CARLSON AND SANDRA CARLSON Plaintiffs, vs. CITY OF UNIVERSITY HEIGHTS AND CITY COUNCIL FOR THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY HEIGHTS, IOWA Defendants. No. PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI AND JUDICIAL REVIEW PURSUANT TO IOWA R. CIV. P. i.i40i- 1,1412 COME NOW, Plaintiffs F. Reed Carlson and Sandra Carlson and for their Petition for Writ of Certiorari and Judicial Review Pursuant to Iowa R. Civ. P. 1.1401-1.1412, state: 1. Plaintiff F. Reed Carlson is an individual who resides at 1202 Pleasant Ave., Decorah, Iowa 52101. 2, Plaintiff Sandra Carlson is an individual who resides at 1202 Pleasant Ave., Decorah, Iowa 52101. 3. Defendant is City Council for the City of University Heights, Iowa. 4. Defendant City of University Heights is an Iowa municipal corporation. S. Plaintiffs own real estate within the City of University Heights, Iowa. 6. Plaintiffs were aggrieved by a Decision of Defendant City Council for the City of University Heights, Iowa when Defendant City Council for the City of University Heights, Iowa made two decisions on August 18, 2015 (the "Special Meeting"), respecting a Sensitive Acres Site Plan, Development Plan and Grading Plan for Lot 115, University Heights 15` Addition (the "Real Estate") all pursuant to Ordinance No. 428 of Defendant City of University Heights, T This Iowa District Court has subject matter jurisdiction of this Petition for Writ of Certiorari pursuant to Iowa R. Civ. P. 1.1401. Appellants' Exhibit 7 - 025 E-FILED 2015 SEP 16 4:26 PM JOHNSON - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT 8. Defendants acted illegally without jurisdiction and without authority with respect to failing to approve Resolution No. 15-65 respecting the approval of a Sensitive Areas Site Plan, Development Plan and Grading Plan for the Real Estate all pursuant to Ordinance No. 128 of Defendant City of University Heights, 9. Defendants also acted illegally and without jurisdiction and authority by failing to approve Resolution Number 15-66 respecting the approval of a request to develop protected slopes for the Real Estate all pursuant to Ordinance No. 128 of Defendant City of University Heights. 10. This matter may require taking of additional evidence. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs F. Reed Carlson and Sandra Carlson. respectfully request that the Court: A. Enter an Order directing the Clerk to issue a Writ of Certiorari commanding Defendant to certify to the Court within twenty (20) days after service of the Writ of Certiorari upon it, a transcript of the entirety of Defendants' records and proceedings as are complained of in this Petition for Writ of Certiorari together with the facts of the case, describing or referring to them or any of them with reasonable certainty (Iowa R. Civ. P. 1.1404 and 1.1406); & Set this matter for hearing as soon as reasonably possible and allow the taking of additional evidence; C. Enter an Order directing Defendants to approve the sensitive areas site plan, development plan and grading plan submitted to by Plaintiffs at the Special Meeting; D. Enter an Order directing the Defendants to find that (i) the protected slopes located on the Real Estate and shown on the sensitive areas site plan submitted by Plaintiffs to Defendants at the Special Meeting have been previously aRered by human activity, (ii) the Plaintiffs' proposed development activity on the Real Estate will not undermine the stability of the protected slopes located on the Real cststa, and (Ili) the Piainti proposed devefopima t act illy on, the Real Estate Is consistent with the intent of the Sensitive Areas Ordinance of Defendant City of University Heights; E. Award Plaintiffs the cost of this action; and F. Grant all other relief the Court deems proper, just and equitable in the premises. Appellants' Exhibit 7 - 026 E-FILED 2015 SEP 16 4:26 PM JOHNSON - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT SIMMONS PERRI19E MOYER B LC By 1� MATTHM J. HEKTOEN AT0000297 115 Third Street SE, Suite 1200 Cedar Rapids, IA 52401-1266 Telephone: 319-366-7641 FAX 319-366-1917 mhektoen4simmonsoerrine.com ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS Appellants' Exhibit 7 - 027 E-FILED 2016 FEB 26 3:43 PM JOHNSON - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT IN THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR JOHNSON COUNTY SANDRA MARIE CARLSON, ) FREDERIC REED CARLSON, ) No. CVCV077589 Plaintiffs, vs. DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE CITY OF UNIVERSITY HEIGHTS, IOWA CITY COUNCIL FOR THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY HEIGHTS IOWA, Defendants. COMES NOW, Sandra Marie Carlson and Frederic Reed Carlson, and hereby dismisses without prejudice the above cause of action. Ro6errtt S. Hataia, A 0003340 Matthew J. Hektoen, AT0000297 115 Third Street SE, Suite 1200 Cedar Rapids, IA 52401-1266 Tel: 319-366-7641; Fax: 319-366-1917 rhatalaosimmonsperrine.com ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies that on February 26, 2016, this document was electronically filed with the Clerk of Court using the EDIMS System which will send notification of such filing as follows: Te:'ry J. Abernathy: Email: tbernathy@pblawfirm.com Attorney for Defendants Steven E. Ballard: Email: ballard@lefflaw.com Attorney for Defendants SIGNED:2*1_ Appellants' Exhibit 7 - 028 Sue Dulek From: Geoff Fruin <Geoff-Fruin@iowa-city.org> Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2016 4:04 PM To: Simon Andrew; Eleanor M. Dilkes; Marian Karr Subject: FW: 101 Lusk Attachments: Carlson Sheet Al -24x36- 04.04.16.pdf; Carlson Sheet A2 -24x36- 04.04.16.pdf; Carlson Sheet A3 -24x36- 04.04.16.pdf Just to make your Thursday a bit more interesting..... From: John Yapp Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2016 3:10 PM To: Geoff Fruln Cc: Doug Boothroy; Tim Hennes Subject: FW: 101 Lusk Geoff —we have a building permit application for a proposed 'house' at the south end of Lusk Ave in Manville Heights. It is being proposed as a mini -replica of Kinnick Stadium. This is in an RS-5 zone in Manville Heights. We will be asking for more information from the applicant regarding the proposed use of the structure before issuing a permit —at this point just wanted to give you a heads up in case you get questions. John From: Tim Hennes Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2016 11:38 AM To: Doug Boothroy; John Yapp Cc: Terry Goerdt; Tim Hennes Subject: 101 Lusk FYI, Attached are plans we received for a new home at 101 Lusk St. This is in Manville Heights. It is an unusual design for a single family dwelling. I just wanted you to be aware of this and also let me know if you see anything that we should be cautious of. Appellants' Exhibit 7. 029 Sue Dulek From: Zahasky Construction <zahaskyconstrucbon@gmaii.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2016 8:07 AM To: Terry Goerdt Subject: Re: 101 Lusk Ok I'll work on getting it scoped. I did do a ResCheck and thought I had attached it in the notes? I'll log back on and see. Thanks. Al Zahasky Zahasky Construction LLC Iowa City, IA 319-331-0631 > On May 24, 2016, at 8:01 AM, Terry Goerdt <Terry-Goerdt@iowa-citv.ora> wrote: > Good morning Al. I talked to Tim regarding the sewer. He says it is required to be cameraed to verify it is okay. He said he does want you to build the house and then have sewer problems since the sewer runs through some one elses property. > I also need a energy audit for the house. > Otherwise It looks like everything else Is a go. > Terry > —Original Message----- • From: Zahasky ConstructionImaiito:zahaskyconstruction@gmaii.com] > Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2016 7:49 AM > To: Terry Goerdt > Subject: 101 Lusk > Morning Terry, just checking to see if you have what you need from us on 101 Lusk Ave. > thanks. > All Zahasky > Zahasky Construction LLC > Iowa City, IA > 319-331-0631 Appellants' Exhibit 7 - 030 14111111ROQ H-9019j)W City of Iowa City Permit # : BLD1"0182 Issued : 5/25/2D16 Applicant Nome: FREDERIC R & SANDRA M CARLSON Job Address : 101 LUSK AVE Parcel # : 1 OD9155004 Zone: ? Project Nome: INFILL LOT CITY OFIOWA CITY APpacent Contractor FREDERIC R A SANDRAM CARLSON ZAHASKY 00NS1RUCTION 2MSAARON DR 101 LUSKAVE IOWA CITY, IA ! 2M KNACrrY, IA 62248 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: SUBDIVISION: MANVILLE ADDITION BLOCK:14 LOT:1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: 78x94 Two story home.1500 ft2 finished on upper level, 3455 finished on main level and 2500 finished in basement TYPE OF USE: RSF BEDROOMS: 5 LOT DWELL UNITS: 1 DIM.: TYPE OF IMPR: NEW STRUCTURE AREA: of FRAME TYPE: WOOD DIM: 7W X 94' SETBACKS (ft)— ----- OCC GROUP: ? AREA: 4,969.00 sf FR : 16.00 RE: 39.10 TYPE CONST : ? GARAGE IT: RT : 8.00 BASEMENT?: F DIM: 25.25 X 83 CONT PRICE: $750,0DO STORIES: 2.00 AREA: 1,609.00 sf ZONING DISTRICT: RS-6 FIRE SPKLRS REQ'D? : N TREE ORD APPLIC7 : N OVERLAYZONE: FIRE EXTING READ?:. N HANDICAP REQAPPLIC? : N REQ'D PARKING: 11.00 AIRPORT ZONE: N ST ENER CODE APPLIC? : Y FIRE DETECT REQ'D7: Y FLOODPLAIN : N CERT OF OCC REQ'D? : Y NOTICE: Separobe permits are regldmd for building, aleetdeal, plumbing, headng, air conditioning, or signs. This permit becomes null and void 9work or construction sutiwdaed is not commenced within I go days, or If construction or work Is suspended or abandoned far a period of 100 days at my 11ns after wodr Is commenced. Ali Wvvislons of lawa and ordinances goveming this work must be compiled with whether sperdned hweln or not. This pwmft does not presums to girt eulhorlly to violate or cancel the pswisions of any other state or local law regulating con*ucGon or the psrtorrnanos of conshuotlan. x Em(l h ^coallritr�/ Signature of Applicant Date Tie Signature of Build) Officlal bld p=LM I - Original 2 - Inspector 3 - Office 4 - Costomer Appellants' Exhibit 7 - 031 PLAN CHECK SIGN -OFF SHEET Case # : ELDI O-00182 Date: 5/25/2016 Applicant Name: FREDERIC R & SANDRA M CARLSON Site Address: 101 LUSKAVE Project Name : INFILL LOT CITY OFIOWA CITY PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS Reviewer: TJG 1. Insulation levels need to be marked on the roof trusses. 2. A certificate of Installed Insulation levels needs to be posted on or in the electrical panel. 3. Windows at top of basement stairs required to be safety glazing. PLAN REVIEW NOTES MAY NOT REFLECT ALL CODE DEFICIENCIES. Failure to Identify a code deficiency during a review of plans does not alleviate any obligation to Comply with all applicable code provisions. I, the undersigned, acknowledge receipt of these comments and understand that they constitute conditions on which this permit Is being issued. ado-,1a ;j Signature of Applicant/Agen Be4� bld am.qx Appellants' Exhibit 7 - Sue Dulek From: John Yapp John-Yapp@iowa-city.org> Sent: Monday, June 13, 2016 1:55 PM To: Sara Greenwood Hektoen Subject: FW: Lusk Ave extension fyi ---Original Message-- From: Geoff Fruin Sent: Monday, June 13, 2016 9:11 AM To: John Yapp; Doug Boothroy Subject: RE: Lusk Ave extension Thanks. Is this the Kinnick house? --Original Message --- From: John Yapp Sent: Monday, June 13, 2016 8:52 AM To: Doug Boothroy; Geoff Fruin Subject: FW: Lusk Ave extension Fyl in case you get questions --Original Message — From: Bob Miklo Sent: Monday, June 13, 2016 8:38 AM To: John Yapp Subject: FW: Lusk Ave extension F.Y.I. Pam Michaud Is asking the Planning and Zoning Commission to weigh in on the Lusk Ave. house. Bob Robert Mlklo, Senior Planner City of Iowa City 410 E. Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 319 356 5240 ---Original Message -- From: Bob Mlklo Sent: Monday, June 13, 2016 8:36 AM To:'Freerks, Ann M' Subject: RE: Lusk Ave extension Ann, This project did not require any City approvals other than a demolition permit to remove the house that was there and a building permit for the new house. The large size of the house and its design did raise some red flags for the building inspectors, but in the end it met all building and zoning codes so they issued a permit. They did require an affidavit from the owner indicating that the property will only be used for a single family home. Appellants' Exhibit 7 - 033 Sue Dulek From: Terry Goerdt <Terry-Goerdt(a)iowa-clty.org> Sent: Monday, June 20, 2016 8:44 AM To: Reed Carlson (reed@geo-inc.com); Al Zahaskv (zahaskvoonstruction@gmail.com) Subject: 101 Lusk Attachments: memo on 101 lusk.pdf Good morning Reed and Al, I just wanted to send you a copy of a memo that was drafted and sent the Interim City Manager. The City has been receiving a lot of calls on the project and wanted to keep you in the loop of all this. Thank you Terry J. Goerdt Certified Combination 1"pector Plana Examiner City of Iona City (318)366.3124 Appellants' Exhibit 7 - 034 r r�dl~per CITY OF IOWA CITY -a , � MEMURANDUM Date: June 17, 2016 To: Geoff Fruin, Interim City Manager From: John Yapp, Development Services Coordinator Ra: 101 Lusk Ave —proposed house Introduction: Staff has been receiving questions regarding a proposed house at 101 Lusk Ave, due to the house being designed to reflect Kinnick Stadium. 101 Lusk Ave is a vacant residential lot (an unoccupied house was recently demolished) in an RS-5 (Single Family) residential zone. The lot is an existing single-family lot — no subdivision or rezoning is proposed. The property is not in a historic or conservation district, and staff has no authority to constrain the design of the structure other than existing building and zoning codes. Discussion: When staff received building plans for the house, we questioned the use of the house due to its design. The owner sent an email stating they intend to use the structure as a second home in order to spend time with their son and grandchildren in Iowa City, and potentially as a permanent home in the future. Staff also prepared an affidavit of use (attached), which the owner willingly signed. The affidavit states that the use of the property is a single family dwelling, and the use must be maintained as such; the sale of alcohol and/or charging a fee for admission to the property is prohibited; renting the property for commercial tailgating or other group gatherings is prohibited; and the maximum occupancy of the house is a single household (or three unrelated people) that occupy the dwelling as a single housekeeping unit. The parameters in the affidavit mimic existing City Code — staff solicited the affidavit and recorded it with the property in anticipation of subsequent owners so they are fully aware of the rules and regulations associated with a dwelling in a single family zone. Staff has also received questions regarding the extension of Lusk Ave. With the initial set of plans for the house, a driveway was shown on the south side of the property which would have required the extension of Lusk Ave. The designer has let us know they are revising their plans to place the driveway on the north side of the house, consistent with the existing driveway to the old house, to connect to Lusk Ave. No extension of Lusk Ave is being contemplated. Enforcement: Many of the questions and concerns we have received are related to enforcement of parking regulations, lights, and noise. We would treat this property consistent with other residential properties in the City. On -street parking is permitted unless it is signed as 'No Parking.' If residents wish to petition to have a street designated as 'No Parking,' our practice has been to survey the neighborhood and if a majority of affected households wish to limit parking on their street we would place the action item on the City Council consent calendar for approval — staff may initiate establishment of 'No Parking' if there is a significant and documented safety concern. Regarding lighting, City Code limits the height of private lights in a residential zone to 15-feet in height; bulbs greater than 2,000 lumens must be fully shielded; and any floodlights used to illuminate private outdoor recreational facilities (such as swimming pools, tennis courts, etc.) must be turned off by 10:00 PM (City Code Section 14-5G-3). Lighting concerns are enforced on a complaint basis. Regarding noise and disturbance, the Appellants' Exhibit 7 - 035 June 17, 2016 Page 2 City has adopted a disorderly house ordinance that restricts "loud, raucous, disagreeable noises to the disturbance of the neighborhood" (City Code Section 8-5-5): this ordinance also allows Police to restore order on the subject property, including the authority to order the dispersal of persons on the property. 'Disorderly house' is a criminal offense with a penalty between $65.00 to $625.00 as determined by the Magistrate and is also a civil offense subject to a $750 municipal infraction for the first offense, and up to $1,000 for the second and subsequent offenses. Statue of Building Permit: The building plans have been, reviewed and approved. Pending resolution of the driveway location and submittal of a plan that shows the driveway connecting to the existing segment of Lusk Ave, the building permit will be issued. It should be reiterated that issuance of a building permit for a single family house on an existing single family property does not require any rezoning or subdivision action. Staff has no authority to control the design of a single family house in an area that is not a historic or conservation district, other than for code compliance. Conclusion: With the affidavit of use in hand and recorded with the property, staff is treating the proposed house as a single family structure, and Building Inspections staff will conduct inspections to ensure the structure meets building code. Any concerns or complaints about the use of the property will be treated consistent with how we treat complaints related to other residential properties in the City — including investigation of nuisance and criminal complaints, and citations if warranted. Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Elevations of proposed 101 Lusk Ave house 3, 101 Lusk Ave affidavit of use Cc: Doug Boothroy, Director, NDS Sara Hektoen, Assistant City Attorney Bob Miklo, Senior Planner Sarah Walz, Associate Planner Appellants' Exhibit 7 - 036 Sue Dulek From: John Yapp <John-Yapp@iowacity.org> Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 201611:05 AM To: Terry Goerdt Subject: RE: Lusk house thx From: Terry Goerdt Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2016 11:02 AM To: John Yapp Subject: RE: Lusk house John this is not a 9 fixture dwelling. Fixture units are based on type of bathroom fixture such as a residential sink would be 2 fixture units. Every tub, sink, toilet, laundry would have a separate fixture count. Once you calculate the total number of fixture units in the dwelling, you will need to calculate the size of your drainage pipe(sewer pipe). The property starts off with a 4" pipe which will handle 216 fixture units at a Y." per foot slope and then goes to a 6" pipe which will handle 720 fixture units at %" slope. Terry From: John Yapp Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2016 10:40 AM To: Tim Hennes; Terry Goerdt Subject Lusk house Do you have a diagram of the sewer service for the 101 Lusk property? I recall seeing something when Olivera owned the property. The question being raised now is if the service is large enough for a 9-fixture dwelling, if the owner has the'right' to use the service since it is also used by adjacent properties (legal question), and if the City can/should require them to tap into a public main. John Appellants' Exhibit 7 - 037 From: John Yapp John-Yapp@iowa-city.org> Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2016 10:17 AM To: Eleanor M. Dilkes; Sara Greenwood Hektoen; Doug 13oothroy Subject: FW: 101 Lusk Bathroom revision Attachments: Bathroom Update 06.23.16,pdf; ATT00001.ixt Fyi - see attached for revised bathroom plan for Lusk project —Original Message — From: Terry Goerdt Sent: Thursday, June 23, 201610:02 AM To: John Yapp Subject: FW:101 Lusk Bathroom revision John here is the revised bathroom design Terry --Original Message — From: Zahasky Construction [mailto:zahasky eonstruction@gmaii.com[ Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2016 9:51 AM To: Terry Goerdt Subject: 101 Lusk Bathroom revision Here is bathroom revision for 101 Lusk. Appellants' Exhibit 7 - 038 g-0^ 4'-0" x 5'-0" FWGSO 17'S' -------------- MAIN LEVEL' PLAY ROOM ° w N BATHROOM mom. 4rSink8m m W-r Jill Ki BATHROOM 4 FWG120804SAAS F v OPEN CUBENC _ m I W/SRRIG BENCH !Q f • .- ..� . �. __ ri I 3U-8W I f4 I o a I a A pellants' Exhibit 7 - 039 mm We have looked at your suggestion about moving the drive to the north side of the house. We agree that it should work. Three cautions that I see are as follows: Has someone verified the depth of sewer if we decide to lower the home? 2. You will have more storm water draining to the house so it will be important to slope the driveway away from the house to prevent water into lower Levels. 3. The south east corner may require deeper footings as it appears that the land slopes off in that area. Do you want Duane to make the suggested change? Glen 0 Glen Messner, P.L.S. & P.E. Partner Office: (319) 351-8282 Mobile: (319) 631-2705 G.meisneraammsconsultants.net www.mmsconsultants.net This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. I,fyou are not the intended recipient please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. From: Reed Carlson (mailto:reedaeeo-inc.coml Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2016 1:15 PM To: Duane Musser; 'Glen Meisner; 'Scott Pottorff r CITY OF IOWA CITY MEMORANDUM Date: September 8, 2016 To: Board of From: Doug Boothroy, Director, Re: 101 Lusk Ave Appeal (APL16YO0001) Contents Introduction II. Chronology of approval process Services III. General Description of Building Permit Review Process for structures in Residential Zones IV. Iowa City Zoning Code Review V. International Residential Code Review VI. Conclusion VII. Staff response to specific points in appeal application I. INTRODUCTION This memorandum is to describe the review process used for issuance of a building permit for residential dwellings, including the dwelling at 101 Lusk Ave., and to provide the staff response to the Appeal related to 101 Lusk Ave. The decisions being appealed in the June 29, 2016 Appeal are: a) the classification of the structure as a single family residential dwelling; b) the approval of the site plan (under City Code Title 18: Site Plan Review); and c) the approval of the building permit as related to other code provisions. The Appeal is included in the Board of Adjustment's information packet for the September 14 meeting. Zoning Code Section 14-8C-3A describes the basis for initiating an appeal. The Board of Adjustment has authority only to hear appeals related to the Zoning Code: Where it is alleged there is error in any order, requirement, decision, or determination made by the city manager or designee in the enforcement of this title or of any ordinance adopted pursuant thereto, any person aggrieved by such order, requirement, decision, or determination may appeal same to the board of adjustment. 1 Zoning Code Section 14-8C-3 further describes the appeal procedures, and authority of the Board of Adjustment. The following subsections state authority of the Board (the full text of Section 14- 8C-3 is attached as Exhibit A): At a public hearing, the board shall review all applicable evidence presented regarding the subject appeal (Section 14-8C-3B(3)) In exercising the above mentioned powers, the board of adjustment may, in conformity with the provisions of this title or ordinances adopted pursuant thereto, affirm, or upon finding error (italics added), reverse or modify, wholly or partly, the order, requirement, decision or determination appealed from and may make such order, requirement, decision or determination as ought to be made, and to that end, shall have all the powers of the officer from whom the appeal is taken (14-8C-3B(4)). Per Zoning Code Section 14-8C-3 the Board of Adjustment must review the facts and evidence. Only if the board finds error in the determination of the Building Official to classify the proposed dwelling at 101 Lusk Ave. as a Single Family Dwelling and subsequently issue the building permit may it reverse, modify, wholly or partly, the determination regarding the use of the structure and the issuance of the building permit. If no error is found the Board must affirm. The property at 101 Lusk Ave. is currently under a STOP WORK ORDER until the Board of Adjustment renders a decision. The Board may: • uphold the decision of the Building Official to classify the structure as a Single Family Dwelling and subsequent issuance of the building permit (in which case the STOP WORK ORDER will be lifted); • Find error in the determination of the Building Official to classify the proposed structure at 101 Lusk Ave. as a Single Family Dwelling and subsequent issuance the building permit (in which case the building permit will be revoked) and Reverse or modify, wholly or partly, the decision of the Building Official to classify the structure as a Single Family Dwelling and subsequent issuance the building permit. Description of proposed structure: The proposed structure on 101 Lusk Ave. is 7,455 square feet in floor area, and contains five bedrooms and seven bathrooms (three full baths, two % baths and two '/= bathrooms). The structure is two stories above grade at its highest point, and is intended to have a resemblance to Kinnick Stadium. The plans also show a finished cellar below ground level with an indoor sports court and a home theater. There is an open (no roof) interior courtyard that is bounded on all sides by exterior walls. The building plans are attached as Exhibit C. 2 II. CHRONOLOGY OF BUILDING PERMIT REVIEW AND APPROVAL Typically review and approval of building plans for single family residential structures can be done within a week of being received. In the case of the proposed structure at 101 Lusk Ave., however, the review process took longer due to the unique structure being proposed, the infill lot, and the due diligence staff took in reviewing the plans and in seeking more information about the use of the structure. The applicant applied for a building permit to build a 'two story home' to be located at 101 Lusk Ave. (see Building Permit Application Exhibit D). Following is the chronology of the approval process for the structure at 101 Lusk Ave.: Building Permit Application Received: April 6, 2016 Applicant Uploaded Plans: April 11, 2016 Permit was Issued: May 25, 2016 (initial site plan showed the drive access on the south side of the lot) Permit was Suspended: June 14, 2016 (Permit suspended due to the recognition that the proposed driveway did not connect to Lusk Ave., and Lusk Ave. was not being extended) Revised Plans Submitted: June 28, 2016 Revise Plans Approved: June 28, 2106 (Plans now showed the drive access on the north side of the lot. Main level bathroom plans revised to reduce the number of toilets to one per bathroom.) Appeal Received: June 29, 2016 Stop Work Order Issued: June 29, 2016 t" III. GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF BUILDING PERMIT REVIEW PROCESS FOR STRUCTURES IN RESIDENTIAL ZONES: Building Permit Applications are submitted electronically, allowing staff to create a case in Tidemark, the City's permitting software. Adding an activity in Tidemark allows the applicant to upload plans for review, comments and approval. The plans are reviewed primarily under two standards, first the current Zoning Code and second the 2015 International Residential Code (Single family and two-family dwellings are reviewed under International Residential Code (IRC), not the International Building Code (IBC)). For its Building Code, the City has adopted the 2015 IRC and the 2015 IBC with local amendments. See Section 17-1 of the City Code. If the use of a proposed structure is in question, staff will request additional information regarding the use, and will sometimes seek an 'affidavit of use' to clarify and confirm the permitted usesluses for the current owner and future owners of the property. Upon determination that both the Zoning Code and IRC have been met, staff will issue a building permit. Staff has no legal authority to require the owner to take any further action or to deny the building permit application if the Zoning Code and the IRC requirements are met. 4 IV. ZONING CODE REVIEW FACTORS 1. DETERMINING ZONING CLASSIFICATION: The first factor in reviewing a proposed structure for Zoning Code compliance is checking the zoning map and determining what zone the property is located in. In the case of 101 Lusk Ave., the property is located in the Low Density Single Family (RS-5) Zone. The Low Density Single Family (RS-5) Zone "is primarily intended to provide housing opportunities for individual households." (City Code Section 14-2A-16). Conclusion: The property at 101 Lusk Ave. is in the Low Density Single Family (RS-5) Zone. 2. CHECK OVERLAY ZONES: The second factor is checking if the property is affected by any overlay zones that would affect the design of the structure, such as historic districts. The 101 Lusk Ave. property is not in a historic district, conservation district, nor is it a part of any planned development. Conclusion: The property at 101 Lusk Ave. is not affected by any overlay zones that would affect the design of the structure. 3. DETERMINE USES ALLOWED: After the zoning designation is determined, staff reviews what land uses are permitted in the Zone. Land uses and the zones they are permitted in are summarized in the Zoning Code in a table (see below). The table indicates whether a principal land use is permitted (P), allowed as a provisional use (PR), or allowed only by special exception (S). Table 2A-1 from the Zoning Code shows that detached single-family dwellings are permitted principal uses in the RS-5 Zone: Conclusion: Single Family dwellings are a permitted use in the Low Density Single Family (RS-5) Zone. 5 Excerpts from Table 2A-1 Iowa City Zoning Code USE CATEGORIES SUBGROUPS RR-1 RS-5 i RS-8 IRS-12 RNS-12 Residential Uses Household living uses E Detached single- P P P T P P family dwellings f Detached zero lot PR PR PR PR line dwellings E i I _ Attached single- i PRZ PR PR family dwellings I -- [Two-family uses [PR� PR PR APR (duplexes) GrouS p PR PR PR PR PR households ��---- 4. USE CLASSIFICATION: The next factor is determining the use classification of the proposed structure, and confirming it is a use permitted in the Zone. Chapter 4: USE REGULATIONS states "Land uses are assigned to the use category that most closely describes the nature of the principal use" (Section 14-4A-2). This subsection further provides a list of factors to use in determining the use for uses not specifically listed. To determine the use classification of the proposed structure at 101 Lusk Ave. staff referred both to the Use Classification section, and the Definitions section of the Zoning Code, and determined the use is a single family dwelling (a use specifically listed): • DWELLING, DETACHED SINGLE-FAMILY: A single-family use that is not attached to any other dwelling unit. (See "single-family use", as defined in chapter 4, article A, "Use Categories", of this title.) (Section 14-9A-1 Definitions) • DWELLING UNIT: Any habitable room or group of adjoining habitable rooms located within a dwelling and forming a single unit with facilities used or intended to be used by one household for living, sleeping, cooking and eating meals. (Section 14-9A-1 Definitions) • Household Living Uses (Section 14-4A-3A Residential Use Categories): 1. Characteristics: The residential occupancy of a dwelling unit by a single household or group household. Each dwelling unit contains its own facilities for living, sleeping, P cooking and eating meals. Tenancy is arranged on a month to month basis, or for a longer period. 2. Single -Family Uses: A "single-family use" is a household living use where there is no more than one principal dwelling unit per lot. 3. Accessory Uses: Private recreational uses (italics added); storage buildings; parking for residents' vehicles. Home occupations, accessory dwelling units, childcare homes, and bed and breakfast facilities are accessory uses that are subject to additional regulations outlined in article C, "Accessory Uses and Buildings", of this chapter. In reviewing the building permit application to build a two-story home at 101 Lusk Ave., staff reviewed the definitions of a DWELLING UNIT and a DETACHED SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING and the -use classification for household living uses as shown above. Staff determined that the proposed structure: • Has facilities for living, sleeping, cooking and eating meals; • The structure consists of a group of adjoining rooms forming a single unit with facilities used or intended to be used by one household; • The proposed structure includes private recreational uses including a sport court and theater room, and the Zoning Code states that private recreational uses are permitted as accessory uses to a residential dwelling (Section 14-4A-3A(3); • As evidence of intent, the building permit application indicates the project is for a 'two story home' (see Exhibit C). • Staff notes that the Iowa City Zoning Code provides no limitations on the number of bedrooms, bathrooms, or square footage of a residential structure. And staff has approved building permits for residential structures with more square footage, as many bedrooms, and with private recreational uses such as theater rooms, golf simulators, and basketball courts in Iowa City. Conclusion: The proposed structure is designed and intended to be used as a detached single-family dwelling. 5. AFFIDAVIT OF USE: Because of the design of the structure, the close proximity to stadium areas, and that fact that the applicant is an out-of-town owner and may not be familiar with City ordinances staff required the app!icant to submit both a 'statement of use' (see attached email from the applicant as Exhibit E) and an affidavit of use confirming that the pro perty is to be used as a single family dwelling (see recorded Affidavit of Use as Exhibit F). The building permit application indicates the permit is for the construction of a two story home, and the property owner confirmed in an email the intent to use the property as second home. 7 Staff requires affidavits of use for situations where a specific use of the property needs to be clarified for the current owner, and as importantly, for future owners of a property so they are fully aware of the permitted uses and restrictions on a property. For example, staff has required affidavits of use for 4-bedroom townhouse units in order to confirm that the owner is aware that if the townhouse is rented, it may contain no more than 3 unrelated people. The affidavit also includes Iowa City's definition of tailgating, and confirms the property owner will use the property in conformance with Iowa City's definition of tailgating. Tailgating is an allowable informal social event per City Code. Tailgating is defined as: A home football game day informal social gathering that is noncommercial and may include eating and drinking beverages (alcoholic or nonalcoholic) as part of the activities. Temporary parking on unimproved surfaces located on private property is allowed during tailgate events. No alcohol is sold at a tailgate, nor is any admission fee charged, goods sold or given away, nor services provided for a fee (Section 14-9A-1). Affidavits of use, including the affidavit associated with 101 Lusk Ave., are recorded with the property at the Johnson County Recorder's Office, and will therefore be included on any title search of the property such as occurs when properties are sold to a subsequent owner. Having the affidavit recorded with the property also allows for more effective enforcement and judicial decisions related to any use of the property which is not allowed in the Zone. Conclusion; The building permit application, the owner's statement of use, and the affidavit of use, which is recorded with the property at the Johnson County Recorder's Office, confirm the owner's intent to use the property as a single family dwelling. 6. SINGLE FAMILY PLAN REVIEW: The next factor in the review process is to check the single family dimensional requirements through the submittal of a site plan. The site plan for 101 Lusk Ave. is attached as Exhibit F. Staff notes that per Title 18 SITE PLAN REVIEW of City Code, single family lots are exempt from the site plan review process: Exemptions: Site plan review is not required for the development of one single-family dwelling or one two-family dwelling or related accessory structures in any zoning district. However, such uses and structures are not exempt from other applicable provisions of this code, including requirements of the building code, as amended. (Section 18-1-2B) While single family lots/dwellings are exempt from the site plan review requirements of City Code, staff requests a plot plan (commonly referred to as a 'site plan') in order to check dimensional requirements in the Zone such as setbacks, driveway location, building coverage; etc. (See Exhibit G Site Plan). The dimensional requirements for a structure in the RS-5 Single Family Zone, and whether or not the property at 101 Lusk Ave. complies, are as follows: Dimensional Requirements in RS-5 Zone Minimum requirement 101 Lusk Ave. Meets requirement? Front setback 15 feet min. 15 feet Yes Side (south) setback 5 feet min. 5 feet Yes Side (north) setback 5 feet min. 22.5 feet Yes Rear setback 20 feet min. 41 feet Yes Minimum lot size 5,000 SF min. 16.650 SF Yes Lot frontage* 45 feet min. Frontage along Lusk Yes Ave right of way is approx. 123 feet The Lusk Ave pavement extends approx. 40 feet adjacent to the lot Height** 35 feet max. 256" Yes Building coverage 45% of lot max. 36% without Yes courtyard*** 44% with courtyard Off-street parking 1 space 3 spaces Yes 3 stacking spaces *FRONTAGE is defined as: The distance as measured along a right of way line from one intersecting street to another, from one intersecting street to the end of a dead end street or from one intersecting street to the end of a cul-de-sac (Section 14-9A-1) **BUILDING HEIGHT is typically measured to the mid -point between the roof peak and roof eaves. The 256" building height listed is to the peak. ***A Courtyard is considered a'yard' and is not included in the building coverage measurement. Even if it is included, the structure is below the 45% maximum building coverage. Conclusion: The lot and proposed structure meet the dimensional requirements of the Zoning Code. 7_ REGULATION OF NONCONFORMING LOTS, A single family home is a conforming use in this RS-5 zone. Appellants argue that no new single family home can be established on this lot because "the original home, characterized by some non -conforming uses, was demolished by the owners." It is unclear what the appellants mean when they say the original home was "characterized by some non -conforming uses." The original home was a single-family home. Code Section 14-2A-2 "Land Uses Allowed", Table 2A- 1 specifically states that single family dwellings are a permitted principal use in the RS-5 zone. 9 Because the use is conforming, a new single-family use may be established regardless of how the original one was destroyed. Code Section 14-4E-D (sic) does not apply. It is important to note that there is a distinction between a "non -conforming use" and a "non- conforming lot". As defined in the zoning code, a "non -conforming use' is: A use that, when established, was a permitted use, was allowed as a provisional use, or was approved as a special exception, but which subsequently, due to a change in the zone or to the requirements of this title, is no longer allowed. This definition includes residential uses that exceed the allowable residential density of a zone (minimum lot area per unit requirements) and uses that exceed the maximum floor area ratio or maximum floor area standards specified for a particular use or zone (Section 14-9A-1) A "non -conforming lot" is defined as: A lot of record that was established in conformance with the minimum lot area, width, and frontage requirement of this title, but which subsequently, due to a change in the zone or the requirements of this title, is no longer in conformance with one or more of these requirements." (Section 14-9A-1) As stated above, a single-family use is a conforming use in a single-family zone. Appellants argue that it does not conform with the lot frontage requirements. In in the RS-5 zone, lots must have 45 feet of frontage. Lot frontage is defined as "the continuous width of a lot measured along the street right of way line." Although Lusk Avenue is not actually paved for the entire length of the eastern lot line, the right-of-way has been dedicated to the public for use as a street in the event the City should decide to pave it and use it for such purposes. This lot fronts public street right-of-way for the entire length, thereby satisfying the minimum lot frontage requirement. Staff has concluded, therefore, that not only is the use conforming, but the lot is also conforming per Table 2A-2 minimum lot area and width standards. Assuming, for sake of argument, that the lot is a non -conforming lot because the street has not been paved, a new single family home can be constructed on it anyway. The zoning code allows a conforming use (single-family home) to be established on a nonconforming lot provided that the minimum lot area for the use is met, and provided the use or structure meets all other requirements of this title (See Code Section 14-4E-7A). As stated above, Staff has concluded that the lot satisfies the minimum lot area requirement for a single-family use and that the single-family use and the proposed structure meets all other requirements of the zoning code. Conclusion: Even if the lot is a non -conforming lot, a single family structure is a conforming use and therefore permitted regardless of how the original single-family use was destroyed. 10 8. LUSK AVENUE.: Lusk Avenue is an existing 20-foot wide public street that provides access to the lot at 101 Lusk Ave. City Code allows construction on any lot of record. While the 20-foot wide street is fairly narrow for modern street standards, there are other streets in Iowa City that are 20-feet wide including Rowland Court just to the east of Lusk Ave. In addition, the City recently approved (in 2015) a new residential planned development with houses to be accessed from a 20-foot wide street on the west side of Miller Ave., south of Benton St. (the Prairie Hill Co -Housing Development) which consists of 33 residential units and a 'Common House' to facilitate group gatherings. Conclusion: Lusk Ave. is an existing public street. While 20-foot wide streets are unusual, other residential structures on 20-wide streets exist in Manville Heights and in Iowa City, and the City has recently approved new development on a 20-foot wide street. Staff has no authority to deny a building permit for an existing lot accessed by an existing public street. 9. SANITARY SEWER: The City granted permission for the shared private sewer (shared by the three lots on the west side of Lusk Ave.) in 1927 (see Exhibit H Sanitary sewer permit #2756) Staff has determined the sewer is of adequate size to sere the proposed house at 101 Lusk Ave. More detail on the sewer is given in staff's specific responses to the Appeal application. Conclusion: Staff confirmed the shared private sewer is permitted, and the sewer has adequate capacity to serve the number of proposed plumbing fixtures. 11 V. INTERNATIONAL RESIDENTIAL CODE REVIEW Iowa City has adopted the 2015 International Building Code (IBC) and the 2015 International Residential Code (IRC) as the 'building codes' under which building plans are reviewed. See Section 17-1 of the City Code. This is consistent with most other cities in the country. The IBC specifically exempts detached one- and two-family dwellings, and states that these structures are to be reviewed under the IRC: The scope of the International Residential Code for One- and Two — Family Dwellings applies to the construction, alteration, movement, enlargement, replacement, repair, equipment, use and occupancy, location, removal and demolition of detached one- and two-family dwellings and townhouses not more than three stories above grade plane in height with a separate means of egress and their accessory structures not more than three stories above grade plane in (IRC R101.2) The purpose of the IRC is to establish the minimum requirements to provide a reasonable level of safety, public health and general welfare through structural strength, means of egress facilities, stability, sanitation, adequate light and ventilation, energy conservation, and safety to life and property from fire and other hazards attributed to the built environment and to provide a reasonable level of safety to fire fighters and emergency responders during emergency operations (IRC R101.3) The IRC defines 'dwelling' as any building that contains one or two dwelling units used, intended, or designed to be built, used, rented, leased, let or hired out to be occupied, or that are occupied for living purposes. It also defines dwelling unit as a single unit providing complete independent living facilities for one or more persons, including permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking and sanitation (IRC R202) While the Appeal does not cuestion whether the structure meets IRC standards for code compliance, staff has reviewed and approved the building plans according to the IRC. Staff notes that IRC Section R202 above states that 'dwelling' is defined as a structure used or intended to be used to be occupied for living purposes - the property owner has provided documentation that the intended use of the property is for as a single family dwelling. Conclusion: The proposed structure at 101 Lusk Ave. is compliant with the International Residential Code (and thus the Building Code). 12 VI. CONCLUSION Sections I-V of this report summarize staffs process and determination regarding the proposed structure at 101 Lusk Ave. In conclusion: • The City did not misclassify the use. Staff determined the proposed structure is classified as a Single Family Dwelling, as it contains facilities 'living, sleeping, cooking and eating meals' and it consists of a group of adjoining rooms forming a single unit with facilities used or intended to be used by one household. • The City did not approve the site plan in error. Construction of a single family structure is exempt from requirements in Title 18 Site Plan Review. Staff reviewed a plot plan (commonly referred to as a 'site plan') for 101 Lusk Ave. to check and confirm the dimensional requirements in the RS-5 Single Family Zone are met. • The City did not approve the building permit in error. The proposed dwelling was reviewed according to the International Residential Code (IRC), and staff is obligated to issue a building permit upon satisfaction of Zoning Code and IRC compliance. The structure meets Zoning Code dimensional standards and meets International Residential Code (IRC) standards. • The structure is designed with an open floor plan, with openings to an interior open courtyard. The structure is designed to resemble Kinnick Stadium. Staff has no authority to deny a building permit based on the architectural design of a structure for a property that is not part of a historic district or other overlay zone. • The structure contains private recreational uses (sport court, theater room) — private recreational uses are permitted accessory uses in residential zones. • The property owner has affirmed in three documents (the building permit application, an email, and in an Affidavit of Use) that the intent is to use the structure as a single family home. Tailgating is specifically defined as an informal social gathering and allowed in City Code without a permit. • Building size is regulated by lot size, setbacks, building coverage and building height. The Zoning Code does not regulate architectural style for single family homes (in standard residential zones) outside of dimensional standards in the Zoning Code. The proposed structure at 101 Lusk Ave. meets the required dimensional standards. As a result, the City: 1 Did not misclassify the use; 2. Did not approve a site plan in error; and 3, Gid not aporove the building permit in error. Staff recommends the Board of Adjustment deny the appeal. 13 VILSTAFF RESPONSE TO SPECIFIC POINTS IN APPEAL APPLICATION In Section VII, Staff will respond to points made in the Appeal application. The language following each number is taken verbatim from the appeal. Staff responses are in Times New Roman font for ease of distinguishing from the Appellant's information. .................................................................. 0.. a . . . . . . . . . 1. The provisions of the Iowa City Zoning Code are "intended to implement the City of Iowa City's comprehensive plan In a manner that promotes the health, safe, order, convenience, prosperity, and general welfare of the citizens of Iowa City) Iowa City Zoning Code (hereafter, " Code") § 14-IA-3.A. (emphasis added). In this instance, material provisions of the Zoning Code have been applied and interpreted in a manner that will be injurious tocitizens of Iowa City. CITY STAFF RESPONSE: 101 Lusk Ave. is located in a Low Density Single -Family Residential Zone (RS-5). The RS-5 zone is primarily intended to provide housing opportunities for individual households. City staff determined that the proposed structure at 101 Lusk Ave. is designed and intended to be used as a single family dwelling. The City's Misclassification Decision 2. The proposed building at 101 Lusk Avenue has been misclassified as a Single Family Residence whereas, in fact, it should be classified as a structure to be used in exactly the manner that the owners have described: for large private group events -ones that theowners describe as tailgating. CITY STAFF RESPONSE REGARDING USE CLASSIFICATION: The building use classification was based on the fact that the structure meets the definition of a detached single family dwelling as described above. CITY STAFF RESPONSE REGARDING TAILGATING Tailgating is an allowable social activity in the Zoning Code. Tailgating is not defined as a use in the Zoning Code. Section 14-4D-3 states "Tailgating and tailgate parking held on home Iowa football game days do not require a temporary use permit" Tailgating is a permitted social activity defined in City Code at Section 14-9A-1 as "A 14 home football game day informal social gathering that is noncommercial and may include eating and drinking beverages (alcoholic or nonalcoholic) as part of the activities. Temporary parking on unimproved surfaces located on private property is allowed during tailgate events. No alcohol is sold at a tailgate, nor is any admission fee charged, goods sold or given away, nor services provided for a fee." Tailgating is a permitted social event by definition. Social gatherings in general (family gatherings, neighborhood gatherings) are not defined as accessory uses in dwelling units, they are considered incidental to the use of dwelling units, and do not require a permit. 3. The City's characterization of property in the classification process must be based on use definitions set forth in the Zoning Code. Code § 14-4A-2. Land uses are assigned to the use category that most closely describes the nature of the principal use. Code § 14- 4A-A.1. When a property has more than one use, then the City must determine whether a use is a "principal" use or an "accessory" use. Code § 14-4A-A.1. In determining a property's principal use, the Zoning Code sets forth evaluative criteria to be applied to that property. Those criteria include the following: a. The description of the use or activities in comparison to the stated characteristics of each use category. Code § 14-4A-2 .A.1.a. b. The intensity of the activity or use in comparison to the stated characteristics ofeach use category. Code § 14-4A-2.A.1.b. c. The amount of site or floor area and equipment devoted to the use or activity. Code § 14-4A-2.A .1.c. d. The building site and arrangement. Code § 144A-2.A.1. h. e. The number of vehicle trips generated by the use or activity. Code § '14 - 4fu2.A.l.j. ti' f. How the use advertises itself. Code § 14-4A-2.A. 1.k. One need not go m uch further than reviewing the planned uses of the various rooms of the entertainment structure and the public statements made by the owners to determine that the principal use of this building will not be as a single family residence for owners who do not even reside in Iowa City. This is a venue designed to hold more than 200 people; its owners describe it as a tailgate venue; its layout is intended to entertain crowds; its building plans show a separate entrance for the "owners"; the structure will be equipped with commercial -grade kitchen fixtures; its multiple toilets and urinals and showers far exceed in number what a single family would normally use; a two-story basketball court will assure that all of those who come will, in fact, be entertained -a viewing deck is provided in what drawings depict as an interior "courtyard." 15 CITY STAFF RESPONSE REGARDING USE CLASSIFICATION: Sections I-V of this report outline staff s process and determination that the structure is classified as a Single Family Dwelling. CITY STAFF RESPONSE REGARDING NUMBER OF PEOPLE: The number of people in a residential structure for a social gathering is not regulated by the Zoning Code, and is therefore not something that can be appealed to the Board of Adjustment. The International Residential Code (IRC) does not regulate the number of occupants living in a single family dwelling. The number of occupants for single family dwellings is determined by the Zoning Code and based on the Residential Use Category, and under 14-9A-1 it is a "family" plus one unrelated person. The Zoning Code does not limit the number of people that may be in a dwelling during a social gathering. CITY STAFF RESPONSE REGARDING TAILGATE VENUE: Tailgate venue is not a use in the Zoning Code. Tailgating is an allowed informal social event on private property. TAILGATING: A home football game day informal social gathering that is noncommercial and may include eating and drinking beverages (alcoholic or nonalcoholic) as part of the activities. Temporary parking on unimproved surfaces located on private property is allowed during tailgate events. No alcohol is sold at a tailgate, nor is any admission fee charged, goods sold or given away, nor services provided for a fee. (14-9A-1) CITY STAFF RESPONSE REGARDING COMMERCIAL GRADE KITCHEN FIXTURES: The type of appliances in a kitchen are not regulated by the Zoning Code, and thus the Board has no authority to hear an appeal on this issue. Additionally, neither the IRC nor any other provision of the City Code regulates this. The type of appliances in the kitchen are not specified on the building permit drawings nor is it required. Appliance installation is inspected to confirm installation is per the manufacture's installation requirements. Cooking appliances installed within dwelling 16 units and within areas where domestic cooking operations occur shall be listed and labeled as household -type appliances for domestic use. CITY STAFF RESPONSE REGARDING NUMBER OF PLUMBING FIXTURES: The numbers of plumbing fixtures are not regulated by the Zoning Code, and thus the Board has no authority to hear an appeal on this issue. When the previous owner considered subdividing the property, he had the existing sewer system analyzed for adding more homes through a subdivision of the property. (Staff notes that with a subdivision, staff has more authority to require upgrades and changes to infrastructure than it does with a building permit for an existing lot.): o Action Sewer & Septic Service letter dated 08/25/15 states the sewer line was water jetted from city manhole into house and they believe the sewer line would be able to handle two new buildings. (See Exhibit I) o A letter from Hart -Fredrick Consultants dated 1011115 regarding the sanitary sewer service states they would not recommend using the existing service in its current condition for a proposed additional single family home. (See Exhibit J). This letter was in response to a proposed subdivision of the 101 Lusk Ave property with a previous owner, which would have added an additional lot. A subdivision of the property is not currently being proposed. The City did investigate and confirm the existing City sewer main is adequate to accommodate the flow from a new home. (See Exhibit K) The number of plumbing fixtures is not regulated by the City Code. The size of the sewer service line is determined by the number of plumbing fixtures. A four inch (4") sewer service line will accommodate 216 fixture units and a six inch (6") will accommodate 720 fixture units. The number of fixtures shown on the plans for 101 Lusk Ave. would be 50 fixture units, which is substantially under the 4 inch limit of 216 and the 6 inch limit of 720. A `fixture unit' is defined as a "quantity in terms of which the load -producing effects on the plumbing system of different kinds of plumbing fixtures are expressed on some arbitrarily chosen scale" (IRC P2501.1). CITY STAFF RESPONSE REGARDING BASKETBALL COURT: Basketball courts at or in single family dwellings may be unusual but they are not prohibited and there are several existing in Iowa City single family homes now. Private Recreational Uses are permitted in residential zones (14-4A-3A(3)). Other locations with basketball courts include: 17 1. Woodridge Ave (interior) 2. Camp Cardinal Road (interior) 3. Huntington Dr. (exterior) 4. The Zoning Code's Scope provides that no use shall be "...established nor shall any structure be installed, converted, enlarged, reconstructed or structurally altered, except in conformity with the regulations and standards of this title." Code § 14-IB-3.A. The Code furtherProvides that the Low Density Single -Family Residential Zone (RS-5), "...is primarily intended to provide housing opportunities for individual households. The regulations are intended to create, maintain, and promote livable neighborhoods." To the extent that non-residential uses and structures are permitted in the RS-5 zone, they are to be "...planned and designed to be compatible with the character, scale, and pattern of the residential development," Code § 14-2A-1.13. The proposed structure at 101 Lusk Avenue violates these provisions in one or more of the following ways: a. The properties immediately to the north of the proposed entertainment structure are single family dwellings, early 20th century bungalows with front porches, located at 111 Lusk Avenue and 117 Lusk Avenue, respectively. Each of them are comprised of well -under 1,000square feet of living area. b. According to the owners, Sandy and Reed Carlson, in one widely published account, "...they live full time in Decorah, Iowa," and that if they are "going to build a houseto tailgate at, it should mimic the [Iowa Hawkeyes' Kinnick] stadium ." ("Couple plans to replicate University of Iowa's Kinnick Stadium with nearly 7500square-foot house, " hftp://abcnews.cio.com/Lifestyle/couple-plans-replicate-university- iowas-kin n ick-stadium-7500/storv?id=40041402). c. Mr. Carlson, describes himself "as a kind of a theme guy," and, so "thought it was a great idea." d. The structure, according to the Mr. Reed's own description, "includes touches like pink restrooms to mimic Kinnick Stadium's famous pink locker room for visiting teams. The home's 'press box' will be a "bunk room." e. According to Mr. Carlson, the home's roof "...will be sloped down towards the courtyard to resemble stadium seating." f. In the middle of the entertainment venue will be an "inner courtyard" to "tailgate," a place where, according to Mr. Carlson,"no one else will see us. We're self- contained." g. The drawings submitted to the City have been changed from time to time; present drawings continue to depict one set of doors, located at the back of the lot as the "owner's entrance." CITY STAFF REPONSE REGARDING USE: The Zoning Code defines Use as "a purpose or activity for which land, structures, or a portion thereof, are designed, occupied and maintained" (Section 14-9A-1). Until a W building is constructed and occupied the use must be determined by the design of the structure and the information provided by the owner. In this case the owner identified the use as a single family dwelling three separate times as noted in exhibits D, E & F. The design is reviewed to assure compliance with a residential use. Both the owner's stated intended use and design meet the scope and intent which allows a dwelling unit in a single family residential zone. The size of the dwelling unit is only limited by the dimensional requirements stated in the Zoning Code. The design of the proposed dwelling meets these dimensional standards. The Zoning Code does not prohibit theme homes nor is the design of structures regulated in an area not part of a historic district overlay zone or other overlay zone. The City's Site Plan Approval Error _. 5 The City has required, and, has approved, a Site Plan. Site Plan approval by the City is a pre -requisite to the issuance of Building Permit. The Site Plan, as approved .bythe City, fails to conform to a number of minimum design standards of Title 18ofthe Code, the only provisions that address Site Plan criteria and review processes. Code § 18-3-2. The Site Plan's deficiencies include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following: CITY STAFF RESPONSE REGARDING SITE PLAN: The Code Section cited by the appellant, Title 18 (Site Plan Review) is not applicable to construction of a single family dwelling, and is not a part of the Zoning Code, and thus the Board has no authority to hear an appeal on this issue. Appeal of a site plan, per Title 18 (Site Plan Review) is to the Planning and Zoning Commission (18-2-3C). Again, however, Single Family Dwellings are specifically exempted from Title 18 Site Plan Review: 18-1-2: APPLICABILITY: A. Site Plan Review Required: B. Exemptions: Site plan review is not required for the development of one sinWe- family dwell inr (underline added) or one two-family dwelling or related accessory structures in any zoning district. However, such uses and structures are not exempt from other applicable provisions of this code, including requirements of the building code, as amended. 19 Even though the Site Plan Review standards in section 18-3 do not apply, a plot plan (commonly referred to as a "site plan") is reviewed to make sure it is compliant with the Dimensional Requirements established in the Zoning Code. a. Drainage. The design of a proposed project must make adequate provision for surface and subsurface drainage to limit the rate of increased runoff of surface water to adjacent and downstream property and so that the project will not substantially and materially increase the natural flow onto adjacent downstream property. Code § 18 3-2.A. The proposed building covers nearly the entirety of two adjacent lots with imperious materials on the roof, courtyard and driveway areas. The Site Plan offers no means to control storm water run-off. In fact, no provision is made for the handling of surface water which will rapidly move away from the imperious surfaces (roofs, courtyard, driveways) that will cover almost all of this sloping double -lot. There are no street storm water sewers in the vicinity. Large quantities of storm water run-off will cover public right-of-ways (already subject to erosion) and adjacent private property. CITY STAFF RESPONSE REGARDING DRAINAGE: The drainage requirements are not a part of the Zoning Code and thus the Board has no authority to hear an appeal on this issue. The drainage requirements established in the Site Plan Review section of the City Code are not applicable because single family structures are exempt from Title 18 Site Plan Review. However, surface drainage is reviewed and inspected to the standards in the 2015 International Residential Code. Surface drainage shall be diverted to a storm sewer conveyance or other approved point of collection that does not create a hazard. Lots shall be graded to drain surface water away from foundation walls. The grade shall fall a minimum of 6 inches within the first 10 feet (IRC R401.3 Drainage). Exception: Where lot lines, walls, slopes or other physical barriers prohibit 6 inches of fall within 10 feet, drains or swales shall be constructed to ensure drainage away from the structure. Impervious surfaces within 10 feet of the building foundation shall be sloped a minimum of 2 percent away from the building (IRC R401.3 Drainage). The surface drainage standard from the IRC is the standard to which the dwelling at 101 Lusk Ave. will be inspected prior to a certificate of occupancy. b. Fire Safety. A Site Plan must provide for adequate fire protection and other measures to ensure fire safety. Code § 18-3-2.C. The narrow paved street (20 feet wide, with curbs), with parking allowed on one side, and the absence of a turn -around point at its 20 dead end, will place the public at risk and prevent reasonable access to, or egress from, this location by fire trucks, ambulances and police cars. The City's failure to address this issue is particularly notable in light of its decision, only a few years ago, to deny the construction of a residential home on the northend of Woolf Avenue, less than four blocks away because that public right of way did not have a safe place for emergency vehicles to turn around. Woolf Avenue, at that location is wider than Lusk Avenue's twenty -foot width; there is no parking oneither side of Woolf Avenue, whereas parking is allowed on one -side of Lusk Avenue; only low -density use was proposed for the Woolf Avenue project, whereas here, the whole purpose of the proposed building is to high - density entertainmentevents. CITY STAFF RESPONSE REGARDING FIRE SAFETY: Fire Department access standards are not a part of the Zoning Code, and therefore are not appealable to the Board of Adjustment. The Fire Department access requirements established in the Site Plan Review section of the City Code are not applicable in this case. However, fire department access is regulated by the 2015 International Fire Code, which the City has adopted. See Section 7-1 of the City Code. "Any person aggrieved by a decision of the building official or the fire chief with regard to the building code or fire code may file an appeal to the Board of Appeals within thirty (30) days of said decision. "Decision" means any decision, determination, direction, notice, finding, or order of the building official or fire chief." (Section 17-12-2A) Lusk Avenue meets the minimum standard for a Fire Department access, which is 20 feet in width. There are other streets in Iowa "ity with residences on 20-foot streets, including Rowland Court just to the east of Lusk Ave. There is an existing fire hydrant in the public right of way near the northeast corner of the 101 Lusk Ave. property (see Exhibit L). The situation identified by the applicant regarding Woolf Ave. is a different situation, in that the property owner went through a `lot split' (subdivision) process (created 2 lots out of 1 lot) for a property at the north end of Woolf Ave., and the newly created lot did not have adequate street access; therefore, an extension of Woolf Ave. was required to provide access and street frontage to the newly created lot. The 101 Lusk Ave. property is an existing lot of record, and already has driveway and street access. c. Erosion and Sedimentation Control. A Site Plan must provide for and comply with standards for erosion and sedimentation control to protect adjoining or surrounding property. The design must achieve the lowest potential for erosion (Code 18-3-2D). The 21 Site Plan submitted to, and approved by, the City makes.no provision for either erosion or sedimentation control. CITY STAFF RESPONSE REGARDING EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL: Erosion and Sediment Control are not regulated by the Zoning Code, and is therefore not appealable to the Board of Adjustment. The erosion and sedimentation control requirements established in the Site Plan Review section of the City Code are not applicable in this case. However, the construction site erosion will be monitored for illicit discharge. Illegal Discharge is defined as "Any direct or indirect nonstormwater discharge to the storm drainage system, except as exempted in this section" (Section 16-3G-11): a. The following discharges are exempt from discharge prohibitions established by this section: water line flushing or other potable water sources, landscape irrigation or lawn watering, diverted stream flows, rising groundwater, groundwater infiltration to storm drains, uncontaminated pumped groundwater, foundation or footing drains (not including active groundwater dewatering systems), crawl space pumps, air conditioning condensation, springs, noncommercial washing of vehicles, natural riparian habitat or wetland flows, swimming pools (if dechlorinated - typically less than one ppm chlorine), firefighting activities, exterior building wash waters when no detergent or other surfactants are used, pavement wash waters where no spills or leaks of toxic or hazardous materials have occurred and when no detergents or other surfactants are used, and any other water source not containing pollutants. (Section 14-3G-1 I.G1) d. Vehicle and Pedestrian Circulation. A Site Plan must be designed to allow for safe and convenient flow of vehicles and the movement of pedestrians. Code § 18-3-2.F. The approved Site Plan makes no such provision and, in fact, the intended use of the property is to attract large numbers of people to an area of the City markedby the intersection of two narrow, dead-end streets (Lusk Avenue and Rowland Court) where parking is already extremely tight and lightly enforced by the Citynormally, and virtually not -at -all on University of Iowa game and special eventoccasions. The adjacent streets have sidewalks on only one side (Lusk Ave; Bayard Street; Lexington Avenue) or not at all (Rowland Court; parts of Bayard Street). Neither the vehicular nor pedestrian infrastructure is prepared for the large crowds that this venue is designed to accommodate. Property owners who, on a daily basis, walk in the neighborhood, including children, will be placed at added risk by the construction of this project. CITY STAFF RESPONSE REGARDING VEHICLE AND PEDESTRIAN 22 CIRCULATION: This is not regulated by the Zoning Code and therefore is not appealable to the Board of Adjustment. The Vehicle and Pedestrian Circulation requirements established in the Site Plan Review section of the City Code are not applicable in this case. The City has no legal authority to require additional sidewalks in a neighborhood in relation to the construction of single family dwelling on an existing lot as a condition of granting a building permit. e. The Basis for a Fifteen Foot Front Yard Set -Sack is Not diernonstrated. The Code requires a minimum fifteen -foot front -yard set -back of a residential structure in the RS- 5 zone. In established neighborhoods where there are a variety of set -backs used by various residential structures, the Code calls for an averaging of existing set- backs to determine the appropriate set back to use when a new residential structure is built. The City's file provides no rationale for the fifteen -foot setback that is depicted in the approved Site Plan; no measurements of existing set -backs, for existing homes on both sides of Lusk Avenue; no averaging computations are presented. CITY STAFF RFSPONSE REGARDING FRONT YARD SETBACK: The minimum front yard setback in the RS-5 Zone is 15'-0". The Lusk Ave. frontage only has there (3) lots and set back averaging does not apply to frontages that contain three (3) or fewer lots. See Section 14-2A-4,B,3,e(1). Minimum Side Yard Requirements are Ignored. The Code requires a minimum of five feet distance between the outside edge of a structure's exterior wall and the location of a lot line. [CITE CODE SECTION] The revised Site Plan, approved by the City, shows, at the Northwest Corner of the structure, a five-foot distance to the property line shared with a private property easement. However, the building plans depict a foundation whose buried feet extend outward from the base of the foundation wall. If the documents approved by the City are accurate, the structure will violate the five-foot distance requirement, or, the City intends to except the owners from that obligation for reasons not supported by the Code. CITY STAFF RESPONSE REGARDING SIDE YARD SETBACK: 23 The site plan for the 101 Lusk Ave. property shows aside yard setback of five feet (5'). As defined in the Zoning Code 14-9A-1 the Setback Area is a required area on a lot unoccupied by structures above grade (ground level), except for projections and specific accessory uses or structures allowed in such area under the provisions of this title. A "setback area" extends from the grade upward. Underground structures such as footings are not subject to the setback requirement, and it is common for footings to extend beyond the wall of the building. g. Compliance with State and Federal-nvironmental Regulations is Not Demonstrated. Applicable state and federal laws prohibit the felling of trees withgreater than a three-inch diameter after April 1 of each year to protect certain endangered mammal species. See http://www.iowadot.gov/erl/current/CM/content/CM%206.10.htm. Yet, the Site Plan for 101 Lusk Ave implicitly call for the cutting down of a significant npmber of mature trees of that size to accommodate the footprint of the structure and impose no limitations upon when that cutting will occur. CITY STAFF RESPONSE REGARDING STATE AND FEDERAL REGULATIONS: This is not a Zoning Code regulation and thus the Board has no authority to hear an appeal on this issue. The state and federal regulations noted by the appellant do not apply to private projects on private properties. The specific regulation noted by the applicant through the link to the iowadot.gov website is related to transportation infrastructure projects using state or federal funds, not to private projects on private property. The City Code's Chapter on Trees and Plant Materials only gives the City Forester the authority to "regulate the planting, maintenance and removal of trees and plant materials on streets and public places (underline added) in order to ensure public safety and protect public places." (City Code Section 10-8-2) The City's Building PermitApproval Was Issued in Error 6. The City's approval of the owners' Building Permit for a building at 101 Lusk Ave, mischaracterized by the City as a single family residential structure, is in error because building plans do not conform to the minimum requirements of Titles 14 a nd 16 of.the Code. The Zoning Code is intended to achieve specific goals, including: 24 a, To conserve and protect the value of property throughout the city. Code $ 14-IA- 3.B.1. However, Applicants' property values will be diminished by the presence of the entertainment venue that has been planned for construction at 101 Lusk Avenue. b. To encourage the most appropriate use of land and foster convenient compatible and efficient relationship among land uses. Code & 14-IA-3.B.2. By contrast, the Site Plan makes no provision for storm water drainage (also called storm water runoff) that will be gushing off of the property's impervious surfaces and either onto the street and public right of way without any stream storm water sewer Protection, or onto adjoining private property. Further, Applicants believe that this property's sanitary sewer is wrongfully and unlawfully tied to, and will cause burdens upon, adjoining property owners, none of whom has been given formal notice of thisproject and none of whom has granted permission for the use of the properties in this manner. c. To promote the economic stabiles of existing and future land uses that are consistent with the comprehensive plan and protect them from intrusions by incompatible land uses. Code & 14-IA-3 .B.4. Instead, the proposed structure at 101 Lusk Avenue, one designed to host tailgate parties and to accommodate up to 200 persons per event, is not consistent with the RS-5 low density single-family residential zoning district that characterizes the Manville Heights neighborhood, generally, nor with any of the properties that surround 101 Lusk Avenue. d. To lessen congestion in the streets and promote safe and effective access to property. Code § 14-IA-3.S. The design of the proposed entertainment venue, located at the far end of a dead end street, is completely antithetical to Code provision. Lusk Avenue is one of the most narrowly -paved streets in all of Manville Heights, if not Iowa City, with a width of 20 feet, six-inch curbs. It has sidewalks on only one side of the public way. It connects to another narrowly -paved dead-end street (Rowland Court). Parking, which is extremely scarce, generally, and on University of Iowa athletic event days, in particular, is permitted on one side of the street, only. Parking restrictions are poorly enforced -if at all -by the City onthose days and at those times. Emergency vehicles will not be able to pass safely through this street to attend to calls from the event venue f party house. And, if such vehicles do reach that destination, they will not be able to turn around safely and efficiently, placing members of the public at great risk. e. To conserve open space and protect natural scenic and historic resources. § 14-IA-3.13.8. Although this property may not be subject to the sensitive areas provisions of the Code, the proposed structure at 101 Lusk Avenue poses risks to mature trees and will add to soil erosion and water pollution because no provision has been made for storm water runoff from a large lot that will be nearly entirely covered with impervious materials, ranging from roofing materials to large expanses of paved surfaces, with no place for that water to go except for neighboring properties. The Proposed Structure Does Not Qualify as a Non - Conforming Use and Does Not Qualify to Have Exceptions to the Code "Grandfathered-In" CITY STAFF RESPONSE REGARDING THE BUILDING PERMIT: 25 Appellants claim that the building permit was issued in error because it did not conform to the "minimum requirements of Titles 14 and 16...." Title 16 is Public Works, and Appellants do not cite any section of Title 16. Title 14 is the Zoning Code, and Appellants only cite Section 14-1A-3 which sets forth the purpose of the zoning code. The purpose statement is not a zoning regulation that either mandates or prohibits certain land uses. The purpose statement is aspirational, not regulatory, and therefore cannot be the basis either to grant or deny a building permit. Under state law (Sections 414.1 and .3 of the Iowa Code), the City's zoning regulations must be for the "purpose of promoting the health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community" and "in accordance with a comprehensive plan." Section I4-IA-3 simply reflects state law: "The provisions of this title are intended to implement the city of Iowa City's comprehensive plan in a manner that promotes the health, safety, order, convenience, prosperity, and general welfare of the citizens of Iowa City." A building permit or rezoning application is not analyzed to make sure that it meets the purpose statement. However, if someone challenges a regulatory provision in the Zoning Code, the regulatory provision is analyzed to make sure that it is consistent with the purpose statement (i.e., it promotes the health, safety and general welfare of the City and it is consistent with the comprehensive plan.). 7. The City's issuance of a Building Permit for the proposed entertainment venue at 101 Lusk Avenue violates the spirit and purpose of many of the Code's provisions; none of those deviations can be rescued under the guise of so-called Non -Conforming Single - Family Uses because the original home, characterized by some non -conforming uses, was demolished by the owners. Code § 144E-4. A Non -Conforming Single -Family Use may be restored only when a structure is destroyed or damaged by fire, explosion, act of God, or by a public enemy. Code § 14-4E-4. 0. In this instance, the owners demolished an existing home. They may not, now, build upon or extend any non -conforming uses that characterized the prior, much smaller, single family dwelling that they destroyed. For example: CITY STAFF RESPONSE REGARDING CONFORMITY OF USE: The property is located in an area already zoned RS-5 (Lour Density Single Family) and single family dwellings are allowed in the RS-5 Zone, therefore this would not be a non- conforming single family use. The definition under section 14-9A-1 of a non- conforming use is "A use that, when established, was a permitted use, was allowed as a T. provisional use, or was approved as a special exception, but which subsequently, due to a change in the zone or to the requirements of this title, is no longer allowed." The old house on the property was demolished, and a new single family dwelling is proposed. The structure meets all the dimensional standards in the Low Density Single Family (RS-5) Zone. a. The absence of street pavement a�or. the entire !ennth of the lot foes not conform with and therefore. violates the Code. Only approximately 40 feet of a 123-footlong property line aiong Lusk Avenue is paved, and cannot be grandfathered-in as non -conforming use after the owners demolished the original residential structure. And, at the end of the pavement there is no storm water street sewer. The City states that it has no intention to lengthen the street or to invest in infrastructure. The City has approved a non -conforming use that threatens public health and safety without any finding that the property is entitled to non -conforming status. CITY STAFF RESPONSE REGARDING CONFORMITY OF LOT: This issue was reviewed and found to be not applicable because there is a provision in the nonconforming lot regulations that states; Any conforming use or structure for a conforming use may be established or installed on a lot of record that is nonconforming with regard to lot frontage or lot width, provided the minimum lot area for the use is met, and provided the use or structure meets all other requirements of this title (Section 14-4E-7A) In any zone in which single-family uses are permitted, a single-family use and accessory structures may be established on any lot of record, notwithstanding failure to meet the minimum lot area requirement of the zone in which the lot is located (Section 14-4E-7C) The lot is conforming in terms of lot size and lot frontage (Lusk Ave street right of way extends along the entire frontage of the lot). Even if the lot were to be found non -conforming, City non -conforming lot standards dictate that a single family use may be established on a lot of record. The Code requires the owner of every house or building used for human occupancy, at the owners' expense to install suitable toilet facilities and to connect such facilities directly to the proper public sanitary sewer. Code $ 16-30-5 Here, the absence of an independent sewer line running from the property at 101 Lusk Avenue to the City's sewer main (instead of hooking onto and traveling under two neighboring lots to the north, before reaching the City sewer main) violates Code and cannot be grandfathered-in as a 27 non -conforming use after the owners demolished the original residential structure. Code § 14-4E-4-D. CITY STAFF RESPONSE REGARDING SEWER SERVICE: The adequacy of the sewer service is not a part of the Zoning Code, and is therefore not something that can be appealed to the Board of Adjustment. However, City sanitary sewer records show the City permitted the shared sanitary sewer between "3 houses on west side of Lusk Permit #2756 dated 3/17/27...." (See Exhibit H) Also, the code states "directly" and the sewer does connect directly, it is just shared with the two other lots on the west side of Lusk Ave. The shared sewer service, again, was permitted when sewer service was provided to the lots on the west side of Lusk Ave. The Code requires that all storm water, ground water and all other unpolluted water shall be discharged only to such sewers as are specifically designated as storm sewers or to a natural outlet approved by the City. Code & 16-30-7. In this instance, even though the owners of a double lot intend to cover almost all of itwith impervious materials, no plans are made for the discharge of the storm waterand ground water that will flow from those surfaces. The fact that the owners demolished the prior residential structure precludes them from claiming any right to grandfather earlier practices with respect to storm water run-off. Code § 14-4E-4-0. CITY STAFF RESPONSE REGARDING STORM WATER: This is not regulated by the Zoning Code and thus the Board has no authority to hear an appeal on this issue. Section 16-3G-3 identifies the scope and provisions for this code title which states: "Excluding the central business district and the area designated as the new south side neighborhood, this article shall apply to development which results in an aggregate gross area of three (3) acres or more of drainage from or to a single drainage area. (underline added) The gross aggregate drainage area shall include streets and other dedicated lands." 101 Lusk Ave. is less than 3 acres; therefore this article does not apply. Public Works policy for existing single family lots is to allow lots to drain naturally with the slope of the land. This includes to neighboring properties and to the public right of PR way and street. 101 Lusk Ave. has a natural slope to the south which flows to a drainage ditch parallel to the railroad tracks and to the east, the public right of way, which then slopes to the south to the drainage ditch parallel to the railroad tracks. d. Any insufficiency of a front -yard set -back measurement characterizing the prior, demolished home cannot provide a grandfathered-exception to the front,::,yard set back requirement under the existing Code which calls for a minifnum se'Fback equal to or greater than the average set -backs of the other residences -on Lus: venue CITY STAFF RESPONSE REGARDING FRONT YARD SETBACK: The minimum front yard setback in the RS-5 Zone is 15'-0". The Lusk Avenue frontage only has there (3) lots and set back averaging does not apply to frontages that contain three (3) or fewer lots. Section 14-2A-4,B,3,e(l) 8. The Scope of the Code requires that when any structure is "occupied, converted, enlarged, re -constructed or structurally altered, the regulations and standards of -the present Code must be followed. Code § 14-IB-3.A. Yet, in approving the Site Plan and in issuing a Building Permit, the City has implicitly and inexplicably "grandfathered" in the use of non -conforming practices in effect in the early part of the last century, even though the proposed structure is massively larger, and is built for entirely different purposes, than the pre-existing single family dwelling that the owners demolished to accommodate their planned amusementvenue. Forexample: a. The Code requires residential structures to have their own direct access to the City's sanitary sewers. This proposed entertainment venue violates that provision, apparently the result of a wrongful-grandfathering in of conditions thatcharacterized the prior single family dwelling, built in the early 20th century, before the present owners demolished it. The property at 101 Lusk Avenue is unlawfully connected to, and transverses over the back yards of two adjoining lots (111LuskAvenue and 117 Lusk Avenue) without the permission or consent of those owners. The proposed expansive entertainment structure, complete with multiple toilets, urinals and showers, will be hooked to 4" sewer pipes installed in the early 20thcentury, pipe dimensions normally used to accommodate one residential structure, alone. Although the magnitude of the proposed entertainment structure dwarfs the prior residential home that the owners demolished, the City had wrongfully approved the now -unlawful use of the old residential sewer lines. CITY STAFF RESPONSE REGARDING SEWER SERVICE: Sanitary sewer service is not regulated by the Zoning Code and thus the Board has no authority to hear an appeal on this issue. 29 City sanitary sewer records show the City permitted the shared sanitary sewer between "3 houses on west side of Lusk Permit #2756 dated 3/17/27...." (see Exhibt H) Also, the code states "directly" and the sewer does connect directly, it is just shared with the two other lots on the west side of Lusk Ave. The shared sewer service, again, was permitted when sewer service was provided to the lots on the west side of Lusk Ave. While not common, snared sewer services do exist in other parts of Iowa City in older neighborhoods. A modem example of shared sewer service would be, for example, multiple townhouse condominium units on one lot which share a sewer service to the public sewer main. Also, the number of plumbing fixtures is not regulated by the Zoning Code and thus the Board has no authority to hear an appeal on this issue. The size of the sewer service line is determined by the number of plumbing fixtures. A four inch (4") sewer service line will accommodate 216 fixture units and a six inch (6") will accommodate 720 fixture units. The number of fixtures shown on the plans for 101 Lusk Ave. would require 50 fixture units, which is substantially under the 4 inch limit of 216 and the 6 inch limit of 720... A fixture unit is a quantity in terms of which the load - producing effects on the plumbing system of different kinds of plumbing fixtures are expressed on some arbitrarily chosen scale. Staff has concluded the sewer service is more than adequate to serve the proposed structure. The Code requires a lot upon which a residence is built to have street pavement along the entire front of that lot. Although the easterly lot line for 101 Lusk Avenueextends for 123 feet along the City's right-of-way, but only about one-third (about40 feet) is a paved surface. The Site Plan documents submitted to, and approved by, the City misrepresent the reality of the street frontage, making it appear as though the City's entire Lusk Avenue right-of-way is paved to a point beyond the lot's southeast property corner. Yet, the City makes no commitment to pave the street -let alone install a storm water sewer to capture the significant quantity of drainage that will flow from the impervious roof surfaces and driveway paymentthat are planned for this entertainment venue. CITY STAFF RESPONSE REGARDING STREET FRONTAGE: The entire frontage of the lot has street right of way frontage, and 101 Lusk Ave. is a conforming lot. Even if the lot were found to be non -conforming, the non- conforming lot provisions in City Code allow for the establishment of a conforming use (such as a single family dwelling): 30 Any conforming use or structure for a conforming use may be established or installed on a lot of record that is nonconforming with regard to lot frontage or lot width, provided the minimum lot area for the use is met, and provided the use or structure meets all other requirements of this title. (Section 14-4E-7A) c. The Code requires that a residential structure may not be closer to the street that the average set -back of other, -esidential structures on the same street. Code -5 14- 2A-4.13 .3.e. But the proposed plans for this structure indicate a fifteen -foot set -back from Lusk Avenue, which appears to be less than the average set -back of the other two residential homes on the same side of the same street and the set -back for the only existing residential structure on the other side of the street. At the very least, nothing in the City's file for this project indicates that the owners have complied with this averaging requirement. CITY STAFF RESPONSE REGARDING FRONT YARD SETBACK: The minimum front yard setback m the RS-5 Zone is 15'-0". The Lusk Avenue frontage only has there (3) lots and set back averaging does not apply to frontages that contain three (3) or fewer lots. (Section 14-2A-4,13,3,e(1)) 9. Those who are empowered to interpret and apply provisions of the Iowa City Zoning Code to specific instances are directed by the Code that such provisions "shall be held to minimum requirements for the promotion of the public safety, health, convenience, order, prosperity and general welfare" of the citizens of Iowa City. Code § 14-I13-1.A. In virtually every objected -to instance cited by the Applicants, however, the City has interpreted and applied the Code in a manner that has minimized requirements for the owners, contrary to the public interest and the spirit of the Code. For example: a. The Code prohibits three-story residential structures in low-densitv residential neighborhoods to discourage buildings that visually dominate other buildings in the vicinity. Code § 14-2A-4.C.1,table 2A-2. However, the drawings submitted by the owners of 101 Lusk Avenue indicate that the structure is three -stories tall. Abasketball court located on the lowest level has no ceiling at that level; rather, theceiling is placed to the top of the next floor-22 feet above the basketball court's floor surface. Elevation drawings taken from the southerly side of the structureshow a wall laid bare by the declining elevation of the lot (the same decline that will result in significant storm water runoff to flow unlawfully into neighboring properties and city right-of-way). CITY STAFF RESPONSE REGARDING HEIGHT: The plans show a two-story structure above grade ( ground level (approximately 75% of the structure is one story). Neither the Zoning Code nor the International Residential Code prohibit three-story residential structures in low -density 31 neighborhoods. There is a thirty-five feet (35') height restriction measured to a point between the eve and ridge. This building is a two story building as defined in the Zoning Code. The code defines "story" as the portion of a building included between the upper surface of any floor and the upper surface of the next floor above. The topmost "story" shall be that habitable portion of a building included between the upper surface of the topmost floor and the ceiling above. Also, cellar is defined as a portion or" a building located partially or wholly underground and having less than three and one-half feet (3.5') of its floor to ceiling height above grade. A "cellar" is not counted as a story for the pose of height and setback regulations. Building height is visually inspected with inspections during construction of the dwelling. b. The Code limits the height of a residential structure to 35 feet . Code § 14-2A-4.C.1, table 2A-2. Yet, the drawings approved by the City when issuing a Building Permit indicate that the structure is at least 37.5 feet tall -most visibly measured on the structure's southerly side. The fully -finished lowest -level, complete with movie theater and basketball court, is completely integrated with the middle floor: the basketball court is two -floors high. Above the second floor are third -floor rooms cast in the role as press box. While the Applicants believe that this is no residential structure -and, on that basis, alone, should not be permitted for construction -the building plans do not meet even the most basic rules applicable to residential structures. CITY STAFF RESPONSE REGARDING HEIGHT: The proposed structure is a two story building and the east elevation shows the building height dimensioned at 25'-6". This is well below the 37.5 feet stated above. The cellar level (below grade) should not be included in the total building height. The building height is measured from the grade of ground, not from the cellar (basement) level. c. The Code establishes design standards for single family dwellings that are intended to enhance the "...Pedestrian oriented character of the neiahborhood by preventing blank facades and large expanses of concrete along the street. Code § 142A-6.A.3. Yet, the approved plans depict the easterly end of the building as nearly 80 linear feet of blank brick wall facade, a surface broken only by one door and two windows. CITY STAFF RESPONSE REGARDING PURPOSE STA T EivffiNT: The statement noted by the applicant is in the `Purpose' statement of the Single Family Site Development Standards (Subsection 14-2A-6) and there are no regulations for this purpose. The structure does have a front door and two windows facing Lusk Ave. on the first floor. 32 The east elevation facing Lusk Ave. shows two windows, one door and two features incorporated into the brick fagade at the grade level. The Proposed Structure Cannot be Approved Undar t a "Minor rylodificatlons" Provision of the Code 10. The planned entertainment venue cannot qualify as a residential structure under the so- called "Minor Modification" provisions of the Code. Code § 14-48-1.B.1-5. That is, no minor modification to the plans would allow it properly to be categorized as a single family residence. Even with minor modifications, the proposed structure would be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or be injurious to other property in the Manville Heights neighborhood, which is properly zoned as IRS-5. CITY STAFF RESPONSE Staff concurs the minor modification provisions are not applicable The ?;-opcsed Structure Cannot duality Under any Variance 11. Nor can this property qualify for a variance from the RS-5 and other applicable zoning Code provisions. Code § 14-48-1.B.2.A.1-5. The way that building is designed and the project as described in the Site Plan threaten the integrity of the Manville Heights neighborhood and its presence will substantially adversely affect the uses and values of other properties in the area adjacent to 101 Lusk Avenue. The proposed structure is not in harmony with thegeneral intent and purpose of the RS-5 zone. Any uniqueness or hardship to be suffered by the owners as the result of the City's denial of the intended use of this property resides inthe poor judgment of the owners and not in the fair, just, reasonable and efficient application and interpretation of the Code. CITY STAFF RESPONSE: Staff concurs that the 101 Lusk Ave. property is not subject to a variance. The Proposed Structure CLnno4 Qua iEy as a Speciel E=ept;o:1 12. The planned entertainment venue cannot qualify for a special exception to the provisions of the Code. Code § 14-4B-3.A.1-7. Any exception allowing construction of this building at 101 Lusk Avenue will be detrimental and/or endanger the public health, safety, comfort and/or general welfare of those who reside in Manville Heights. Further, such use will injure the enjoyment and use of property in the immediate vicinity and diminish the values of properties in the neighborhood. The proposed 33 building will cause substantial drainage problems in an area of the neighborhood that is without adequate storm sewers and significant erosion on adjacent City and private property already exists. The proposed building will cause significant traffic congestion, dangerous roadway conditions and will preclude emergency vehicles from accessing the property or, once there, from turning around. CITY STAFF RESPONSE Staff concurs that the 101 Lusk property is not subject to a special exception. 34 List of Exhibits A. City Code Section 14-8C-3: Appeals B. 101 Lusk Ave. location map C. Building Plans for 101 Lusk Ave D. Building permit application for 101 Lusk Ave E. Email from Frederick Reed Carlson regarding the use of proposed 101 Lusk Ave property F. Affidavit of Use for 101 Lusk Ave signed by Frederick R. and Sandra M. Carlson G. Site Plan for 101 Lusk Ave. H. Sanitary sewer permit #2756 for shared sewer service I. 8/25/15 letter from Action Sewer and Septic J. 10/1/15 letter from Hart -Frederick Consultants K. June 29, 2016 email regarding sanitary sewer adequacy from Roger Overton, Assistant Superintendent, Wastewater Division L. Fire hydrant location site plan 35 EXHIBIT 14-8C-3: APPEALS: A. Initiation Of Appeal: 1. Where it is alleged there is error in any order, requirement, decision, or determination made by the city manager or designee in the enforcement of this title or of any ordinance adopted pursuant thereto, any person aggrieved by such order, requirement, decision, or determination may appeal same to the board of adjustment. 2. Where it is alleged there is an error in any order, requirement, decision, or determination made by the city manager or designee in the enforcement of this title or of any ordinance adopted pursuant thereto, any officer, department or board of the city aggrieved by such order, requirement, decision or determination may appeal same to the board of adjustment. B. Appeal Procedures: 1. The appellant must file a notice of appeal with the city clerk on forms provided by the city, specifying the grounds of the appeal. Such appeal must be submitted within a reasonable time from the date of the action appealed from as provided by the rules of the board. A duplicate copy of such notice shall be filed with the secretary of the board of adjustment. 2. The city manager or designee shall forthwith transmit to the board all the papers constituting the record upon which the action appealed from was taken. At a public hearing, the board shall review all applicable evidence presented regarding the subject appeal. 4. In exercising the above mentioned powers, the board of adjustment may, in conformity with the provisions of this title or ordinances adopted pursuant thereto, affirm, or upon finding error, reverse or modify, wholly or partly, the order, requirement, decision or determination appealed from and may make such order, requirement, decision or determination as ought to be made, and to that end, shall have all the powers of the officer from whom the appeal is taken. C. Stay Of Proceedings: An appeal stays all proceedings in furtherance of the action appealed from, including, without limitation, the right of the permittee to proceed with development or other activities authorized under a building permit, the issuance of which is a subject of the appeal, unless the city manager or designee certifies to the board after the notice of appeal has been filed that, by reason of facts stated in the certificate, a stay would, in the city manager's or designee's opinion, cause imminent peril to life or property. In such case, proceedings or development shall not be stayed otherwise than by a restraining order, which may be granted by the board of adjustment or by a court of record and on notice to the city manager or designee for due cause shown. (Ord. 05-4186, 12-15-2005) u0speo APUBS pug peou uospeo fpues pue peeN Feao-4ee(a�al .m � , n } H9 fl3Q 1 %NLLa9 Y E ela g3 ` g B E E€d 10A SWOH M9N 492LPZIV I, .r. IMaTTa � 4 9 uosljeo @ a a�j § ) , � ) a rt�reser �i a eis atussrau '°' a> f r.�.�w�,d. Mac arvad� iais � one"w. m rr_u�s oea wo-nr a;¢rx auMllwnm uww�n�uwwuaam w um .. �. �via n p f m )-91A78 w019 9115 D :3 Vo WIRTIp}] Aua Jivina��e yOu sap0 e suunp Uie9yap ppoo eµpuapi ai mnpc� �ppep epos peivgw mu♦ew mou maum ue�tl ZRWO Ltlle :k Ol9 . 9{ISLS9 'ainn 'suoisxw�a apoa � apnpdde pe yyw. xyuvm ay uonea!pp Aue a9vualle you soap suy0 p mauve a 9upnp Axenyap apw a Ay!luapi of anlia� 'sanoan�p apw 9e yAIW+ uw Aew soma malty ue!d uopvfo yf1 upiimluuoyay pvnw ypuc pema�nB qe!� eves 4-080ZL`JMj SVIS 8X6 I HM SA9NO N3 O 3 N008H1V8 asee >lui5.94 E ` IIC v II^IIce I as¢e MuiS.9b w IN00UHiVa m ` S3S5lR11 tlOOl3.bZ' w k_ - � HON39 `JNI11I57M - 5319811� N3d0 NOON AVId 13A31 NIVN „0-15 X .,0-.h c. w X- W N X � O ,J 4 O � l N e . � ANUNV N FM O o ' � EXHIBIT Tim Hennes From: *BuikdingDux Sent Wednesday, April U6,2Ol612:59P&4 To: Terry Goerdt,David Campbell; Tim Hennes; Kent B|iven Subject: Building Application Submittal Building Application submitted from the Iowa City website... 5926 ISubdivision 178x94 Two story home. 1500 ft2 finished on upper level, 3455 finished on main level JProject Description land 2500 finished in basement, wner/Tenant Name lReed and Sandy Carlson Tenant Email lContractor Iowa City IA 52240 JEJectrician Name FHomewood Electric [Mechanical Name [Novak Htg and Cooling EXHIBIT From: Tim Hennes Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 3:40 PM To: Tim Hennes Subject: FW:101 Lusk Avenue Property From: Reed Carlson [mailto:reed@geo-inc.comj Sent: Friday, April 22, 2016 9:30 AM TO: Tim Hennes; Terry Goerdt Cc: zahaskyoanstruction@gmail.com Subject 101 Lusk Avenue Property Dear Mr. Hennes, My wife and I purchased the property at 101 Lusk Avenue to build a single family dwelling on the site as a %second home and maybe as a permanent residence at a later date. We have one of our four children and his family living in Iowa City. He has three children (our grandchildren) ranging in age from 1 %2 to 4 years old and we would like to spend more time with them. We do not plan to rent any portion of our residence out on a permanent or temporary basis. I sincerely hope that this explanation is sufficient for the building permit process. Sincerely, Frederic Reed Carlson Geothermal Eco Options, hie. www.geo-ine.com 563-382-0300 (Office) EXHIBfi loll I I --� g DOD � ID. OMM76000t Type: go H nZdAdF7R01rr,,gs9 at 30:38:80 An Fat AOit: $?.0o Pape I of t Ya1C�1�J Aem xaan, Cbse &dreweeot speo4�f.Obcrten.QEp; 419 vlechieyce t 8awc �bS Iora SY1a63ta316:St� AIWM :VU Off' U W I.ot 1, Block 14 71" sum �ift ee Otero Fwarly is M LookAv"m ffi of>lm, CtA ftwome indwconta'oemaotofesCc&oi'Orannocee, 1. 710Mftsi mdhombYaciamwieftesdiecm tX=bSOfgwpMwjywWA 2. 'the tmdOWBmd agoees ewt is accordance wilt dw pwWd m of dw Iwrs City Zaa ft O ngoonce im bSeot m sole date, ate me Of dri property Is a do& ihmlIF dwdbS and 60 the dalle hadly an Omer be maia44wl w wet. C mmadd uses wmek hadede no Bob sf oh" ar a b"m to 00 Fnpaiyars met Pon" 11166 propeiV OWcaa9 to deQa m of tmopft food he the them COY MININS CJode-14.4A— `TMA;AT 4M- A hum IWFAIR Pm dq iti nd social pawing OM i dal sd mq bcclaieOefhe=need drfsl ft h IMMMMI a baiohoft or mm bobal e) as part of aetivlfhw Tsnporary pari�ast avaed sm$eea haadsd uepeleWAPpYapergy i alswed ds ft "qias ovoem do"i mid at a swr i aq mb dm flee �, pea a wid or Om aworseror aioa pravhkd ftwa fee.' Rm�60 PMP fbrcon"A del tm#Pft OrO&W1 1110Of"* PtbwbP to pwhialed. 3. Tba umkr#4Wsg=dttdfmmdmemOcc%*A yftrdrosio*t 07ydwvMWinddsamtoabenumb d OMEY) Phu me (1) mod% d parson Or a mm b wm of arse (3) amvkW people. A ho mohsld Qocaplea a duple khu* dwdlog w a side howdceepdre smk 4. v' toil permh 'd , if got view wcgied, an only be hd or Pooled after obl�ing a Chy mdoaa4* bereahed a amaafh tsu= i or hcoW 6np. S. 7110 cmders*w ahem &K i[ the prwper(y i Owasaoampied am owmr OWN a Bled & BraWkA at aemd wNdk tbd nomns down 3 bedrooms as be pravi"d go Pepe who stay fw h peds rot to 6. Thin aiftdwit meet be ra¢aded wiec dta 7obmem County Reou der, mad a OW of dro recorded dowmest mainmiadw6dwC KY OMIARCIRY DVortamma tabu i eedHeimSecricea. This dw mrdim d—m be bb ft span mad atoll teas to dw ban fit of am bd% tegm sm:oeaaers and >IIIIIIIIOferomukmk od,endAMbebioftanmdsh rum wadaft ID ftpapevy. �t7 W , STATE (WIOWA ie OnAds.abe —� —c' 20166 bduas me, theeod�ed allomy PWdk ieod it mid Cbmy, Stue,pasom0yappemed CE36=c�S�".1/m._ CgLrj. to me known is be gee ME" peas amid in and wbo c m mood so won h end $ EXHIBFF \``` k / $ \ { f ;myylua.! I � J u \ \ \ A A ]\§\§}}}\ EXHIBIT is v .4 44 rR ILZ o pq A { tw :eM -IV . •• �� "'i d a i%saxn N EXHIBIT ACTION SEWER & SEPTIC SERVICE, INC. 3619 Taft Avenue S. E. Iowa City, IA 52240 Telephone: 319-354-2784 FAX. 319-351-2749 08125115 To Whom It May Concern: After televising the sewer line at 101 Lusk Stand locating where it goes. I believe the sewer line would be able to handle two new buildings after it is waterjetted from the road back. The line starts as 4" cast and goes to 6" bell hub tile. The cast has some scale in it that would need to be removed and the tile has some roots that would need to be removed. Mark Dawson Action Sewer & Septic Services, Inc. Action Sewer & Septic Service, Inc. 3619 Taft Ave SE Invoice Iowa City, IA 52240 Date Invoice # Phone: 319 354-2784 Email: dawson.action@gmait 9/24/2015 80564 fyBill To / PRESTIGE PROPERTIES MIKE OLIVEIRA ! 329 E COURT ST IOWA CITY, IA 52245 Customer Phone (319) 337.2487 Job Site I P.O. NO. I JOB NO. I Technician 101 LUSK 0 Quantity Description Please Note Sales Tax Below. Pay by Check or Online at website shown below. Rate Amount WATER JETTED 6" MAIN SEWER FROM CITY MANHOLE 195.00 195.00T INTO HOUSE, RAN 3X'S 0.5 JETTER TRAVEL TIME TO & FROM JOB SITE 92.50 46.25 Sales Tax - Johnson County 6,00% 11,70 i........ ............. ............. ............... ............. ....... ........... -- ..................... ..,.... € PRESTIGE PROPERTIES Date MIKE OL IRA Invoice # 1329 E COU tT ST IOWA CITY, IA 52245 9/24/2015 80564 i..................................................................................................................................... i Total $252.95 Terms Due on receipt �F EXHIBIT V HART-FREDERICK CONSULTANTS, EC. �I ENGINEERS & SURVEYORS 1 October, 2015 Prestige Properties 239.E. Court St, Ste 2 Jowa City; LA 522a0 Attn: Mike Oliveira Re: Sanitary Sewer Service to 101 Lusk Avenue — Iowa City, Iowa Dear Mr. Oliveira: We have reviewed the video footage from the inspection of the sanitary sewer service to 101 Lusk Avenue in Iowa City performed on September 23, 2015. Based on the video, we would not recommend using the existing service line in its current condition for the proposed additional single family homes. The tuberculation in the 4-inch diameter cast iron section of the service line will impede flow and possibly cause blockages and backups. The roots protruding through the pipe joints in the VCP section have been removed, but may re -grow in the future. These would again become sources of potential blockage and infiltration. Many of the joints are offset slightly from each other. The offsets could be considered minor and do not severely impede flow. The video camera did reach the manhole in this inspection and only two services discovered The service to 631 Bayard Street was not found. This makes a total of four residential connects on the service line that is believed to be 6-inches in diameter. Typical standard practice for most cities is to require a minimum pipe diameter of 6-inches when more than one building is served by a single service line. According to the sewer inspection equipment operator, cast iron portion of this service line is 4-inches in diameter. Based on the latest video inspection, we recommend a new 6-inch service line be installed to replace the 4-inch cast iron section of the existing service line. The remaining existing service line should be lined to prevent future root growth and infiltration. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call Scott Ritter, L.S., or myself at our office. S, w/ Beniamin A. Carhoff, P.E. Hart -Frederick Consultants P.C. cc: Jason Havel, City of Iowa City enc: Video on USB Flash Drive file 510 StateStreet • EO. Box 560 • Tiffin, IA 52340-0560 • 319-545-7215 • Fa: 319-545-7220 • wwwdlim-frederidLoom Engineering • Surveying • Planning EXHIBIT =-L From: Ron Knoche Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2016 1:51 PM To: John Yapp; Tim Hennes Subject: FW: City Sanitary sewer conditions. FYI Ronald R. Knoche, PE Public Works Director City of Iowa City 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa Email: ron-knoche@iowa-city ora Phone: (319) 356-5138 Cell: (319) 430-3625 Fax: (319) 356-5007 From: Roger Overton Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2016 1:42 PM To: 'ba_iowacity@yahoo.com' Cc: Tim Wilkey; Ron Knoche; Jason Havel Subject: FIN: City Sanitary sewer conditions. From: Roger Overton Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2016 12:07 PIN To: 'bada_iowacity@yahoo.com' Cc: Tim Wilkey; Ron Knoche; Jason Havel Subject: City Sanitary sewer conditions. Dear Mr. Ackerman, The City Wastewater Division has inspected it's 8"sanitary sewer mains in the Lusk Ave and Bayard St area and they appear to be in good working condition and capable of accommodating additional flow from the proposed single family house that will be built at 101 Lusk Ave. The City doesn't have any information about the condition of the joint private sewer that you share with your neighbors. R g-e-k (7vm to7c Assistant Superintendent City of Iowa City Wastewater Treatment Division Office-319-887-6104 City of Iowa City Board of Adjustment Position Statement of F. Reed and Sandy Carlson Appeal No. 16-00001 Permit No. BLD16-00182 Property Parcei No. i009155004 Address: 101 Lusk Avenue, Iowa City, IA Owners: Reed and Sandy Carlson I. Introduction. Reed and Sandy Carlson are committed Iowa Hawkeye fans and football season ticket holders who plan to build a second residence within walking distance of Kinnick Stadium. The Carlson maintain a permanent residence in Decorah, Iowa where they are long-time respected citizens and Reed has been a reputable contractor for more than forty years. The Carlson' plan is to occupy the residence at 101 Lusk Avenue as a second home to enjoy time with their large extended family, including their children and grandchildren. Like many football fans throughout Iowa City (and elsewhere) they plan to "tailgate" with friends and family on the six or seven home Hawkeye football Saturdays. Contrary to the speculation of the Appellants, the Carlsons simply have no intention to use the property for any commercial venture. The Carlsons' plan is to join the Hawkeye faithful who gather in their homes in perfectly legal and neighborly displays of Hawkeye fellowship. The Carlsons have carefully planned their residence to be able to enjoy such gatherings within the co -fines of thck home. Beyond being Hawk -eye fans, the Carlsons have always been and always will be good neighbors and law-abiding citizens. Throughout the process of designing their home and applying for a permit, the Carlsons have endeavored to meet the requirements of the Iowa City Zoning Code. They have been flexible in meeting the 1 requirements of the Code and straight -forward about their intention to occupy the home as a single-family residence. The 2015 residential building code adopted by Iowa City provides that if the proposed work conforms to the requirements of this code and the applicable laws and ordinances "the building official shall issue a permit therefor as soon as practicable." (Ord. 15-4631, 7-15-2015) (Emphasis added). Because the Appellants cannot demonstrate that the building permit was issued contrary to the applicable laws and ordinances, their appeal must be denied. The Carlson ask that the Board uphold the decision of the City's professional staff and overrule the appeal before it. H. The Single k'arnily Dwelling. The Carlson submitted an application for a building permit through the City's website on April 6, 2016. The home was designed by Midwest Drafting & Design of Cresco, Iowa, a well -regarded home designer that has designed distinctive homes in Northeast Iowa since 1996, http://www.midwestdesign.biz/ Although the project's design pays tribute to lines and features ofKinnick Stadium, it is unmistakably a single family home. The project at 101 Lusk Avenue was described in the application as a 78' x 94' two story home with 1500 sq. ft. finished on the upper level, 3455 sq. ft. finished on the main level and 2500 sq. ft. finished in the basement. The upper level consists of a master bedroom, two smaller bedrooms, a kid's bunk room and a laundry room. There are three bathrooms corresponding to the three bedrooms. The main floor consists of a kitchen, dining area, family room; exercise room; play room, and one bedroom with a connected bathroom, two half bathrooms surrounding an open courtyard and a three seasons porch. A three stall garage is attached. Like many other residences with attached garages, the Carlsons' planned garage has an "owner's K entrance" to distinguish it from the main entrance.' The lower level includes a theatre, sport court, bathroom, mechanical room and storage. III. The Permit is Granted by City Staff. On May 25, 2016, after thorough review by the City of Iowa City Building Department, the City of Iowa City issued Building Permit BLD16-00182 to the Carlsons to construct the proposed single family dwelling. The permit was "suspended" on June 14, 2016, so that the driveway could be moved to the north side of the house to connect with a paved portion of Lusk Avenue. On June 17, 2016, John Yapp, Development Services Coordinator, wrote, "The building plans have been reviewed and approved." The plot plan was changed to reflect the repositioning of the driveway. The suspension was lifted on June 28, 2016 because the proposed home and the permit for its construction were in compliance with all applicable codes and requirements by the City's building department. "All minimum standards for a [Single Family Dwelling] have been met." John Yapp's (Development Services Coordinator) June 17, 2016 Memorandum to Geoff Fruin, Interim City Manager stated the following pertinent findings: a. The property is not in an historic or conservation district. City staff has no authority to constrain the design of the structure other than existing building and zoning codes. b. The Carlson confirmed they intend to use the structure as a second home in order to spend time with their son and grandchildren in Iowa City, and potentially as a permanent home in the future. See affidavit. a. No extension of Lusk Avenue is required. 'The Appellants manage to infer some commercial intent from the label "owner's entrance" that allows them to carry groceries from their car to their kitchen without walking through the main door. W d. Enforcement of parking regulations, lights and noise will be treated consistently with other residential properties in Iowa City. On street parking is permitted unless it is signed "no parking." e. Lighting. City code limits the height of private lights in a residential zone to 15 feet. Any floodlights used to illuminate private outdoor recreational facilities must be turned off by 10 PM. Lighting concerns are enforced on a complaint basis. f. Noise and disturbance. The City has adopted a disorderly house ordinance that restricts loud, raucous and disagreeable noises to the disturbance of the neighborhood. City Code section 8-5-5. Disorderly house is a criminal offense. g. The building plans were reviewed and approved. Staff has no authority to control the design of a single-family house in an area that is not a historic or conservation district, other than for code compliance. h. Any concerns or complaints about the use of the property will be treated consistent with how the City treats complaints related to other residential properties in the City, including investigation of nuisance and criminal complaints, and citations, if warranted. IV. Standard of Review for Building Permit. As the Board undoubtedly knows, the City's discretion in denying a building permit is limited. Rehmann v. City of Des Moines, 200 Iowa 286, 204 N.W. 267, 270 (1925) (cities exercise Iimited discretion in granting, refusing, or revoking building permits). The 2015 Residential Building Code expressly provides that if the proposed work conforms to the requirements of this code and the applicable laws and ordinances "the building official shall issue a permit therefor as soon as practicable." (Ord. 15-4631, 7-15-2015) (Emphasis added), A municipality is not afforded a right of discretion in reviewing permitted use applications because the approval of a project complying with the zoning code follows as a matter of right. 9A McQuillin Mun, Corp. Section 26:233 (3d ed.). The discretion that may n be exercised by city authorities is not to be arbitrarily exercised, but is to be centered upon the question of whether the applicant for the permit plans to comply with the ordinances; if applicant does, then he or she is entitled to the permit. 9A McQuillin Mull. core. Section 26:229 (3d ed.). After a careful review of all aspects of the project, the City's staff found no basis to deny the permit. The City has adopted the 2015 edition of the International Building Code which includes the 2015 edition International Residential Code (IRC). The IRC provides in section RI05,3.1: Action on Application. The building official shall examine or cause to be examined applications for permits and amendments thereto within a reasonable time after filing, If the application or the construction documents do not conform to the requirements of pertinent laws, the building official shall reject such application in writing staring the reasons therefor. If the building official is satisfied that the proposed work conforms to the requirements of this code and a laws and ordinances applicable thereto, the building official shall issue a permit therefor as soon as practicable. The word "shall" imposes a duty. Iowa code section 4.1(30)(a). Keegan v City ofBiue Grass, 796 NW2d 458 (Iowa 2004) determined the district court correctly found the issuance of a building permit under the uniform building code is not a discretionary function. The mere objection of an adjacent property owner or a majority of property owners in the vicinity is insufficient ground for the refusal of a building permit, particularly in the absence of a zoning law. 9A McQuillin Mun. Corp. § 26:233 (3d ed.) Tohnson v. Board of Adjustment, 239 N.W.2d 873, 881 (Iowa 1976) held, "'The rule of strict construction of res-=c cns on the Fee use of property is applicable where the wording of the restriction is ambiguous.' Furthermore, the restrictions of a zoning ordinance should not be extended by implication or interpretation." (citations omitted). A zoning ordinance should not be extended by implication to prevent a use not clearly prohibited. Livingston v, 5 Davis, 243 Iowa 21, 26, 50 N.W.2d 592, 596 (1951); see also, Arkae Dev., Inc. v. Zoning Bd, of Adjustment of City ofAmes, 337 N.W.2d 884, 886 (Iowa Ct. App. 1983). V. Appellants Many Objections are Unfounded. The Appellants cite over thirty provisions of the Zoning Code that the City's staff allegedly misinterpreted in issuing a permit to the Carlsons. The Appellants' scatter shot condemnation of the project shows their misunderstanding of the Code and the process. Where the City's professional staff found compliance with the zoning code after careful review, the Appellants find unsubstantiated intent to thwart the spirit of the code lurldng at every turn. Contrary to the claims of the Appellants, the issue before the Board is not a referendum on whether the neighbors approve the style of the residence or even whether they believe the Carlsons will abide by the City's laws regulating the behavior of its citizens. The Carlsons do not attempt to minimize the Appellants' legitimate concerns as neighbors. However, the process of enforcing zoning regulations is not the proper place to impose additional restrictions that are not made explicit in the Code. a. The City did not misclassify the residence. Throughout their appeal, Appellants confuse the "purpose" of the zoning restrictions with the restrictions themselves. As stated above, the restrictions are to be strictly construed and not be extended by implication. Iowa Code § 414.1 authorizes a city to use certain defined police powers to regulate property and specifies how a city may exercise that power. The Board is not designawd to make a discretionary decision on whe±her the Carlson home promotes health, safety or the general welfare of the city. It can only determine whether the specific restrictions (height, stories, size, location and use) are met. The Board is not permitted to impose restrictions beyond the specific standards set out in the city code. Gi In other words, a board of appeals, like a building inspector, is to determine whether the proposed structure complies with the rules, not to issue broad judgments on whether "the Applicants property values will be diminished," whether the structure will "foster convenient, compatible and efficient relationship among land uses" or whether it will "promote the economic stability of existing and future land uses." Application, p. 5-6. To be clear, the Carlsons do not dispute the beneficial underlying purposes of the zoning regulations stated in the code. However, the role of the building inspectors and the Board is to apply to rules and not to judge whether an individual permit application somehow embodies all of these amorphous qualities. Zoning Code section 14-4A-3(1) under Residential Use Categories provides: Characteristics: The residential occupancy of a dwelling unit by a single household or group household. Each dwelling unit contains its own facilities for living, sleeping, cooking and eating meals. Further, section 14-4A-3(2)(b) provides, "A 'single-family use' is a household living use where there is no more than one principal dwelling unit per lot. Quite clearly, the Carlsons' proposed design includes all these features and others most people would anticipate in a single-family residence, including a family room, bedrooms with connected bathrooms, living room, kitchen, storage, a garage and an exercise room. The Appellants object to other features which are unquestionably permissible in a single family residence based solely on their apprehension regarding how they might be used. As the City's staff `expertise and the Board's individual experience will confirm, Iowa City has single-family residences with sports courts and entertainment areas. The inclusion of such features has not stripped such structures of their use classification as single-family residences. To treat the Carlsons' project differently because of unsubstantiated claims on how the occupants may ultimately use the residence in violation of duly enacted regulations VA is to presume the Carlsons' guilt and impose a more rigorous standard on them than other applicants must meet. The City staff correctly determined that the appropriate classification for the Carlsons' project is a single-family residence. b. Site plan review is not required for development of one single-family dwelling. Section 18-1-2(A(2) provides, "Site plans must be submitted, reviewed, and approved by the city according to the provisions of this title prior to the issuance of a building permit for any development on any 'lot', `tract' or 'parcel of land' as these terms are defined in title 14, 'Zoning Code', of this code, except as exempted in subsection B of this section." However Section 18-1-2(B) provides an express exemption for the Carlsons' proposed project, "Site plan review is not required for the development of one single-family dwelling or one two family dwelling or related accessory structures in any zoning district." As such, all of the Appellants' complaints regarding requirements under Title 18 of the City Zoning Code are unfounded. c. Appellants' other claims are unfounded. Appellants raised myriad objections to the City's granting of a building permit, although the City's professional staff found no reason to deny the permit application. Carlsons believe the plans submitted, the City's professional staff and the testimony at the hearing will establish their compliance with all City requirements on such issues as fire safety, erosion control, drainage and the "red herrings" Applicants have raised in an effort to prevent construction that complies with the every aspect of the City's Zoning Code. 0 Date: September 7, 2016 Copy to: City of Iowa City Board of Adjustment Email: Sarah-Walzna iowa-ciiy.org Simmons Perrin Moyer & Bergman, P.L.C. By: a Robert S. Hatala Matthew J. Hektoen 115 Third STMezt SE, Ste.1200 Cedar Rapids,1A 52401-1266 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS PROOF OF SERVICE The undersigned certifies that the foregoing instrument was served upon all parties to the above cause to each of the attorneys of record herein at their respective addresses disclosed on the pleadings on September 7.2016 by: US Mail _FAX Hand Delivered Overnight Courier Federal Express X EMail Signature.+ (4 ` City of Iowa City Board of Adjustment Exhibits of F. Reed and Sandy Carlson Appeal No. 16-00001 Permit No. BLD16-OO182 Property Parcel No. 1009155004 Address: 101 Lusk Avenue, Iowa City, IA Owners: Reed and Sandy Carlson Carlson Exhibit Description 1. John Yapp June 17, 2016 memorandum 2. Terry Goerdt memorandum (undated) 3. 7ulie Tallman email June 22, 2016 —Exempt from Sensitive Areas Ordinance 4. Jann-Ream May 25, 2016 email showing issuance of a permit 5. Email from fire marshal May 29, 2015. No fire department related issues 6. Jann Ream March 25, 2015 email regarding adequacy of setback w a 11 OFF IOWA CITY '` '"h .IVY Date: June 17, 2016 To: Geoff Fruin, interim City Manager From: John Yapp, Development Services Coordinator' 7/ 77— Re: 101 Lusk Ave — proposed house introduction: Staff has been receiving questions regarding a proposed house at 101 Lusk Ave, due to the house being designed to reflect Kinnick Stadium. 101 Lusk Ave is a vacant residential lot (an unoccupied house was recently demolished) in an RS-5 (Single Family) residential zone. The lot is an existing single-family lot — no subdivision or rezoning is proposed. The property is not in a historic or conservation district, and staff has no authority to constrain the design of the structure other than existing building and zoning codes. Discussion: When staff received building plans for the house, we questioned the use of the house due to its design. The owner sent an email stating they Intend to use the structure as a second home in order to spend time with their son and grandchildren in Iowa City, and potentially as a permanent home In the future. Staff also prepared an affidavit of use (attached), which the owner willingly signed. The affidavit states that the use of the property is a single family dwelling, and the use must be maintained as such; the sale of alcohol and/or charging a fee for admission to the property is prohibited; renting the property for commercial tailgating or other group gatherings is prohibited; and the maximum occupancy of the house is a single household (or three unrelated people) that occupy the dwelling as a single housekeeping unit. The parameters in the affidavit mimic existing City Code — staff solicited the affidavit and recorded it with the property in anticipation of subsequent owners so they are fully aware of the rules and regulations associated with a dwelling in a single family zone. Staff has also received questions regarding the extension of Lusk Ave. With the initial set of plans for the house, a driveway was shown on the south side of the property which would have required the extension of Lusk Ave. The designer has let us know they are revising their plans to place the driveway on the north side of the house, consistent with the existing driveway to the old house, to connect to Lusk Ave, No extension of Lusk Ave is being contemplated. Enforcement: Many of the questions and concerns we have received are related to enforcement of parking regulations, lights, and noise. We would treat this property consistent with other residential properties in the City. On -street parking is permitted unless it is signed as 'No Parking.' If residents wish to petition to have a street designated as 'No Parking; our practice has been to survey the neighborhood and if a majority of affected households wish to limit parking on their street we would place the action item on the City Council consent calendar for approval — staff may initiate establishment of 'No Parking' if there is a signifioant and documented safety concern. Regarding lighting, City Code limits the height of private lights In a residential zone to 15-Feet in height; bulbs greater than 2,000 lumens must be fully shielded; and any floodlights used to illuminate private outdoor recreational facilities (such as swimming pools, tennis courts, etc.) must be turned off by 10:00 PM (City Code Section 14-513-3). Lighting concerns are enforced on a complaint basis. Regarding noise and disturbance, the CARLSON EXHIBIT 1 June 17, 2016 Page 2 City has adopted a disorderly house ordinance that restricts 'loud, raucous, disagreeable noises to the disturbance of the neighborhood" (City Code Section 6-5-5); this ordinance also allows Police to restore order on the subject property, including the authority to order the dispersal of persons on the property. 'Disorderly house' is a criminal offense with a penalty between $65.00 to $625.00 as determined by the Magistrate and is also a civil offense subject to a $750 municipal infraction for the first offense, and up to $1,000 for the second and subsequent offenses. Status of Building Permit: The building plans have been reviewed and approved. Pending resolution of the driveway location and submittal of a plan that shows the driveway connecting to the existing segment of Lusk Ave, the building permit will be issued. It should be reiterated that issuance of a building permit for a single family house on an existing single family property does not require any rezoning or subdivision action. Staff has no authority to control the design of a single family house in an area that is not a historic or conservation district, other than for code compliance. Conclusion: With the affidavit of use in hand and recorded with the property, staff is treating the proposed house as a single family structure, and Building Inspections staff will conduct inspections to ensure the structure meets building code. Any concerns or complaints about the use of the property will be treated consistent with how we treat complaints related to other residential properties in the City — including investigation of nuisance and criminal complaints, and citations if warranted. Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Elevations of proposed 101 Lusk Ave house 3. 101 Lusk Ave affidavit of use Cc: Doug Boothroy, Director, NDS Sara Hektoen, Assistant City Attorney Bob Miklo, Senior Planner Sarah Weiz, Associate Planner _nw fHSEEeEEE ins ��i.o-..�E,o i ZaxpUz =„- S -�i$ E€ Jm axmalnnuumi A 'Q 401 Type; OEM a% 10;38;ae AN fof x eKH 05 CW, a*="IXt=W 0Jmm R=r4 Ccc:a City al 'a Cky. 47¢"X¢ a3aa4 lwwCkY. Irma 52l"A3033S.5I21 &PfrlLDA,V.rr OF USE Tho unaersigaed Is oww ofate Nkvrio&� jkiVmrty Ioeated In Iowa City, loEwsm Cormy, Iowa, t .v&: hlsovBteAad&Bon Lot 1, Ato-& 14 Tba aftd addMw of ate plx Wiy IS 101 YANII Avenea In oohtsidermicer oftYte Cty's ftrtt>rmae in dta as�it of its C.odo of C,di, 1. Ths uutkntipcd bL=by admmiedgm the cmera m dag of am pxoytsty as Hsa 2. The rtnderd,Aw egtaae did m a:wmlonov with fro pwvkkm of the kw- chy ZAura,� Chfiaaaw 1a efiba oa this da6a, 00 esa of brie Prot=AV Is a *.rle frmtl l de*lhug rand tka the AD& A& @ nso muzi da Ia bt d x"J as sect, Commemw urea sshkh WW de the, sold of WOW pr adxowoa to the. FAlperty sra not PnMk' 4. URKIVA9 OR hire praparty mot aaa'_atto.; Jo da il4nn oT taitgn4ag'..naaa to the rnwa C IW ZftW8 ": �-sA—b°5'AU GATIM. A hcwal tto& iR gxnma dny femel axta1 pikariarytStet tsasati^�rta:..,a...... aaylnah3sacttaga:-ddtin:&gin�ao�QVWI(Ukoli•�sox--anairnhosc)7upartof the actlwilica. T-AbPor ;ry pffite§r3 on unkapmiod «urlhm *.¢w*t m prtn% pimp u,`y m nUor. od dmft tai p" Ocala No akehal is au at 2 talsrs^ rwr t any admkx agtd, goods cold or Ovtm �w:yy, aoraatvtcea ic^.ovldoi Para L Ila Vaff tht Pro_uarty for Wipt'ho or othwiarge grasp gotksrfw hr Pam. 3. Tha xmdnaigned up7es fret the max =mocharPmoy for em stogie anfy ditukg In ads xoud is n hmmdtotd (,6AU*) Phu we (1) :m muted Perm" or a mutmam of am (3) umr Pcepie A bovx7jold OwaRks satn* remffv dl*mWug as a daglo bftwjr4vpws uni L 4. Tho ¢dr =kftod Weas drat tbo MW t;, if hmM owrm om#ad, am only be k or xeaW uft &mkang a xmtidmamlpwytitfmmftCttyofatveChyandew,salybewow onatwathtomtonthatw; ,,;a 5. iha umhuaiPwl mess *A g tea PnVCVty Is owueoow,--AW aed ownw obtao na s J3�pht r4 Area im rw'W ponvA rbet no more that 3 bedroonre ®a tta pravidcd to gnrats who stay far pufmo not to 0=00 14 tlsya. G. This oltMwk most bo rti;cratiad wim the Jolmwn Ccwmty Remrow, mmd a copy of the heco'ded daram and uaumtafficdwbhthoCityaflowaC*DvatmMcfI.lousingendbmptw wSarver, Tttie deala idan abag bo bloding upon and da matt w the t e taft of dw baits, laget tops avas, srxwman and anlgm of are wdws(yoA and shall be btwbgou and shad ma wiatfae rife to fatlaopmy. -r ft 3 day of STATt OP IOTA .IOl1tmN,a)JT1IN )) Wiin e.cs i. v.rI Oa Ucis„( day of !r]� 207d, Cdau+a5 tlht uudrasi8aad aNatarY >?abira rn end for seld Caumy, fa effid S�,Pa1'>=PPrarai-tor/.,ry e� Sa � ^Ln- _C'u r F ac .-, _ to x,� lmnau M he ah0tie iekaticet pe�ang aamod is mad waq extecdal sae wiflhf0 and farho)ag bxshtuman, and ecluowkdrted War t6cy corgi a.. as ' vaL and daeA rAlW9Fs E.Etni tr`3R9Z3t3W e��__ �4F Conxaleelar Num(wr 96541?5 i lltmand fpt ihb:rol3glca.___._" �a , My mmissbn E,�kes �~J ?dy � rsgnms. - 7:gwr/ G o o-A 101 Lusk Ave. I have been asked to re -review the building permit for Lusk ave and here is what I have come up with. 1. RS-5 residential Zone: Permitted use 2. Front yard setback: 15 3. Side yard setback: South is 5', North is 22.5' 4. Rear yard: 41' These dimensions are all within the requirements of the zone. The single family dwelling has a driveway 3' off the north property line extending to the rear of the lot to the attached garage. This is a 5' bedroom 7 bathroom home. Each bedroom has an egress window including one in the basement and meets the 70 square feet minimum square footage. Smoke detectors will be provided in each bedroom and hallway leading to and on each floor level. A CO detector will be located outside sleeping areas. The S.F.D. has been met all the accessibility requirements as adopted by local amendment. The S.F.D. has all the tipical rooms such as a kitchen, family room, exercise room, living room, theatre room, three season room and bedrooms. The structure has a court yard in the center of the home and a sport court in the basement. The S.F.D, has a three car attached garage. Dwelling Units: 1 Bedrooms: 5 Bathrooms: 7 SQ footage: 5064(two floor levels) All minimum standards for a S.F.D. have been met. CARLSON EXHIBIT 2 I-TART-FRLDERICKCONSULTANTS,PC. ENGINEERS & SURVEYOR: 1 October, 2015 Prestige Propeities 239 E. Court St, Ste 2 Iowa City, IA 52240 Attn: Mike Oliveira Re: Sanitary Sewer Service to 101 Lusk Avenue —Iowa City, Iowa Dear Mr, Oliveira: - We have reviewed the video footage from the inspection of the sanitary. sewer service to 101 Lusk Avenue in Iowa City performed on September 23, 2015. Based on the video, we would not recommend using the existing service line in its current condition for the proposed additional single family homes. The tubercalation in the 4-inch diameter cast iron section of the service line will impede flow and possibly cause blockages and backups. The roots protruding through the pipe joints in the V CP section have been removed, but may re -grow in the future. These would again become sources of potential blockage and infiltration. Many of the joints are offset slightly from each other. The offsets could be considered minor and do not severely impede flow. The video camera did reach the manhole in this inspection and only two services discovered. T'be service to 631 Bayard Street was not found. This makes a total of four residential connects on the service line that is believed to be 6-inches in diameter. Typical standard practice for most cities is to require a minimum pipe diameter of 6-inches when more than one building is served by a single service line. According to the scwcr inspection equipment operator, cast iron portion of this service line is 4-inches in diameter. Based on the latest video inspection, we recommend a new 6-inch service line be installed to replace the 4-inch cast iron section of the existing service line. The remaining existing service line should be lined to prevent future root growth and infiltration. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call Scott Ritter, L.S., or myself at our office. S�elly�y, Benjamin A' Carho . P u. Bart -Frederick Consultants P.C. cc: Jason FIave], City of Iowa City enc: Video on USB Flash Drive $le 510 5=u, Street - P..O. Box 560 • Tiffin, IA 52340-0560 - 319-545-7215 • Pax: 319.545-7220 Pmginecring • Surveying • Planning w ..harvfiedericiccon Uri: Iry i- y 2\< ���/^ � . ����� `� •� z > \-:%�/ . �� . :/ , /� / �� \ \ \f � °_ / �}\ ` � 2 `\f � . �\ .. �\y� : / \� / < � � � \\ . �� \ \� d � � . � . \� \« \:\� 2ƒ\\ y 2\� ..� . k:\d<y\� «:� �� ,�>\\\. � . ..� . . . °r \� �<.. \ - ƒ «,. w � \� .°.� y.. :: 42 .� � .� » ». : / �� . . : < 2»2�� \:? : . « a. > . y w yw«� . . 2 , ,a<<» ? .., � . x r c ©t«©:yw: , � . w »� i� v . -.. v « .- .: . . w}y :\\� \. w . . a . d « f� ». � a, ©/ « > , _ >«� � °� \\?§>wy �»:< \�y: . ».zd ., \� v �� d s . . �� » m < � _ . \� � � v«.©«: ».� .«a»«e « e�� «} .<:\ a.� �. d~ . ,_ �' / . . � �� \� � \ %\\� � � � y. . .. , . ¥. y � � v<.. ,:«v®� ^ � .. . . . >\� \\� ` ~. .. y. y�y.�°/<<w.z.,wy°\ f ,\ \ ������ / � \ ��y������\\�wa«a\:..z y { � � �:�2 \�\ \\� \\��\\ psi' e trfG e.. .a@ Bld Number. 232 Da—rtment: Iowa City, City of 5 Axle, Turtling Performance Analysis Chassis: Impel Chassis, PUC, 2010 Body: Pumper, PUC, Alum Parameters: `t 1l2l2010 Inside Cramp Angle: 45° Axle Track: 82.02 In. Wheel Offset. 4.66 in, Tread Width 16.6 In. Chassis Overhang 781n. Additional Bumper Deptlx 10In. Front Overhang 04 in, Wheelbase: 1871n. Calculated Tumin€t Radll: _ hwide Turn: 14 ft. 6 in. ^ Curb to curb: 28 ft. 6In. Wail to Walt 33 ft. 3 in. Comments: Front, Oshkosh TAK-4, Non Drive, 22,800lb, so Wheels, Front 0019611 Wheels, Fri, Alum. Alcoa, 22,60"x 12.26" (426f & 38M 31 Tires, Front 0078244 Tires, Michelin, 42W65R22.50 20 ply XZY 3 tread 38 Bumpers 0123624 Bumper, 16" extended, ImpAtel Notes; Actual Inside Cramp Angle may be less due to highly specialized options. Curb to Curb turning radius calculated for a 8.00 inch curb. 1 Ord Number: Iowa City, City of Department: 1095 Tur-Ang Performance Analysis 51=005 Chassis: Dash-2000, Chassis, PAWSkyAnnWidmoutd Body: Aouial,Platform100%Alum Body S'araueters: Inside Damp Angle: 45' Axle 17ack:, 82-92 is Wheel offset 4.68 in, head Width: I6.60 in. Chassis Ovuhang: 65.99 in. Addilioaal Bumper Depth: 19.00 in. Front overhang: 143.60 in. Wbelbasa 260.00 in. Calculated Turning RAM Inside Turn: 20 ft. 7 is Curb to Crab: 36 R. 11 is Wall to Wall: 44 it 10 iu. Conunend:' . Components PRIDE# Description Aerial Devises 0022160 Aerial, IW Pierce Flstfntm Axle, Front, Custom 0013453 Axle, Front, Oshkosh TAIG4, Non Drive, 22,800 lb, DI V&fQWARr 11ros, Front 0079244 Tires, Michelin, 425/6SI222,50 20ply XZY 3 tread Wheals, Front 0019611 'Wheels, Frt, Alum, Alcoa, 22.50" x 12,25" (4251 dr 385ry Bumpers 0012245 Bumper, 19" extended- all chassis' Actual Inside tramp Angle may be less due to highly specialized options. Cu' to wrb taming radius calculated for a 9.00 inch curb. Site Dutek yam From: Terry Goerdt Terry-Goerdt@lowa-city.org> Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2016 &28 AM To: Tim Hennes Subject: RE: 101 Lusk Ave I did the calculations even with the Court included they are 100sf under the 45% ----Original Message ---- From: Tim Hennes Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2016 9:09 PM To: John Yapp Cc: Julie Tallman; Terry Goerdt Subject: Re: 101 Lusk Ave We wouldn't count the court yard as lot coverage, correct? Sent from my !Phone > On Jun 22, 2016, at 4:12 PM, John Yapp dohn-Yapp@lowa-clty.org> wrote: > Lets look at this tomorrow > ----Original Message ----- > From: Julie Tallman > Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2016 5:10 PM > To: John Yapp > Cc: Terry Goerdt; Tim Hennes > Subject: RE: 101 Lusk Ave > > That I don't know - I haven't reviewed the plan. > > ----- Original Message---- • From: John Yapp > Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2016 5:08 PM >To: Julie Tallman > cc: Terry Goerdt; Tim Hennes >Subject: Re: 101 Lusk Ave > Any lot coverage issue? > Sent from my !Phone » On Jun 22, 2016, at 4:50 PM, Julie Tallman Julie-Tallman@iowa-clty.org> wrote: » Single-family dwellings are exempt from the Sensitive Areas Ordinance (referencing the "grove" comment) as long as not more than 20,000 sf of land is disturbed for purposes of construction. According to the JoCo website, the lot is just shy of 12,200 sf. » » ----Original Message--- » From: John Yapp CARLSON EXHIBIT 3 » Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2016 4:26 PM » To: Terry Goerdt; Tim Hennes; Julie Tallman » Subject: FW: 101 Lusk Ave » More on lusk. Pis. review the points made below as time permits » »----Original Message---- » From: Geoff Fruin » Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2016 4:16 PM »To: Marian Karr; Eleanor M. Dilkes; John Yapp; Doug Boothroy; Simon Andrew » Subject: FW: 101 Lusk Ave » ---Original Message--- » From: Jim Throgmorton » Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2016 2:46 PM » To: Geoff Fruin » Subject: FW; 101 Lusk Ave » Geoff, 7> » Here's anotheremali raising questions and concerns about the building on Lusk Ave. » Mayor Jim Throgmorton » Iowa City City Council, At -Large » From: mhoetting@mchsi.com [mhoetting@mchsi.com] » Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2016 9:04 AM » To: Kingsley Botchway; Rockne Cole; Terry Dickens; Susan Mims; Pauline Taylor; John Thomas; Jim Throgmorton » Subject: 101 Lusk Ave » » Dear Council Members- » Thank -you so much for respecting our concerns regarding the unusual structure proposed for 101 Lusk Ave. » I am very pleased that you have put this issue on your agenda for the next council meeting. » I am hopeful, as someone completely unfamiliar with this process, that you will ask those who approved the site plan to go back and be sure their initial approval was accurate. In particular, I hope they will visit the site and be sure they do not see anything about the lot that raises red flags. I have 5 areas of concern: » 1. 1 hope the fire and safety access will be reviewed with thought to how many people this "home" is set up to host. 9 toilets is more than some of my favorite restaurants downtown such as Basta and Atlas. The infrastructure should be adequate to handle what the "home" is capable of handling, not the number Mr. Carlson says he plans to host as his thoughts may change over time.The fire marshal] may have recommendations on the number of people who could be allowed to use the home. There have been problems for rescue vehicles accessing this street for a neighborhood resident in the past so please check this. » 2. 1 hope the infrastructure such as street and sewer will be assessed to be sure It is adequate for the number of people the house can hold. The building permit states it is currently on hold due to sewer inadequacies. Is this a reason to block the project? » 3. 1 hope that all regulations regarding tree grove removal will be respected as quite a few large trees will have to be cut down to build this home. Unless the person approving the building permit has seen the property they will not realize how many will be removed. » 4. 1 hope the easement owned by Crandic railroad at the back of the property has been accurately surveyed and marked accurately on the site plans. >> S. I hope the green space to home square footage ratios have been respected. If the inner courtyard is counting as qualifying green space I would argue this does not meet the spirit of the law. >> I realize that we cannot regulate the look of everyone's home in our neighborhood. There are different opinions about what is attractive. The structure of this building, does, however, make quite obvious that is set up to host many more than would typically live in or visit a single family home, even one of 7400 sq feet, and I believe the city must look a second time at the capacity of the home and be sure all the infrastructure is adequate given that this is an old neighborhood with old infrastructure. Finding out after the fad that that the road is inadequate for an ambulance of fire truck could lead to legal problems. » >> Thanks, Marguerite Oetting >> 723 Bayard St Sue Dulek From: lahh-riiam@ioWa-city.org Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2016 1:34 PM To: jalby2445@gmaii.com; jimatbills@gmail.com; Kady@homewoodelectric.00m; office@homewoodelectric.com; zahaskyconstruction@gmail.com Subject_ Notice of Activity Building Address: 101 L.USK AVE Owner/Contractor : FREDERIC R & SANDRA M CARLSON Case Number: BID 16-00182 On 5/25/2016 the building inspector updated or added the following activity: Issue permit at the above referenced property. For additional and up-to-date information regarding this caselpermit, please follow this link: httt)://www.iowa-c,ity.orgitLn bin/tmw_cind.pl?tmw cmd=StatusViewCase&shl_caseno=BLD16-00182 CARLSON EXHIBIT 4 Sue Dulek From: Mike Oliveira <moliveira@prestigeprap,com> Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 3:16 PM To: Brian Greer Cc: Jann Ream Subject: RE: 101 Lusk Ave Thank you very much for your quick turnaround have a nice weekend. Mike From: Brian Greer[mailto:Brian-GreerQiowa-city.org] Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 2:35 PM To: 'Mike Oliveira' Cc: Jann Ream Subject: RE: 101 Lusk Ave Mike, We discussed the access and turnaround proposed and we believe it will enable our apparatus to turn around if necessary. I don't believe there were any other issues related to the fire department for this project, Let me know if you have any questions or concerns. Stay safe, Brian Brian T. Greer- Fire Marshal Iowa City Fire Department 410 E. Washington Street Iowa City, Ia, 52240 319-356-5257 CARLSON EXHIBIT 5 Brian_,grce, iiaNu va-c_it .ccr From: Mike Oliveira [mailto:moliveira(a nrestigeprov.com] Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 10:52 AM To: Brian Greer Cc: Jann Ream Subject: 101 Lusk Ave Hi Brian, We have been working with Jason Havel and Jann Ream and Doug Boothroy to split the lot at 101 Lusk Ave into two parcels for the past several months. Doug has finally given his approval of the attached lot spit design on the conditions we can get the last two open issues resolved. First, is the approval from the Fire Department of our design and second is getting an easement for the existing sewer line to satisfy Jason's group concerns outlined in a May 05, 2015 email. I have copied Jann Ream on this email just in case you have any questions with zoning issues. Let me know if you would like to meet with me and our engineer J. Scott Ritter, PLS from Hart -Frederick Consultants PC 510 State Street, PO Box 560, Tiffin, IA 52340-0560, P. 319-545-7215 P.319-545-7220. sritter(u�hart- fredecick.com Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Mike Oliveira General Manager Prestige Properties, LLC 319-400-1354 x 5 Sue Dulek From: Jann Ream <Jann-Rearn@iowa-cfty.org> Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2015 8:46 AM To: John Yapp Subject: RE: Lusk plat No - once 4 lots are created on this frontage, required setback averaging applies. Because 50% of the lots are developed (117 and 111 Lusk) and both of those properties are setback 5ft or more further than the current setback (15ft), then the required setback becomes the setback of the house closest to the street. 117 and 111 Lusk seem to be at exactly the same setback. When I measured on the GIS map, they were at about 20.2ft -this is, of course, approximate so I made the assumption that they were set at 20ft which was the required setback for RS-5 zones prior to the 2005 code. -----Original Message --- From: John Yapp Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2015 8:08 AM To: Jann Ream Subject: RE: Lusk plat Not sure if it changes anything, but I think the lot width would be measured at 15 feet not 20, no? -----Original Message ----- From: Jann Ream Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2015 4:45 PM To: John Yapp; Tim Hennes; Bob Miklo; Julie Tallman Cc: Jason Havel; Ron Knoche Subject: FW: Lusk plat Attached is the plat for Lusk with the dimensional adjustments that would have to be made in order for the two new lots to meet the required dimensional requirements, The new lot line would have to move south approximately 7ft (6.59' exactly). This would add 1,050 sf to the north lot for a total of 9,050sf and take away 1,050sf from the south lot for a total of 7,595sf. This is a problem since the minimum lot size is 8,000sf. If the new lot line was angled north from the east boundary to the west boundary, the square footage of the two lots could probably be balanced so they would both have a little over 8,000sf. The only potential problem I can see with that is maintaining the 60' width at the required front setback line which is 20ft back from the front lot lines. It would definitely be "threading the needle" to make that happen. They have about .5ft (1/2 foot) to play with but I think it could be done. —Original Message ---- From: hiscopier@ic.org [mailto:hiscopier@ic.org] Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2015 4:25 PM To: Jann Ream Subject This E-mail was sent from "H15-Ricoh-Copier" (Antic, MP 3350). Scan Date: 03.24.2015 16:25:10 (-0500) Queries to: hisconier@ic.ora CARLSON EXHIBIT 6 MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 10, 2016 — 5:15 PM EMMA HARVAT Hall, CITY HALL PRELIMINARY MEMBERS PRESENT: Larry Baker, Gene Chrischilles, Connie Goeb, Becky Soglin, Tim Weitzel MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: Susan Dulek, Sarah Walz OTHERS PRESENT: Adam Pretorius, Jessica Kinney, Cory Wilson CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 5:15 PM. ROLL CALL: A brief opening statement was read by Baker outlining the role and purpose of the Board and the procedures that would be followed the meeting. CONSIDERATION OF THE JULY 13, 2016 MEETING MINUTES: Goeb moved to approve the minutes of July 13, 2016. Weitzel seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed 5-0. SPECIAL EXCEPTION ITEM: Discussion of an application for a special exception submitted by Adam Pretorius to allow an eating establishment to be located in in the Planned Development Overlay, Low Density Single -Family Residential (OPD-5) zone at 1040 Martin St. Walz began the staff report showing an aerial photo of the site. The building is located on the corner next to the public square which is the centerpiece of the larger Peninsula development. The Peninsula development is unusual for Iowa City, it is a master -planned neighborhood. The entire neighborhood is zoned RS-5 and open space was set aside to allow for a more dense type of development. The master -plan also allowed for of residential types —single-family homes, townhomes, and multi -family buildings. The area around the public square allowed for a mixed of uses as well, there can be home -based businesses and more traditional commercial uses on the ground floor with residential uses above. Those uses were meant to primarily be neighborhood servicing such as office uses and retail uses. Eating establishments (restaurants, coffee houses, cafes, etc.) were not originally considered but were later written into the Plan to be allowed by special exception. This applicant is seeking approval for a coffee shop which is classified as an eating establishment. Board of Adjustment August 10, 2016 Page 2 of 7 Walz noted that the applicant has applied some time ago to create some parking along an area adjacent to the park and the City had approved that application. The creation of that additional parking is now moving forward. However, when Staff reviewed this application they based their decision on the on -street parking that is already available. On the weekends there is additional demand for off-street parking in the area, but staff did not find it to be unmanageable. Walz stated that the special exception application signs were posted on the site and neighbors within 300 feet were notified. There were a few phone calls but no one expressed any concern. Walz reminded the Board that a couple of years ago they approved a special exception for a neighboring property that has become a restaurant. The Board also approved a spot for a coffee shop at another location but that spot was taken by a retail use (Woofables). That special exception has now expired. Since this new proposed coffee shop is in a different location a new special exception is necessary. Walz showed photos of the area and building and proposed floor plans for the coffee shop. The front portion will be used for the public coffee area and what was the garage for the building will be converted into backroom storage space. Staff feels that given the limited square footage of the space that garage conversion seems essential but do feel it is important to restrict the customer space to not include that area that would need an additional special exception. With regards to the standards, Walz stated because this proposed shop is small in size and located in a remote area of Iowa City it will limit the market for the property, and therefore not overwhelm the area with traffic or create a burden on the surrounding neighborhoods. The customer space is only 766 square feet and the storage area will only be 377 square feet. The residential uses for the building will be parking in private parking spaces behind the building. The building is entirely built so the only thing that would need further review will be exterior lighting on the building which has to be reviewed by the building inspector to assure it meets City standards. There are also strict rules on signage which will also be reviewed. The application seems consistent with the other commercial uses in the area (the restaurant) which has received no complaints from the neighborhood. Staff recommends approval of a special exception to allow an eating establishment to be located at 1040 Martin Street, subject to the following conditions: Hours of operation are limited to 10 PM weeknights; 11 PM on Fridays and Saturdays. Amplified sound on the exterior of the building is prohibited. Outdoor alcohol service requires an OSA permit. All aspects of the commercial establishment are limited to the first floor of the building: 766 feet of commercial space for customer access and operations for the eating establishment; 377 square feet to be used as backroom storage only. Chrischilles asked if the outdoor seating is already included in this plan. Walz confirmed it is, showing on a site plan where the outdoor seating would be and that it will be on private property not on the public sidewalk. Soglin asked what the proposed hours of operation would be for this coffee shop and what the hours of the other commercial uses in the area are. Walz said the restaurant is allowed to be open until 10 PM on weekdays and 11 PM on Fridays and Saturdays. She noted the hour limits set forth in the special exception go with the property, not the business. Soglin stated her concern with the hours is if the restaurant is open until 11 PM, the workers are likely out of there until midnight, and then if a coffee shop is opening at 6 AM there may be deliveries even earlier Board of Adjustment August 10, 2016 Page 3 of 7 so that between the two businesses there is a lot of activity almost 24 hours per day. Weitzel asked about the conditions places on the outdoor alcohol service. Walz said to serve alcohol outdoors would require the owners to apply for a special permit. An outdoor service area permit does not stay with a property, each individual business must apply annually. Dulek noted it is an annual review as well, along with the liquor permit. Goeb asked for clarification where the outdoor seating area would be. Walz said there is a little in the front of the building with the majority around the corner. Goeb asked if there was on - street parking in that area and Walz confirmed there was all around the pubic square. Baker asked if there was any requirement for parking. Walz replied there was not, the concept for this area was for the businesses to be neighborhood businesses that pedestrians could use, and not have large parking areas to generate additional traffic to the area. Baker also asked about the additional parking and if that was the applicant's property or the City's. Walz said it was the City's and they gave the applicant permission to take part of the grass area within the public right-of-way to create parking with the approved special exception. The park is not a public park, it is owned and maintained by the homeowners association. Baker is concerned in the report where it states "Staff has observed that there appears to be sufficient on -street parking to serve the use." and Baker has been out in that area several times a week and feels that parking is not sufficient and is a mess in that area. Walz stated that the neighborhood is designed to have an urban pedestrian feel and while there are many cars parked along the streets, that can slow traffic and create what feels like an issue but that does not mean there is an inadequate amount of parking. Additionally the idea of the coffee shop is that people from the neighborhood will be walking to it, not all driving there. Baker noted that under the Staff recommendation "Amplified sound on the exterior of the building is prohibited" but what if there is amplified sound coming from inside the building that can be heard outside? Dulek said that would be addressed through neighborhood complaints. Weitzel asked in general if there were any restrictions on opening hours anywhere else in town. Walz said there may be some restrictions on certain uses but could not think of any. Dulek was also not sure there were any restrictions on opening hours, however said there are restrictions on noise in certain hours (such as deliveries). Baker opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to come forward and address the Board. Adam Pretorius (670 Walker Circle) addressed some of the questions the Board raised. There will be 410 households in the Peninsula neighborhood at the time of completion, they are about 9 months from that completion date. There are currently about 2.5 residents per household so there will be about 1000 residents in this neighborhood. There are also neighboring developments (Mackinaw with 1,000 residents) that the business will be marketed to. The coffee shop is looking to capitalize on the park, noting that the bus stop is right across the street. The first bus of the day comes at 6:30 a.m. There are a lot of law, dental and medical folks from The University of Iowa that take the bus into work each day. Therefore the hours of operation they would propose would be 6 AM to 2 PM with the height of their traffic expected between 6 AM and 8 AM. Pretorius noted that they did tell their developer that the five parking spaces across the street must be completed for the purchase of this property. The five spaces Board of Adjustment August 10, 2016 Page 4 of 7 will be diagonal parking spaces and the homeowners association will maintain the spaces (snow removal, etc.). The parking will have no restrictions (no time limits) and will be open to all (not just for the coffee shop). Pretorius noted that as a resident of the area, he had expected an increase in traffic when the restaurant opened and was pleasantly surprised that did not happen. He also clarified that each commercial unit has a one -car garage, the restaurant did have two but converted theirs into a kitchen and dry storage area. Pretorius also said they have no intent to use their dry storage area ever for the public. He noted that they have applied for both a permit for retail and for food service, the primary focus is the coffee shop but in the future may want to add in some retail items similar to a mini -mart and also said they do not have an intent at this time to obtain an alcohol license, but that could come up later. Their main goal is to compliment but not compete with the restaurant (Apres Bistro — whose current hours are 5 PM to 10 PM weekdays and 5 PM to 11 PM on Friday and Saturday). With regards to music there will be music played inside but no intent to have it outside. For signage there will be a 6 by 2 foot sign that will be on the corner of the building and is non -illuminated. Soglin asked about deliveries and when those would be expected. Pretorius responded that they have not figured out the logistics yet of who would be doing the deliveries but are in discussions with the company that Apres Bistro uses and they usually deliver around 2 PM. Soglin asked how many employees they expect. Pretorius said their initial pro forma shows two in the busy hours and just one during other times of the day. Soglin noted they would likely need to drive into the area for their jobs so that would contribute to additional parking. Pretorius agreed. Goeb asked about summer hours and being open later to serve ice cream. Pretorius said they have tabled the ice cream idea for now, eventually they might like to be open later on Friday and Saturday for that, but they will need to revisit that at a later date. Dulek stated that from the City Code it does state that "no person should load or unload crates, containers, building materials, garbage cans or similar objects outdoors between 10 PM and 6 AM" so therefore there should not be deliveries at 4 AM. Jessica Kinney (co-owner of the coffee shop) will be taking primary responsibility for the execution of the menu, staffing and front of the house operations. The menu will not be extensive, focus will be on the coffee service, with about five items offered for breakfast and lunch. It will be pretty basic with sandwiches and grab-n-go items. Cory Wilson (1451 Foster Road) lives in the area and works for the development office. He stated the neighborhood is pretty excited for a coffee shop in the area. With regards to the parking and the curb cuts, the design of the park had the sidewalk set back with the intention of future parking there. They will also put in some landscaping once the parking is in to tie it all into the neighborhood. Baker closed the public hearing. Weitzel moves to approve a special exception to allow an eating establishment to be located at 1040 Martin Street, subject to the following conditions: 1. Hours of operation are limited to 10 PM weeknights; 11 PM on Fridays and Saturdays. Board of Adjustment August 10, 2016 Page 5 of 7 2. Amplified sound on the exterior of the building is prohibited. 3. Outdoor alcohol service requires an OSA permit. 4. All aspects of the commercial establishment are limited to the first floor of the building: 766 feet of commercial space for customer access and operations for the eating establishment; 377 square feet to be used as backroom storage only. Chrischilles seconded the motion. Weitzel finds that the use draws from the neighborhood itself which was primarily intended to have some small commercial uses as specified in the Staff Report, Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. Soglin stated regarding agenda item she concurs with the findings set forth in the Staff Report of August 10, 2016 and conclude the general and specific criteria are satisfied unless amended or opposed by another Board member he recommends that the Board adopt the findings in the Staff Report as our findings with acceptance of this proposal. A vote was taken and the motion passed 5-0. Baker stated the motion declared approved, any person who wishes to appeal this decision to a court of record may do so within 30 days after this decision is filed with the City Clerk's Office. I -TOYA NIXO]y_l11"I" IIJiI=101k9101UISI1Ji/_rIM01 Soglin noted that the Board had an application the previous year (EXC15-00012) regarding the MidWestOne Bank at Rochester and First Avenue and now that construction of that is underway she noted that much more of the building has been torn down than she had anticipated from the application. She asked if Staff could review. 211PL6I1I:LIJiI=1.kI Weitzel moved to adjourn. Soglin seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed 5-0 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ATTENDANCE RECORD NAME TERM EXP. 9/14 10/14 12/16 1/13 2/17 3/9 4113 6/15 7/13 8/10 BAKER, LARRY 1/1/2017 X X X X O/E X X X X X GOEB, CONNIE 1/1/2020 X X X X X X X X X X GRENIS, BROCK 1/1/2016 X O/E X CHRISCHILLES, T. GENE 1/1/2019 X X X X X X X O/E X X SOGLIN, BECKY 1/1/2018 X X X X X X O/E X X X WEITZEL, TIM 1/1/2021 X X X X X X KEY: X=Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused --- = Not a Member LATE HANDOUTS AND PRESENTATIONS* BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SEPTEMBER 14, 2016 • items provided by the Appellants • items from the Attorneys representing the Board of Adjustment • items provided by staff. These include handouts from various departments ("City Staff"), the power point presented by staff, and floor plans and elevations of the proposed building *DOCUMENTS RECEIVED TO DATE (September X,, 2016) to Marian Karr From: Sarah Walz Sent: Monday, September 19, 2016 2:12 PM To: Marian Karr Subject: handouts (message 1 of 3) Attachments: Appellants' Exhibits - Full Binder.pdf, Appellants.pdf Attached are items provided by the Appellants at the meeting on 9.14.2016. Sarah Sarah Walz CITY OF IOWA CITY and METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION OF JOHNSON COUNTY 410 East Washington St. Iowa City, IA 52240 319-356-5239 UTILITV Iowa S. Gilbert Street 319.336.7557 SOLUTIONShbkIowa City, IA 52240 hbkengineering.com iNFRASTRllCTURE Project Number: A16-0760 SETE IN,VESTWFATION REPORT 101 Lusk Avenue, Iowa City, 52246 Manville Addition, Lot 1, Block 14 Prepared for: Neighbors of Manville Heights Association August 30, 2016 UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE SOLUTIONS hbk ENGINEERING Project Number: A16-0681 Contents Introduction and Summary of Findings....................................................................................... 2 SanitarySewer............................................................................................................................ 3 Fire Department Access and Coverage...................................................................................... 3 SitePlan......................................................:............................................................................... 4 Storm Sewer and Stonnwater Management............................................................................... 4 SiteHistory .................................................................................................................................... 5 SiteTopography........................................................................................................................... 5 Easements and Encroachments.................................................................................................. 5 Floodplain.................................................................................................................................... 5 GeotechnicalConditions.............................................................................................................. 5 SensitiveArea.............................................................................................................................. 5 Zoning.......................................................................................................................................... 5 Figure 1: Site Topography........................................................................................6 Figure 2: International Fire Code - Selected Sections................................................7 Figure 3: Project Site — 2014.................................................................................. 11 Figure 4: Project Site — 2012.................................................................................. 11 Figure 5: Project Site — 2011.................................................................................. 12 Figure 6: Project Site 2008.................................................................................. 12 Figure 7: Project Site — 1990s................................................................................ 13 Figure 8: Project Site 1970s................................................................................ 13 Figure 9: Project Site — 1960s................................................................................ 14 Figure 10: Project Site - 1950s............................................................................... 14 Figure 11: Project Site - 1930s................................................................................ 15 Figure12: Zoning Map........................................................................................... 16 Appendix..................................................................................................................................... 17 Appendix 1: MMS Consultants Site Plan Appendix 2: Hart -Frederick PC Letter Appendix 3: Proposed Sewer Improvements Appendix 4: Fire Access Improvements — Option 1 Appendix 5: Fire Access Improvements — Option 2 Appendix 6: City of Iowa City Fire Flow Information Appendix 7: Runoff Information Appendix 8: Opinion of Cost UTILITY � r INFRASTRUCTURE bid SOLUTIONS 1111��' ENGINEERING Project Number: A16-0760 Introduction and Summary of Findings HBK Engineering prepared this report to evaluate the proposed site plan submitted to the City of Iowa City for the property located at 101 Lusk Avenue. The 0.38 acre site is located at the south end of Lusk Avenue in the Manville Heights neighborhood in Iowa City. HBK Engineering evaluated the proposed site plan as it relates to zoning regulations and public utilities. The proposed site plan submitted to the City of Iowa City is depicted in the Appendix. The following summarizes HBK Engineering's findings: The site has a non -conforming sanitary sewer service as it relates to current code and standards • Service is shared with 2 other properties (111 Lusk Avenue & 117 Lusk Avenue) • Service crosses multiple properties • There is no documentation of an easement or other agreement for the shared sewer • There are no cleanouts provided on the existing sanitary sewer line There is inadequate fire flow available for the proposed building • 2,250 gallons per minute (gpm) fire flow is required for the proposed building (assuming Type V-B construction) • 1,584 gpm fire flow is projected by the City of Iowa City to be available at the property via the existing water main on Lusk Avenue There is inadequate access for fire apparatus • Access road (Lusk Avenue) is 20'-8" wide and parking is allowed on one side • Fire code requires unobstructed access road that is at least 20 feet wide and marked with "No Parking — Fire Lane" signs • Lusk Avenue is 155' long and dead ends with no means for turn around Fire code requires "approved" turn around for access roads longer than 150 feet There are concerns with the site plan • Proposed driveway conflicts with existing fire hydrant • How will the site be graded? • How will storm water be managed to prevent erosion? • How will adjacent properties be protected from damage during construction? UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE . SOLUTIONS hbk ENGINEERING Project Number: A16-0760 Site Location and Description The project site is approximately 0.38 acres and is located on the west side of Lusk Avenue approximately 150-feet south of the intersection of Lusk Avenue and Bayard Street in the Manville Heights neighborhood in Iowa City. The Lusk Avenue pavement terminates in a dead end in front of the subject property without a cul-de-sac or other means of vehicle turnaround. Sanitary Sewer The site is currently served by a private sewer line that runs across the adjacent property to the north. This line is shared by the subject property (101 Lusk Avenue), 111 Lusk Avenue, and 117 Lusk Avenue. There is no record of an easement for this sewer. The service varies in size from 8 inches at the downstream, 6 inches at intermediate points, and 4 inches when it reaches the subject property. The 6 inch portion of the pipe is believed to have sections both cast iron and clay pipe. The 4 inch portion is cast iron. The private sewer was televised by Action Sewer on August 8, 2016. The televising started at the manhole in Bayard Street and proceeded upstream for approximately 81 feet at which point the crew was unable to advance the equipment further. HBK was able to document the location of the line in the field during this work. This same sewer line was also televised on September 23, 2015 by the previous owner of 101 Lusk Avenue. At that time, they were able to enter the service line from the residential home located at 101 Lusk Avenue and traverse the entire length of the service line. The previous owner hired Hart -Frederick Consultants, PC (HFC) to review the data collected. HFC concluded that the existing 4-inch portion of the service line should be replaced with a new 6-inch line and the existing 6-inch portion of the service line should be lined to prevent future intrusion of tree roots. Relaying and lining the private service would require the approval from the other property owners served by the private sewer. Refer to the Appendix for a copy of the HFC letter. City staff has reviewed the downstream public sanitary sewer located in Bayard Street and has determined that these sewers are capable of handling the sanitary discharges from the proposed building. The Uniform Plumbing Code 2015 (UBC 2015 311.0) states that "The drainage system for each new building ... shall be separate and independent from that of any other building, and, where available, every building shall have an independent connection with a public or private sewer." Installation of a separate and independent sewer would require the construction of approximately 330 feet of public 8 inch sanitary sewer and two manholes in Bayard Street and Lusk Avenue. Refer to the Proposed Sewer Improvement exhibit and associated cost estimate in the Appendix. Fire Department Access and Coverage The property is served by the Iowa City water department. The water main is located near the centerline of Lusk Avenue and the water service connects to this main. There is a fire hydrant located in the Lusk Avenue right-of-way near the northeast corner of the subject property and another located at the intersection of Bayard Street and Lexington Avenue. Each of these hydrants is within 400 feet of the proposed building. Refer to the Fire Access exhibits in the Appendix. The following items are required by the 2015 International Fire Code (2015 IFC). Refer to Figure 2. (htto7//codes iccsafe oro/aoo/book/toc/2015/1-Codes/2015 IFC HTML/index.html) UTILITY 1 INFRASTRUCTURE K SOLUTIONS ENGINEERING Project Number: A16-0760 507.5.1 — onsite hydrants shall be provided if any point of building is more than 400 feet from a hydrant located on an access road • B105.1 — required fire flow is 2,250 gpm for a 2-hour duration • C102.1 — 2 hydrants are required for the proposed building • C103.1 maximum hydrant spacing shall be 400 feet • D103.1 — required width of fire apparatus access road is 26 feet where road is adjacent to fire hydrant • D103.4 — fire apparatus access roads in excess of 150 feet shall provide approved turnaround. Minimum unobstructed road width is 20 feet. The building permit application does not specify the type of construction; therefore, the construction type is assumed to be Type V-B as defined in the International Building Code, 2015 edition. According to the plans submitted to the city, the proposed building has a total floor area of 7,476 square feet. This results in a required fire flow of 2,250 gpm as depicted in Table B105.1 of the 2015 IFC. The City of Iowa City performed flow testing on August 22, 2016. This test indicated that the available fire flow at 101 Lusk Avenue is 1,584 gpm (Refer to the Appendix for a copy of the flow data). This does not meet the code requirements for available fire flow. The existing pavement on Lusk Avenue is 20-feet wide and extends 155'-5" south of Bayard Street. Parking is allowed on one side of the street. The existing pavement terminates prior to reaching the south property line. The street does not meet the access requirements. There is insufficient room for parking while allowing a 20' unobstructed lane. The street also lacks an approved turn around. The public right-of-way on Lusk Avenue is 50-feet wide. This is insufficient width for the required turn around options. Refer to the Fire Access exhibits in the Appendix for evaluation of the improvements required to meet the. access requirements. A cost estimate was prepared for Fire Access Option 2. This cost estimate is included in the appendix. Site Plan The Site Plan that was prepared by MMS Consultants on March 15, 2016 was reviewed for completeness and concerns impacting the neighborhood. Refer to the Appendix for a copy of the site plan. HBK Engineering has identified the following items of concern: 1. The proposed driveway appears to conflict with the existing hydrant located near the northeast property corner. 2. It is unclear how the site will be graded and how this will impact adjacent properties. There is approximately six feet of elevation change along the west wall of the building and four feet of elevation change along the east wall of the building. In addition, there is minimal separation between the driveway and the north property line. The site plan does not indicate how these elevation changes will be accounted for and what, if any, impacts this may have on adjacent property owners. Storm Sewer and Stormwater Management The site is not currently or planned to be served by storm sewer. Runoff from the site flows overland generally from the west to the east to Lusk Avenue where it then flows south along the pavement. Upon reaching the end of the pavement the runoff continues to the south into the ravine located along the CRANDIC railroad. Once in the railroad right-of-way, the runoff flows east and ultimately discharges to the Iowa River. UTILITY L INFRASTRUCTURE i b SOLUTIONS 1 1 „JJJ ENGINEERING Project Number: A16-0760 There is evidence of erosion at the point where the runoff leaves the pavement at the south end of Lusk Avenue. The Iowa City code has no post -construction stormwater requirements for a single- family residence that is not part of a larger, common plan of development. The site is less than 1 acre; therefore, there are not any Iowa DNR requirements related to stormwater management or construction site runoff. The projected runoff from the developed site is calculated to be 1.37cfs and 2.09 cfs for the 10-year and 100-year rainfall events, respectively. Refer to the Runoff Information exhibit in the Appendix. Site History The 1,700 square foot single family residence that had formerly occupied the property was demolished. City assessor records indicate that this house was constructed in 1917. There are presently no structures on the site. Review of the City Assessors' data indicates that the houses on the adjacent properties were constructed at the beginning of the 20th century and available aerial photography from the Johnson County Property Information View (https://cis.iohnson- countv.com/piv/) indicates that there has been little change to these properties since the 1930s (first period aerial photography is available). The area surrounding the site has not seen major changes other than the construction of the VA Hospital in the 1950s and subsequent expansions to the VA facilities. Refer to Figures 4 — 12. Site Topography This site slopes from the northwest corner towards the southeast corner with approximately 13-feet of fall across the site. The site generally drains from the northwest to the southeast. Refer to Figure 1. Easements and Encroachments A desktop review of the subject property did not find any easements on the property. A boundary survey has not been completed; however, there are no obvious encroachments from adjacent properties. Floodplain Consultation of FEMA flood plain mapping indicates that the site is not within or adjacent to a floodplain. The site is contained on FEMA Panel 19103C0195E. Geotechnical Conditions Geotechnical exploration has not been performed on the property; however, review of the Soil Survey of Johnson County Iowa indicates that the soils are generally classified as Fayette Silt Loam which is generally well drained and found on gently sloping sites. When surface vegetation is removed erosion is a hazard. Sensitive Areas The site does not contain features subject to the Iowa City Sensitive Areas Ordinance. Zoning The property is currently zoned RS5 (Low Density Single Family Residential). Refer to Figure 12. The applicable zoning requirements for RS5 zoning are: 1) Building height. The maximum building height shall be 35 feet 2) Front yard setback a. A front yard of 15 feet is required b. No more than 50% of the front setback may be covered with impervious surface 3) Side yard setback a. Aside yard of 5 feet is required for the first two stories b. Two (2) feet must be added for each additional story beyond the first two stories A UTILITY 1 INFRASTRUCTURE j� SOLUTIONS k ENGINEERING Project Number: A16-0760 4) Rear yard setback a. A rear yard of 20 feet is required. The proposed site plan appears to meet the setback requirements; however, it is unclear how the height of the structure will be determined. This could increase the required side yard setback. Figure 1: Site Topography W 91 UTILITY ` hbk INFRASTRUCTURE SOLUTIONS ENGINEERING Project Number: A16-0760 Figure 2: International Fire Code - Selected Sections SECTION 8105 FOW-FLOW REQUIREMENTS FOR BUILDINGS 8105.1 One- and two-famlty dxrelRngs, Group R-3 and R-4 bllldings and townhouses. The mk*nwn INe-lbw and lbw dlrcaRln requirements for one- and two- ly dwafts, Grob R3 and R4 buildings and townhouses shall be as speci5ed In Tables B105.1(1) and B105.1(2). TABLE 8105.1(1) REQUNLEO FRE-FLOW FOR ONE -AND 7WO-FAMLY DWELL OS, GROUP R-3 AND R-4 BUILDINGS AND TOWNHOUSES MINIMUM FIRE- IIf EFL00Y FCAI.CMEZLMtAREA MJTOMATIC.SPRVIKLER SYSTEM FLDw FLOWDURATION (sq�) tDeega�idard) IPaeasPar (home) ieoiu0e 03,600 No moderate winkles systarn 1.000 t 3,601 andyater Nlo.aulnmmcapnnldasysioni ValnnTdtle Duraioneiiable B105.1(2)a19re B newunedfireftwride OJ,fi00 Sacs 11M-3.13afda ma mlernsfReCodeareecGmloND4 500 , h o[lhalnhmef"ReidwiffiNCods So5m90:13.13ofgalnbmakwfFawCodear3eeliai P2904 ihvaluesi Tale 3601 andgreaer dBu MkareSmd Reddem"Gode 0105.1(2) 1 For SI:1 snuae foe=O.DM ar,1 gallonpaainds=3.785Um. TABLE B105.1(2) REFERENCE TABLE FOR TABLES 0165.1(1) AND B1052 ra1E4:101WCILLCULATION ARFA RRE-FL*W Wa&mpwaft FLOWDURATION (h—) Type and Type AA and MA' MNand VA' ype SB aid MB Type V-B' 0-?2,70D 0-12,7w "-,W 03,900 0AGM 7500 22,701-W= 12,70147.000 8,20140.900 5,901-7,900 3,601-4,800 1.750 30.2M-38,7(D 17,0D1.21,800 10,90142,900 7,9M-9,800 4,801-6A00 2,000 2 38,70148,300 2tSM-24,200 12.90147.400 %M-12,600 6,201-7,700 2,250 48,30t-59,000 24"-33,2M 17A01-2'1,30D 12AM45AM 7,701-SACD 2,500 S9,0D1-70,9DD 33,2111-39,700 21,301-25,500 15,40148AM 9.40141,E 2,750 70,9111-A700 39,70117,100 25,SMMM 10D UM-21,800 11,30143,400 3,000 83,70157,706 47,101E6,91X! 30,f01-35,20D 21,801,25,90D 13,41M45,60 3LOD3 9T701-112,700 54$D1L3,400 35,201d0,WD 25,901-29,300' 15,60i-i8,: 3,SI0 112,701-t20, 63.4M-71,400 41IM-46,400 29,301-33,5f10 1$001 600 3,79D 1ffij01-145, 72,40fA2,/00 46.401-5'{SDO 33,50/-3T,900 20.601-23,ffi0 4,00 FwSt 1 agiwrefaa1=0.09ffi nil, 7 gallon perms ift-3.7851ha,1 found pa aqusn inch=6.895lips. a. Types demsbrx8on are band on am IrdulraAnndfluffifmg Ccde. b, Mentioned affi psi residual proseum UTILITY hbk INFRASTRUCTURE SpIUTIpNS ENGINEERING Project Number: A16-0760 SECTION C102 NUMBER OF FIRE HYDRANTS C102.1 M iinknum number of fire hydrants for a building. The number of Ike hydrants available to a budding shall be not less than the minimum spec0fed In Table C102.1. TABLE C102.1 REQUIRED HUM 13ER AND SPACING OF FIRE HYDRANTS RRIEZIM REOU@FaIENT 19Prni massed NUMBER OF HYDRANTS AYEAAGESPACRIG a MWT=N HYDRANTS' acts 11111611 MMUU DISTANCE FRM ANY POIp ON MEEF OR ROAD FININTAGETOAHYDRANTACS 1,7morbss 1 500 25D 2.000-2,260 2 460 225 2500 3 450 225 3,000 3 400 225 3.6004,900 4 36D 210 4501145,O111) 5 300 la0 50D 6 300 100 6,000 6 250 ISO 6004,0110 7 250 ISO 7.500amara 6ormoe• 200 120 ForSL t rw1= 304.8 can,1 salon peracirui=3.7e5trm. a. Red" by 105fnot1,ordeadAc d atreab ermads. to Where aieeb a2prorided wNr ncedcen dnidersdmiawot he crossed by for Reba pdfeg IaaceNr� aortae artaidatreeb are pravitle0vxYe faro, maebaae laws and haven haft eoalloFmora flan 36,Ore vahicbs per dry, hydedspaug deal E -98SO0 i®ton each side office sheet and be Merged on an a3wuag bn'n c. Where navwatermaiw are ndinded SWOdareetswhare hydrants are nod needed borpralecsm ofahu:bres oraandwrw proNems, Tee hydrate side be provided al apxig nab exceed 1,0W barb Wv4da for bawponasmM1a,,,ds. d. Raduceby50 batter dead-end abeam or roads. e. One hydanefor each 1,0sssedans per ntinubortraction daent. f. A 561,ncmdapa irg bcnwa and bePermitted wiwreto bnddine secrapped SavghoutvAh an approved auaanahe aprNdersyeaan or accordance wid, sxmn 903.3.1.1 aide, International Fire Cods. g. A25ya ondpacig eereaze ahaff be w1mowha adw busdog aegtipyed dacaghai Walh an approved ananaft yai ldrsysten in 3� accordance wdh Section 9033.1o,to W ae6cnalfte GoolverSecfian P2904 afda hianuiandReaidentid Code. SECTION C103 FIRE HYDRANT SPACING C103.1 Hydrant spacing. Fire apparatus access mods and public streets providing required access to buildings in accordance with Section W3 of the hAsmadPonal Flea Code shad be provided wi0t one or more fens hydrants, as determined by Section C102.1. Whom more than one in hydnW is required, the distance between required fire hydrants shall be In accordance vM Sections C103.2 snid C103.3. C103.2 Average spacing. The average spacing between ore hydrants shell be in accordance wth Table C102.1. Exception. The average spacing shed be penr ed to be increased by 10 percent where existing ire hydrants provide all or a portion of the required number of fire hydrants. C703.3 Mfaxlrman spacing. The maximum spacing between ire hydrants shall be In accordance with Table C102.1. SECTION C104 CONSIDERATION OF EXISTING FIRE HYDRANTS C104.1 Existing fire hydrants. Existing Are hydrants on public streets are allowed to be considered as available In most the requirements of Sections C102 and C103. Existing firs hydrants on adjacent properties are allowed to be cansidered as available to meet Are reglmements of Sections C102 and C103 provided that a fire apparatus access mad extends between properties and that an easement is established to prevent obstruction of such roads. UTILITY . hbk INFRASTRUCTURE SOLUTIONS ENGINEERING Project Number: A16-0760 SECTION D101 GENERAL 0101.1 Scope. Fire apparatus access roads shall be It accordance w0h this appendix and all other applicable requirements of the International Fire Code. SECTION D102 REQUIRED ACCESS D102.1 Access and loading. Facilities, buildings or portions of buildings hereafter constructed shall be accessible to fire department apparatus by way of an approved fire apparatus access road with an aspha0, concrete or other approved driving sur%ce capable of supporting the Imposed load of fire apparatus weighing at least 75.000 pounds (34 050 kg}. SECTION. D103 MINIMUM 0103.1 Access road vuidth with a hydrard. Where a fire hydrant Is located on a fire apparatus access road, the minMum road wk th shall be 26 het (7925 mm), exclusive of shoulders (see Figure D103.1). er � m aY R 74• aY C D4)6E i (aFOOTY iaaAllM Ud.-0E� > � 1 m L ro zeR roJ �• m m• PCCEPTIat.E KIERNA71 VE tIItl HAMMERREOD TO190'IMMERlEAO Far 51:1 root= 304.8 mm. FIGURE D103.1 DEAD-END FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROAD TURNAROUND UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE bk SOLUTIONS ENGINEERING Project Number: A16-0760 0103.2 Grade. Fire apparatus access roads shad not exceed 10 percent In grade. Exoephon: Grades steeper than 10 percent as approvedby the fire chief. D103.3 Turning radlus. The mWmwn tuamktg MOW shred be detemnined by the five code o16,7ai. D103A Dead ends. Dead-end fire apparatus access roads In excess of 150 feet (45 720 mm) shall be pmvltled with width and tumaround KOV ISO xis ht accordance wdh Tattle D103A. TABLE D103A REQUIRPAS:NTS FOR DEAD-END FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROADS %TURNAROUNDS REQUIRIM 71,30150 20 Nore reauvW 20 i2ildootitanxnnl,cad, 6p rcot-q°or9r*rmtds Cd-da nxc�eWhF uDi03.1 20 126toatFismwd,ead.d0-Toatry'or96ioot tliamWrmd.deaa in WXMW"v,.`.hF D103.1 y For St11wt=30+.8r - D103.6 signs. Where regt&ad by the fe code aflk/a1, fire apparatus access roads shad be marked with pemrenent NO PARKING —FIRE LANE signs complying with Figure D103.6. S''Wm shelf have a minimum dimension of 12 Itches (305 mm) wkle by 18 k"es (457 mm) high and have red letters on a white reflac6ve background. Sights shall be posted on one or both sly or the fire apparatus had as required by Section DI03.6.1 or D103.6.2. arwrnE•,r acwrn+E•e- txarttrvEv rr raM°uaus rAmm T MUM FaEIAtE raruAha ,C FIGURE 0103.6 FIRE LANE SIGNS D103.6.1 Roads 20 to 26 feet In rNdth. Fire lane a" as specified In Section D103.6 shad be posted on both shies of fire apparatus access roads that are 20 to 26 feet Wide (6096 to 7925 mm). D1103.5.2 Roads more than 26 feet in width. Fke Btre signs as specified in Section D103.6 shad be posted on one side of fire apparatus access roads more than 26 feet wide (7925 mm) and less than 32 feet wide (9764 mm). Ift GD UTILITY L bk INFRASTRUCTURE ]j solarrlows ENGINEERING Project Number: A16-0760 Figure 5: Project SiN - 2017 Figure 6: Project Site - 2008 12 UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE SOLUTIONS hbk ENGINEERING Project Number: A16-0760 Figure 7: Project Site -1990s —AR Figure 8: Project Site - 1970s 13 UTILITY ih, )3 ,, INFRASTRUCTURE �..J {[" SOLUTIONS �.J1� ENGINEERING Project Number: A16-0760 W1 Figure 9, Project Site — 1950s Figure 10: Project Site - 1950s 14 UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE SOLUTIONS hbk (ENGINEERING Project Number: A16-0760 Figure 11: Project Site - 1930s 15 Figure 12: Zoning Map Legend UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE bk SOLUTIONS ENGINEERING Project Number: A16-0760 Rural Residential(RR1) Coitanun)iy:CommeraM (CC2) Q Low DMW Single-FamilyResidanUel (RS5) - Central Business Service (CB2) © Madum Nosily Single-Fannly.Resitlenper(RS8) - Cep WOWS Support (CB5) Righ Derrsdy.Sergfe-Family Residential (RS12) Central 13USUMS (CB}D) Nfthbon,nod Slab eRzffbm Res+derrgel (RNS12) trderrs ye Commerc d (CIt) Low Density MufJTan y Reswenw (RM12)- General' Inaustriel,(11) Neighboaw6d Stab lizalion ResdarWal (RN520) lteavykwwwal (12) Medium Density Muni-Famly Residential RM20 Research OevelopmeaPark (RDP) High Density MUMi-Famfly Residential (RM44) _ Office Research Park (ORP) Plemed High Deasky Munwam'Iy Residential (PRM) F Intaft Develowwrt mwb-far tilt' Residentiel(ID- _ Wed Use (MU) [ Interim Development Single-Feirnly Residentim (ID-RS) Commerciat Office (COI) [ _ Interkn Development RaSearch Park (ID -RP) f~ . Neighbodmod Commercial (CN1) _ _ l Neighborhood Pubfie (PI) I%ghway Commercial (C111) Institutional Public (P2) M. APPENDIX UTILITY L INFRASTRUCTURE 1 SOLUTIONS 1 bk ENGINEERING Project Number: A16-0760 Appendix 1: MMS Consultants Site Plan Appendix 2: Hart -Frederick PC Letter Appendix 3: Proposed Sewer Improvements Appendix 4: Fire Access Improvements Option 1 Appendix 5: Fire Access Improvements — Option 2 Appendix 6: City of Iowa City Fire Flow Information Appendix 7: Runoff Information Appendix 8: Opinion of Cost iA Appendix 1 $ a 0 N C ti ro o�vv co ili ��� wa�8Q. Lt1 ca �a Q �o�� m Appendix 2 II. � ley �s� HART FREDERICK CONSULTANTS, IiC. ENGINEERS &SURVEYOR 1 October, 2015 Prestige Properties 239L13. Court St, Ste 2 Iowa City, IA 52240 Attu: ATtke Oliveira Re: Sanitary Sewer Service to 101 Lusk Avenue— Iowa City, Iowa Dear W Oliveira: We have reviewed the video footage from the inspection of the sanitary sewer service to 101 Lusk Avenue in lowa City perfotmed on September 23, 2015. Based on the video, we would not recommend using the existing service line in its current condition for the proposed additional single family homes. The tuberoulaAion in the 4-inch diameter cast iron section of the service line will impede flow and possibly cause blockages and backups. The mots protruding thmugh the pipe joints in the VCP section have been removed, but mayre-grow in the iltture. These would again become sources ofpotential blockage and infiltration. Many of the joints are offset slightly ftm each other. The ofl ift could be considered minor and do not severely impede flow. The video camera did reach#he manhole in this inspection and only two services discovered. The service to 631 Bayard Street was not found. This makes atotal of four residential connects on the service line that is believed to be 6-inches in diameter. Typical standard practice for most tides is to require aMinimum pipe diameter of 6-inches when more than one building is served by a single service line. According to the sewer inspection equipment operator, oast iron portion of this service line is 4-inches in diameter. Based on the latest video inspection, we recommend a new 6-inch service line be installed to replace the 4-inch cast iron section of the existing service line. The remaining existing service line should be lined to prevent future root Wowtir and infiltration. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call Scott Ritter, L.S., or myself at our office. Si!C�'.Y. Benjamin A. Carho$ P.B. Hatt -Frederick Consultants P.C. cc: Jason Havel, City of Iowa City ene: Video onUSB FlashDrive file 510 State Street • P.O. Bcm 560 • Tfin IA 52340.0560 • 319-545-7215 • Fa= 319-545-7220 • wwwhar-ftedaickcom Wonee ft 0 suweying • planning Appendix 3 PROPO 702 BAYARD SED SE �z �z WER IMPROVEMENTS PROPOSED SANITARY MH 8" INV = 706.66 W - 8" INV = 706.76 S BAYARD STREET 204 LEXINGTON EXISTING SANITARY W MANHOLE EX WATERMAiN (6" CI) 8"INV =705.94E w—w—w=w—r—w—w—w (` PROP. 880 LF 8" SANITARY 0 EXISTING --� HYDRANT PROPERTY LINE FROM GIS 631 BAYARD 701 BAYARD � 1 PRIVATE SEWER I (LOCATION MARKED IN FIELD) 'v I� 117 I lHJ I LUSK I F I fI IN I 1 Z I D:0 m � I�a I O j m 0 111 1 a Imp LUSK I I� 2 D. I EXISTING HYDRANT IL y (TO BE RELOCATED) PROPOSSD4" ISANITARY SERVICE PROPERTY I. LINE PROPOSED - SANITARY MH .I 8" INV = 707.36 N PROPOSED I BUILDING 101 LUSK C841101C R9ILRO,gD LEGEND N — ) — ) — EXISTING PRIVATE SEWER (LOCATION KNOWN) 0 — — — — — — — — — — — EXISTING PRIVATE SEWER (LOCATION ASSUMED) • — • — • — • — PROPOSED PRIVATE SEWER ® EXISTING PUBLIC SANITARY MANHOLE 0 PROPOSED PRIVATE SANITARY MANHOLE 612 BAYARD .. - L RELOCATED FIRE HYDRANT L RO��I.IZAAIV EXISTING PAVEMENT EDGE 110 LUSK Appendix4 FIRE ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS - OPTION 1 702 BAYARD _ J 21 z I 204 I 612 Z L LEXINGTON BAYARD wQIQ L - - J 3 BAYARD STREET EX SANITARY EX WATERMAIN (6" C!) T MANHOLE w—w—w— w— w— w—w— w— w— w � fT" EXISTING HYDRANT ; PRIVATE SEWER I I I (LOCATION MARKED ; IN FIELD) PROPERTY LINE FROM GIS j 117 I I 3 U W I LUSK 631 BAYARD 701 BAYARD I PROPERTY LINE I 1 I � I I az Z w � 0 Q IX j 110 U P o 111 s w J LUSK Iwp LUSK IQw I>� d EXISTING HYDRANT a j a (TO BE RELOCATED) . 3 w� PROPOSED RELOCATED FIRE HYDRANT BUILDING 101 LUSK 096' PROPOSED PAVEMENT EDGE PROPOSED EASEMENT (4,272 SF) CI+'ANDICRAILROAD LEGEND N - W - W- EXISTING WATER MAIN (LOCATION FROM MAPPING) 0 40 80 • • • • • • - PROPOSED WATER MAIN FEET PROPOSED EDGE OF PAVEMENT J�J PROPOSED EASEMENT Appendix 5 FIRE ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS - OPTION 2 702 BAYARD 2 Z W U 204 I 612 < LEXINGTON BAYARD 3 �� BAYARD STREET EX SANITARY w MANHOLE EXISTING HYDRANT PROPERTY LINE FROM GIS 631 BAYARD 701 BAYARD PROPERTY LINE IFp� IQw LUSK I I I I n. EXISTING HYDRANT BE RELOCATED) (O IN PROPOSED BUILDING 101 LUSK CRAND/C RA/LROID LEGEND N — W — W — EXISTING WATER MAIN (LOCATION FROM MAPPING) • • • • • • — PROPOSED WATER MAIN PROPOSED EDGE OF PAVEMENT PROPOSED EASEMENT EX WATERMAiN (S" CI) w—w—w—w w—w—w—w—W� PRIVATE SEWER I (LOCATION MARKED ; IN FIELD) 117 1 LUSK I I m WI ;a W 1 I i o X J O 111 w:uJ J. ROWLAN COURT 110 LUSK PROPOSED PAVEMENT EDGE R28, � PROPOSED EASEMENT (1,808 SF) 0 40 80 FEET 216 I 210 Appendix 6 CAST 209 2 00 702 701 631 612 204 6 CAST 6 CAST BAY,4 ft Sr �� ROIyL qND CT 101 117 a U co 111 110 w•— ^+^•^ ALL UTILITIES ARE GRAPHICALLY REPRESENTED AND ARE NOT GEOREFERENCED. ® THIS MAP IS NOT INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES. NO PRIVATE WATER SERVICES OF ANY SIZE ARE SHOWN. NOT TO SCALE. N W+E 9 Appendix 6 IOWA CITY WATER DIVISION Hydrant Flow Test Report IUN: 101 LUSKAVE DATE: 22 D BY: MIKE SANSEN JR TIME: 1:15PM SS: DAVE EXLINE, ERIC GRINGER )SE OF TEST: HBK Engineering FLOW HYDRANT Al A2 A3 GPMj 1070 STATIC B 82 RESIDUAL B 52 PROJECTED RESULTS: At 20 PSI Residual 1584 GPM Note: If the nozzle coefficient is assumed to be 0.9 REMARKS LOCATION MAP: Show the sizes and distance to the next cross connected line. Show the valves & hydrant branch size. Indicate North. Show flowing hydrants - Label Al and A2. Show the location of Static and Residual - Label B. Click here for drawing of this flow test area T:\Operations\Reports\l01 Lusk Ave.xlsWater Dept. Appendix 7 RUNOFF INFORMATION 702 204 �.\ `� '� �.\ i 612 BAYARD _ �11w ¢ / LEXINGTON . �� �� `� .__J BAYARD 3 I . , BAYARD STRE It 1 ` 1 3 X EX SANITARY 1t1 w EX WATERMAIN (67 CI) \ ` MANHOLE '_" / W—W—WW—W—w--rM—w—W—'w_T I8O A � ' I w✓YND EXISTING HYDRANT_-�II- . P'R1V TE SEWER II --- \` (LOCATION MARKED IN FIELD) .i PROPERTY LINE FROM GIS 117 1 \II I LUSKI I . 11 I w iv I 631 BAYARD , I i 1 ) I Of 1 io- 1 110 INO 111 i I %w J LUSK 0 701 BAYARD PROPERTY -� LINE ------------- ----------------- LEGEND o LUSK w � / D EXISTING HYDF{ANT a(TO BE RELATED) s RIVE)NAY PROPOSED ------.3UILDING___---- ,( LUSK I ) , I _ I 1 1 AD N ----jg(}---- EXISTING CONTOUR(JOHNSON COUNTY GIS) RUNOFF INFORMATION BUILDINCARFA=7,330SF LOT AREA =16,650 SF RUNOFF COEFFICIENT PAVEMENT AREA=4,610 SF LOT AREA =0.382 Acres C(10-YEAR) =0.76 TOTAL IMPERVIOUS=11.940 SF %IMPERVIOUS=72% C(100-YEAR)=0.86 0 40 S0 FEET RAINFALL INTENSITY RATIONAL METHOD(O=CIA) 1(10yesO=4.53 Whr O(10-YEAR)=1.37Gs i(100-yser)=6.841NN 0 (100-YEAR) = 2.M Us Appendix 8 OPINION OF COST Item o. Bid item Estimated Unit Extended uantky nit Price Price H rent Relocation 1 Traffic Control 1 LS $ 500.00 $ 500.00 2 Removal of Pavement 17 SY $ 10.00 $ 170.00 3 Watermain, Trenched, PVC, 6-inch 30 LF $ 30.00 $ 900.00 4 H drent, Reset 1 LS $ 1 500.00 $ 1,500.00 5 Pavement, PCC, 7-inch 17 SY $ 45.00 $ 765.00 6 Filter Socks, 8-inch 25 LF $ 3.00 $ 75.00 7 Conventional Seeding, Seedin and Fertilizin 17 SY $ 4.00 $ 68.00 Subtotal= $ 3,978.00 Santa Sewerl rovements 1 Traffic Control 1 ..LS $ 2,500.00 $ 2,500.00 2 Removal of Pavement 200 SY $ 10.00 $ 2,000.00 3 Removal of Sidewalk 44 SY $ 8.00 $ 352.00 4 Sanita Sewer, Trenched, PVC, 8-inch 330 LF $ 35.00 $ 11,550.00 5 Sanita Sewer Service Stub, PVC, 4-inch 25 LF $ 25.00 $ 625.00 6 Sanita Sewer Manhole SW-301, 48-inch - 2. FA $ 4,000.00 $ 81000.00 7 Pavement, PCC, 7-inch 200 SY $ 45.00 $ 9,000.00 8 Sidewalk, PCC, 4-inch 44 SY $ 35.00 $ 1,540.00 9 Filter Socks, 8-inch 150 LF $ 3.00 $ 450.00 10 Conventional Seedin ,Seedin and Fertilizing 167 SY $ 4.00 $ 668.00 Subtotal= $ 36,685.00 Fire A aretus Access - O flon 2 11 Traffic Control 1 LS $ 1,500.00 $ 1,500.00 12 Tree Removal 1 LS $ 3,000.00 $ 3,000.00 13 To oil, Std , Stock ile and Res read 103 CY $ 15.00 $ 1,550.00 15 Subbase, Modified IDOT 4123 , 6-inoh 620 SY $ 8.00 $ 4,960.00 16 Pavement, PCC, 7-inch 495 SY $ 45.00 $ 22,275.00 17 Filter Socks, 8-inch 250 LF $ 3.00 $ 750.00 18 Conventional Seedin ,Seedin and Fertilizin 310 SY $ 4.00 $ 1,240.00 19 Easement - 50% of assessed land value per SF $109,170 / 0.552 acres 1808 SF $ 2.27 $ 4104.35 Subtotal= $ 39,379.35 Subtotal = $ 80 042.35 15% Mobilization $ 12,006.00 10% Conlin an $ 800400 Miscellaneous - - Total = $ 160!052!35 . 15% En ineerin $ 15,008.00 5% Biddin $ 5,003.00 Subtotal = $ 20,011.00 Estimated Project Cost = $ 120,063.36 8/30/2016 HBK Engineering Appellants' Exhibit List Exhibit 1 HBK Site Investigation Report Exhibit 2 Timeline for University Heights and Lusk Ave Exhibit 3 Affidavit of Karin Southard Exhibit 4 Affidavit of Anne G. Sadler and Craig H. Syrop Exhibit 5 Affidavit of Dennis Befeler Exhibit 6 Affidavit of Patricia C. Koza Exhibit 7 Public Records Documents Exhibit 8 Frederic Reed Carlson —Quoted in Press -Citizen Exhibit 9 Ackerman —Termination of Easement Notice Exhibit 10 Armstrong —Termination of Easement Notice Exhibit 11 Syrop and Sadler —Termination of Easement Notice Exhibit 12 Lahey -Termination of Easement Notice Exhibit 13 Nichols v. City of Evansdale Exhibit 14 Iowa Code Chapter 564 Exhibit 15 Email — RE: Lusk property question (Yapp, Bollinger, Rosenquist) Exhibit 16 Email — RE: Council (Boothroy, Yapp) Exhibit 17 Email — RE: Lusk (Oliveira, Ream, Ritter) Exhibit 18 Email — FW: 101 Lusk Ave / Split Lots — Street Entention (Oliveira, Havel, Knoche, Ream) Exhibit 19 Email — Lusk.pdf (Druivenga, Havel, Overton, Carlson, Ritter) Exhibit 20 Hart -Frederick Consultants, P.C. — Sanitary Service Letter to City of Iowa City (Carhoff, Oliveira) Exhibit 21 Email; FW: City Sanitary sewer conditions. (Knoche, Yapp, Hennes, Wilkey, Havel) Exhibit22 Email; 101 Lusk Ave (Overton, Havel, Wilkey, Knoche, Druivenga) Exhibit 23 Email; RE: 101 Lusk Avenue Property (Hennes, Carlson, Goerdt, Hennes, Zahasky Construction) Exhibit 24 Email; Lusk Ave Comments (Havel) [with transcription] Exhibit 25 Email; RE: New Concept for splitting 101 Lusk Ave per our discussions (Havel, Oliveira, Ream, Tallman, Carlson, Ritter) Exhibit 26 Email; RE: Need a respond please 101 Lusk Ave (Havel, Oliveira) Exhibit 27 Email; RE: Lusk Ave (Havel, Overton, Wilkey, Knoche, Druivenga) Exhibit 28 Email; RE: 101 Lusk Ave — Request to Split the lots (Oliveira, Ream, Havel) Exhibit 29 Email; RE: 101 Lusk Ave Sewer Line Easement (Oliveira, Havel, Kennedy) -Exhibit 29(a) Email; RE: Lusk house (Yapp, Goerdt, Hennes) Exhibit 30 Email; RE: Turnaround on Lusk Ave (Greer, Havel, Grier) Exhibit 31 Email; RE: 101 Lusk Ave (Oliveira, Greer, Ream) Exhibit 32 Email; 101 Lusk Ave. lot split (Klinefelter, Boothroy, Knoche) Exhibit 33 Email; RE: Just a thought or two about Lusk ... (Yapp, Tallman) Exhibit 34 Email; Re: 101 Lusk (Zahasky Construction, Goerdt) Exhibit 35 Abstract Entries — Lahey, Ackermans, Syrop & Sadler Exhibit 36 Memorandum —Sarah Walz to Board of Adjustment Exhibit 37 Petition and Public Comments Exhibit 38 Public Records Request — 7.8,2016; and Public Records Response — 8.3,2016 Exhibit 39 Exhibit 40 Site Plans — 3D and 2D Images Exhibit 41 Site Plans— University Heights 2014 Exhibit 42 Letter— Re: Prejudicial Errors in City's Memorandum to IBoard lof Adjuowa stment Exhibit 9.2016 Letter—Re:APL16-00001(ParmentertoMe(mbersoftherBoad)r'912.2016 Exhibit 44 Exhibit 45 Permit to Make Sewer Connection Email — RE: 101 Lusk (Boothroy, Hennes, Yapp, Goerdt, Fruin) Exhibit 46 Letter— Re: Prejudicial Errors in City's Memorandum to Board of Adjustment (Larew to Parmenter)—9.14.2016 Appellants' Exhibit 1 HBK Site Investigation Report Stree I 09 5_ Gilbert 2240 319.338.7557ineeri Iowa City, IA 52240 hbkengineering.com hbk ;arts i=NGINF[-'l Project Number: A16-0760 SITE INVESTIGATION IREVORT 101 Lusk Avenue, Iowa City, 52246 Manville Addition, Lot 1, Block 14 Prepared for: Neighbors of Manville Heights Association August 30, 2016 1-1 14 Site Plan 003 Exhibit I - OD I UTILITY 1 � INFRASTRUCTURE - bK SOLUTION$ JJJJ ENGINEERING Project Number: A16-0681 Contents Introduction and Summary of Findings .................................................................................... 2 SanitarySewer............................................................................................................................ 3 Fire Department Access and Coverage...................................................................................... 3 SitePlan...................................................................................................................................... 4 Storm Sewer and Stormwater Management............................................................................... 4 SiteHistory ...................................................... ............ ....... ........ ............... ..................................... 5 SiteTopography ....................................................................................... 5 Easementsand Encroachments.................................................................................................. 5 Floodplain.................................................................................................................................... 5 GeotechnicalConditions.............................................................................................. ............. 5 SensitiveArea.............................................................................................................................. 5 Zoning................................................. 5 Figure 1: Site Topography........................................................................................6 Figure 2: International Fire Code - Selected Sections................................................7 Figure 3: Project Site — 2014.................................................................................. 11 Figure 4: Project Site — 2012.................................................................................. 11 Figure 5: Project Site — 2011............................................................. ..................... 12 Figure 6: Project Site — 2008.................................................................................. 12 Figure 7: Project Site — 1990s................................................................................ 13 Figure 8: Project Site — 1970s ................................................ ................................ 13 Figure 9: Project Site — 1960s ............................................................................. 14 Figure 10: Project Site - 1950s............................................................................... 14 Figure 11: Project Site - 1930s............................................................................... 15 Figure12: Zoning Map...........................................................................................16 Appendix............... -.....................-..............................................................................I............ 17 Appendix 1: MMS Consultants Site Plan Appendix 2: Hart -Frederick PC Letter Appendix 3: Proposed Sewer Improvements Appendix 4: Fire Access Improvements — Option 1 Appendix 5: Fire Access Improvements — Option 2 Appendix 6: City of Iowa City Fire Flow Information Appendix 7: Runoff Information Appendix 8: Opinion of Cost HBK Site Plan 002 Exhibit I - 002 UTILITY hbk INFRASTRUCTURE SOLUTIONS. :ENGINEERING Project Number: A16-0760 Introduction and Summary of Findings HBK Engineering prepared this report to evaluate the proposed site plan submitted to the City of Iowa City for the property located at 101 Lusk Avenue. The 0.38 acre site is located at the south end of Lusk Avenue in the Manville Heights neighborhood in Iowa City. HBK Engineering evaluated the proposed site plan as it relates to zoning regulations and public utilities. The proposed site plan submitted to the City of Iowa City is depicted in the Appendix. The following summarizes HBK Engineering's findings: The site has a non -conforming sanitary sewer service as it relates to current code and standards • Service is shared with 2 other properties (111 Lusk Avenue & 117 Lusk Avenue) • Service crosses multiple properties • There is no documentation of an easement or other agreement for the shared sewer • There are no cleanouts provided on the existing sanitary sewer line There is inadequate fire flow available for the proposed building • 2,250 gallons per minute (gpm) fire flow is required for the proposed building (assuming Type V-B construction) 1,584 gpm fire flow is projected by the City of Iowa City to be available at the property via the existing water main on Lusk Avenue There is inadequate access for fire apparatus • Access road (Lusk Avenue) is 20'-8" wide and parking is allowed on one side • Fire code requires unobstructed access road that is at least 20 feet wide and marked with "No Parking — Fire Lane" signs • Lusk Avenue is 1.55' long and dead ends with no means for turn around • Fire code requires "approved" turn around for access roads longer than 150 feet There are concerns with the site plan • Proposed driveway conflicts with existing fire hydrant • How will the site be graded? • How will storm water be managed to prevent erosion? • How will adjacent properties be protected from damage during construction? HBK Site Plan 003 Exhibit I - 003 UTILITY 11 � INFRASTRUCTURE ! bK SOLUTIONS ENGINEERING Project Number: A16-0760 Site Location and Description The project site is approximately 0.38 acres and is located on the west side of Lusk Avenue approximately 150-feet south of the intersection of Lusk Avenue and Bayard Street in the Manville Heights neighborhood in Iowa City. The Lusk Avenue pavement terminates in a dead end in front of the subject property without a cul-de-sac or other means of vehicle turnaround. Sanitary Sewer The site is currently served by a private sewer line that runs across the adjacent property to the north. This line is shared by the subject property (101 Lusk Avenue), 111 Lusk Avenue, and 117 Lusk Avenue. There is no record of an easement for this sewer. The service varies in size from 8 inches at the downstream, 6 inches at intermediate points, and 4 inches when it reaches the subject property. The 6 inch portion of the pipe is believed to have sections both cast iron and clay pipe. The 4 inch portion is cast iron. The private sewer was televised by Action Sewer on August 8, 2016. The televising started at the manhole in Bayard Street and proceeded upstream for approximately 81 feet at which point the crew was unable to advance the equipment further. HBK was able to document the location of the line in the field during this work. This same sewer line was also televised on September 23, 2015 by the previous owner of 101 Lusk Avenue. At that time, they were able to enter the service line from the residential home located at 101 Lusk Avenue and traverse the entire length of the service line. The previous owner hired Hart -Frederick Consultants, PC (HFC) to review the data collected. HFC concluded that the existing 4-inch portion of the service line should be replaced with a new 6-inch line and the existing 6-inch portion of the service line should be lined to prevent future intrusion of tree roots. Relaying and lining the private service would require the approval from the other property owners served by the private sewer. Refer to the Appendix for a copy of the HFC letter. City staff has reviewed the downstream public sanitary sewer located in Bayard Street and has determined that these sewers are capable of handling the sanitary discharges from the proposed building. The Uniform Plumbing Code 2015 (UBC 2015 311.0) states that "The drainage system for each new building ... shall be separate and independent from that of any other building, and, where available, every building shall have an independent connection with a public or private sewer." Installation of a separate and independent sewer would require the construction of approximately 330 feet of public 8 inch sanitary sewer and two manholes in Bayard Street and Lusk Avenue. Refer to the Proposed Sewer Improvement exhibit and associated cost estimate in the Appendix. Fire Department Access and Coverage The property is served by the Iowa City water department. The water main is located near the centerline of Lusk Avenue and the water service connects to this main. There is a fire hydrant located in the Lusk Avenue right-of-way near the northeast corner of the subject property and another located at the intersection of Bayard Street and Lexington Avenue. Each of these hydrants is within 400 feet of the proposed building. Refer to the Fire Access exhibits in the Appendix. The following items are required by the 2015 International Fire Code (2015 IFC). Refer to Figure 2. (ht�l/codes.iccsafe ora/aoo/bookltoc12015/1-Codesl2015 IFC HTMLlindex html) HBK Site Plan 004 Exhibit 1 - 004 UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE SOLUTIONS hbk ENGINEERING Project Number: A16-0760 • 507.5.1-- onsite hydrants shall be provided if any point of building is more than 400 feet from a hydrant located on an access road • B105.1 - required fire flow is 2,250 gpm for a 2-hour duration • C102.1 - 2 hydrants are required for the proposed building • C103.1 - maximum hydrant spacing shall be 400 feet • D103.1 - required width of fire apparatus access road is 26 feet where road is adjacent to fire hydrant • D103.4 - fire apparatus access roads in excess of 150 feet shall provide approved turnaround. Minimum unobstructed road width is 20 feet. The building permit application does not specify the type of construction; therefore, the construction type is assumed to be Type V-B as defined in the International Building Code, 2015 edition. According to the plans submitted to the city, the proposed building has a total floor area of 7,476 square feet. This results in a required fire flow of 2,250 gpm as depicted in Table B105.1 of the 2015 IFC. The City of Iowa City performed flow testing on August 22, 2016. This test indicated that the available fire flow at 101 Lusk Avenue is 1,584 gpm (Refer to the Appendix for a copy of the flow data). This does not meet the code requirements for available fire flow. The existing pavement on Lusk Avenue is 20-feet wide and extends 155'-5" south of Bayard Street. Parking is allowed on one side of the street. The existing pavement terminates prior to reaching the south property line. The street does not meet the access requirements. There is insufficient room for parking while allowing a 20' unobstructed lane. The street also lacks an approved turn around. The public right-of-way on Lusk Avenue is 50-feet wide. This is insufficient width for the required turn around options. Refer to the Fire Access exhibits in the Appendix for evaluation of the improvements required to meet the access requirements. A cost estimate was prepared for Fire Access Option 2. This cost estimate is included in the appendix. Site Plan - The Site Plan that was prepared by MMS Consultants on March 15, 2016 was reviewed for completeness and concerns impacting the neighborhood. Refer to the Appendix for a copy of the site plan. HBK Engineering has identified the following items of concern: 1. The proposed driveway appears to conflict with the existing hydrant located near the northeast property corner. It is unclear how the site will be graded and how this will impact adjacent properties. There is approximately six feet of elevation change along the west wall of the building and four feet of elevation change along the east wall of the building. In addition, there is minimal separation between the driveway and the north property line. The site plan does not indicate how these elevation changes will be accounted for and what, if any, impacts this may have on adjacent property owners. Storm Sewer and Stormwater Management The site is not currently or planned to be served by storm sewer. Runoff from the site flows overland generally from the west to the east to Lusk Avenue where it then flows south along the pavement. Upon reaching the end of the pavement the runoff continues to the south into the ravine located along the CRANDIC railroad. Once in the railroad right-of-way, the runoff flows east and ultimately discharges to the Iowa River. 4 HBK Site Plan 005 Exhibit 1 - 005 UTIUTV INFRkSTRULONShbkSOLUTIONS '. ENGINEERING Project Number: A15-0760 There is evidence of erosion at the point where the runoff leaves the pavement at the south end of Lusk Avenue. The Iowa City code has no post -construction stormwater requirements for a single- family residence that is not part of a larger, common plan of development. The site is less than 1 acre; therefore, there are not any Iowa DNR requirements related to stormwater management or construction site runoff. The projected runoff from the developed site is calculated to be 1.37cfs and 2.09 cfs for the 10-year and 100-year rainfall events, respectively. Refer to the Runoff Information exhibit in the Appendix. Site History The 1,700 square foot single family residence that had formerly occupied the property was demolished. City assessor records indicate that this house was constructed in 1917. There are presently no structures on the site. Review of the City Assessors' data indicates that the houses on the adjacent properties were constructed at the beginning of the 20" century and available aerial photography from the Johnson County Property Information View (httos://ais.iohnson- countv.com/oiv/) indicates that there has been little change to these properties since the 1930s (first period aerial photography is available). The area surrounding the site has not seen major changes other than the construction of the VA Hospital in the 1950s and subsequent expansions to the VA facilities. Refer to Figures 4 — 12. Site Topography This site slopes from the northwest corner towards the southeast corner with approximately 13-feet of fall across the site. The site generally drains from the northwest to the southeast. Refer to Figure 1. Easements and Encroachments A desktop review of the subject property did not find any easements on the property. A boundary survey has not been completed; however, there are no obvious encroachments from adjacent properties. Floodplain Consultation of FEMA flood plain mapping indicates that the site is not within or adjacent to a Floodplain. The site is contained on FEMA Panel 19103C0195E. Geotechnical Conditions Geotechnical exploration has not been performed on the property; however, review of the Soil Survey of Johnson County Iowa indicates that the soils are generally classified as Fayette Silt Loam which is generally well drained and found on gently sloping sites. When surface vegetation is removed erosion is a hazard. Sensitive Areas The site does not contain features subject to the Iowa City Sensitive Areas Ordinance. Zoning The property is currently zoned RS5 (Low Density Single Family Residential). Refer to Figure 12. The applicable zoning requirements for RS5 zoning are: 1) Building height. The maximum building height shall be 35 feet 2) Front yard setback a. A front yard of 15 feet is required b. No more than 50% of the front setback may be covered with impervious surface 3) Side yard setback a. Aside yard of 5 feet is required for the first two stories b. Two (2) feet must be added for each additional story beyond the first two stories 5 HBK Site Plan 006 Exhibit 1 - 006 4h'tbk Ut:4M1iY {NLlr:> RUI:'l ciIONS ENGINEERING Project Number: A16-0760 4) Rear yard setback a. A rear yard of 20 feet is required. The proposed site plan appears to meet the setback requirements: however, it is unclear how the height of the structure will be determined. This could increase the required side yard setback- 6 HBK Site Plan 007 Exhibit 1 -007 UTILITY 1 INFRASTRUCTURE k SOLUTIONS ENGINEERING Project Number: A16-0760 Figure 2: International Fire Code - Selected Sections SECTION B105 FIRE -FLOW REQUIREMENTS FOR BUILDINGS B105.1 One- and two-hamily dwellings, Group R-3 and R4 buildings and townhouses. The minimum fire -flow and flow duration requirements for one- and two-family dwellings, Group R-3 and R-4 buildings and townhouses shall be as specified in Tables B105.1(1) and B105.1(2). TABLE 0105.111) REQUIRED FIRE -FLOW FOR ONE. AND TWO-FAMILY DWELLINGS, GROUP R-3 AND RA BUILDINGS AND TOWNHOUSES FIRE -FLOW CALCULATION AREA AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER SYSTEM MINIMUM FIRE - FLOW FLOW DURATION (square feel) (Oasign Standard) (gallons per (hours) minute 0-3,6W No aotomalx 5ier system I,000 1 3,601 and greaser No automvc npnnkle,eystem Va1W in Table Ou.Wnm Tale BIDS.?(2)an the 9105.1 2) ulred firElioa lace 0-3,600 Qodom Section P2904 Section 50J.J.oftof1W mM.anal Re7Fern pi the iniernahanai kesMenuat C.Me SH , 3 601 and greener Section 903 3 1.3 of the inferuahnnal fire Cade or Section P2904 1- m Ta[4e of the I'dernabonai Reidenhnr Code 61051 1051(2) 1 For 51. 1 square fool = 0 D929 m°. 1 galian Per nawlt = 3 785 Uni. TABLE 8105.1(2) REFERENCE TABLE FOR TABLES B105.1(1) AND B105.2 FIRE -FLOW CALCULATION AREA (square feeU FIRE -FLOW (9811ona per minne)° FLOW DURATION (hours) Type IA and IW Type IM and UTA Type IV and V-A' ype He and 1118° Type V43' 0-2,700 0-12,700 0-8200 0-5,900 0-3.600 1.600 27701-30.200 12,701.17.000 8.201-10900 5.901-7.900 1.6014,B00 1.750 30.201-38700 17,MI-21,SM 10901-12,DOD 7901-9,800 4.801k 200 2,022 38.791-418300 27901-74,200 12901-17,d00 9.W1-12600 6.2P1-,fW 4250 2 48,301-59.000 24,201-33.200 17401-21,300 1260115,400 7.701-9,400 2.500 59.OD1-7D,900 33.201-39.700 21.301-25,50D 15,401-1B.400 9,401.11.300 2JS0 7D901-83700 39.701-47,100 2559130.100 18,401-21.800 11.301-13,400 3,000 83,70197.700 47,101.5d,9pD 30.101-35,200 21.801.25.900 f3.401-15. 0 3,250 97.70L112,700 54.901fi3,400 35,201-4D.600 25.901-29.3C0 ib.W1-18.000 3,500 3 112701-128 ]DO 63.401-12,400 d0.601-46.409 29,101-33500 18.001-2060D 3,750 128,701-145,9M 72,401-82,100 4FAm-6 ,SW 33,9137,900 20.601-23,30D 4,Of10 For Sk 1 square foot= 0.0929 m', I gallon per minu3e = 3 785 L!m. I pound Per squme inch = 8895 AVa. a. Tyges of construction are based on the Inlsrrrafmrrai BwWinq Cud,. b. Meaaured at 20 psi residual pressure 7 HBK Site Plan 008 Exhibit 1 - 008 UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE SDLUT)CNS hbk ENGINEERING Project Number: A16-0760 SECTION C102 NUMBER OF FIRE HYDRANTS C102.1 Minimum number of fire hydrants for a building. The number of fire hydrants available to a building shall be not less than the minimum specified in Table C102.1. TABLE C102.1 REQUIRED NUMBER AND SPACING OF FIRE HYDRANTS FIRE -FLOW REQUIREMENT wpm) MINIMUM NUMBER OF HYDRANTS AVERAGE SPACING BETWEEN HYDRANTS` 6r.re feet) MAXIMUM DISTANCE FROM ANY POINT ON STREET OR ROAD FRONTAGE TO A HYDRANTd'i° 1750 or less 1 So0 250 2.000-2.250 2 450 225 2,500 3 450 225 3,000 3 1100 225 3.500-d.000 4 350 210 d 500-5.000 5 300 160 5,500 0 300 lot 5.D00 6 Z50 150 6.500-7.GOD 7 250 150 7.500 or mine 9or mdm` 2D0 120 For SI 1 fool - 304 3 min, I gallon per ...it = 3. 735 Lim a Reduce by 100 feet for dead -and steels or roads h. Pmcre streets are provided wiW macho d7nde,s Biel cannot be cussed by fire fighters Pulling hose lines, in wham a anal steals are provided watt Four or m ve Inific :anal and have a traffic cunt of more flan 30.0DO aehrtlas par day. Mdranl spacing chall average 50 feet on each side of the street and be arranged on an allemahng basis c. where new woler mains are eAended along stews where hydrants are not needed for protection of slomidow or denied he problems. fire hydranti mdd shall he Ped A spacing nM 10 eixead 1,000 heel l0 pmwde for iranspadahon haxanis. d. Reduce by 50 feet for dwdaml streets ar roads. e One hydrant for each LOUD gallons per minute or fraction thereof. f A 5Dpercent spacing increase stall be permitted where me building Is equipped lhroughow with an approved automatic sprinkler system in accordance wig, Section 90311.1 of the hrmme&cowl fire Code. If. A 25-imment spacing brtmass shall be permiaed where the building is equipped 111moghout vnlh an approved automatic spmewr system m accordance with Secnmi 903 3.1.2 or 903.3.1.3 of the :'nfsmwboral Fire Code or SediOn P2904 of the lYmmetondr Readugiel Code. SEC71ON C103 FIRE HYDRANT SPACING C103.1 Hydrant spacing. Fire apparatus access roads and public streets providing required access to buildings in accordance with Section 503 of the International Fire Code shall be provided with one or more fire hydrants, as determined by Section C102.1. Where more than one fire hydrant is required, the distance between required fire hydrants shall be in accordance with Sections C103.2.and C103.3. C103.2 Average spacing. The average spacing between fire hydrants shall be in accordance with Table C102.1. Exception: The average spacing shall be permitted to be increased by 10 percent where existing fire hydrants provide all or a portion of the required number of fire hydrants. C103.3 Maximum spacing. The maximum spacing between fire hydrants shall be In accordance with Table C102.1. SECTION C104 CONSIDERA71ON OF EXISTING FIRE HYDRANTS C104,1 Existing fire hydrants. Existing fire hydrants on public streets are allowed to be considered as available to meet the requirements of Sections C102 and C103. Existing fire hydrants on adjacent properties are allowed to be considered as available to meet the requirements of Sections C102 and C103 provided that a fire apparatus access road extends between properties and that an easement is established to prevent obstruction of such roads. 8 HBK Site Plan 009 Exhibit 1 - 009 N1,i',Ty hbk INFRASTRUCTURE SOLUTi0N5 'ENGINEERING Project Number: A16-0760 SECTION 0101 GENERAL D101.1 Scope. Fire apparatus access roads shall be in accordance with this appendix and all other applicable requirements of the International Fire Code. SECTION D102 REQUIRED ACCESS D102.1 Access and loading. Facilities, buildings or portions of buildings hereafter constructed shall be accessible to fire department apparatus by way of an approved fire apparatus access road with an asphalt, concrete or other approved driving surface capable of supporting the Imposed load of fire apparatus weighing at least 75,000 pounds (34 050 kg). SECTION D103 MINIMUM SPECIFICATIONS D103.1 Access road width with a hydrant. Where a fire hydrant is located on a fire apparatus access road, the minimum road width shall be 26 feet (7925 him), exclusive of shoulders (see Figure D103,1). 26'R 26" Tva' xb. xoJ W DAMETFA 4Y owWWIAW.1ClFA.M CVl-0E£AC MCIMCAFlRE R1 pIWIT A R1 6C SD' 1W \ � 1 � ra• P� 2n'3 TM°' —xm b' RLCEVTABLEIIAERH4IVE t26"NKfMERX[M TO 12G MPMMERHEAn Frn Sr t bot= 304 a... FIGURE D103.1 DEAD-END FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROAD TURNAROUND 9 HBK Site Plan 010 Exhibit I •010 UTILITY hbk INFRASTRUCTURE 1 SOLUTIONS ENGINEERING Project Number: A16-0760 D103.2 Grade. Fire apparatus access roads shall not exceed 10 percent in grade. Exception: Grades steeper than 10 percent as approved by the flre chief. 0103.3 Turning radius. The minimum turning radius shall be determined by the fire code officiat D103.4 Dead ends. Dead-end fire apparatus access roads in excess of 150 feet (45 720 Inm) shall be provided with width and turnaround provisions in accordance with Table D103.4. TABLE 0103.4 REQUIREMENTS FOR DEAD-END FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROADS LENGTH (fear) WIDTH Ifeet TURNAROUNDS REQUIRED 0-150 20 Nare reomred 151-500 20 120-roof Hammerhead,66fao1'Y cr 9E toot tliameler aW desac in accortlanta whh Fojura D1031 501-750 26 120-tool Hammerhead.GQtoo1'Y'er 9G-Iontdiamtter vul-0e-sac in accordarce with Figure D103.1 Over 7$ Sceeial approval required Fa St: 1 loaf = 3DT8 mm. D103.6 Signs. Where required by the fire code oRciaL fire apparatus access roads shall be marked with permanent NO PARKING —FIRE LANE signs complying with Figure D103.6. Signs shall have a minimum dimension of 12 inches (305 mm) wide by 18 inches (457 mm) high and have red letters on a white reflective background. Signs shall be posted on one or both sides of the fire apparatus mad as required by Section D103.6.1 or D103.6.2. SIGN tti£'0.' WQN TYPE sl(:N iYpF 4 NO FIGURE D103.6 FIRE LANE SIGNS 0103.6.1 Roads 20 to 26 feet in width. Fire lane signs as specified in Section 0103.6 shall be posted on both sides of fire apparatus access roads that are 20 to 26 feet wide (609610 7925 mm). D1103.6.2 Roads more than 26 feet In width. Fire lane signs as specified in Section 0103.6 shall be posted on one side of fire apparatus access roads more than 26 feet wide (7925 mm) and less than 32 feet wide (9754 mm). 10 HBK Site Plan 011 Exhibit I - O1 I 93 �..+ r i Ir P � � �_ f �e — { _ � t Figure 5: Project Site - 2011 Figure 6: Project Site - 2008 12 HBK Site Plarl 013 �AIPM-1 hbk EMIT NEEP.IXG Project Number: A15-0760 Exhihit I -013 :r r .. 1 N Y] x • hbk ENMNrFRJNG Project Number: A16-0760 Figure 7: Project Site —199cs Figure S: Project Site — 1970s 13 ABA Site Plan 014 Exhibit 1 - 014 r Figure 9: Project Site - 1960s Figure 10: Project Site - 1950s 14 WBK Site Plan 0I; urr re hbk s TRU, ENGTNEERINC Project Numi}er: A16-0760 Exhibit i -015 ri r ENF9.s'i'FJC"l+Ei� hbk E-NGMEERING Project Number. p16-0760 Figure 11: Projecl Site - 1930S 15 H3K Site Plan 016 Exhibit 1- 016 w r NGINEERINt, f Project Number: A16-0760 J� - RS5i e J 7 Legend Rural Wv&nllal SRP 1: ComnwnityConrmerosl (41C2r C Low Densny 5lnula-Ftanll. Reaa6)r,hal (RS,Si ® Central Busl aE 5 service jC82) Medium Density 5mptr,-Family Residerpil (R€$; ®Central 8uvness $upper ICB5) High Uer1^,r1y Single-Fan7ll'i Residentrsl jR5'12' ® C-lllral Bmiless (r610'1 r E�NAghbofhc clStinIIcitvpRasiderrtial(Rl4s13) In1pnsiveCr,rnmsrcialFC11) Ln'.,(IsrlSrc [vfo:fli-ramify PeSidentrnli:Yiri12) �G�neraf lydt1516al;t1r Neighhorh wd S!36eshzaLnn Resitlantlal (R;4Slb) ® Heo v indmtral ta) r« Medltlm Density klVltr-Fentiij ResrtleVlir.l RA120 -_6g. Rene; tch irevebpmen€ Par}; (ROP I Nry7n Dcn_n;; fi1a6Fandly pezWenhal lRF,14gj Othco R.Seorc{1 ParA(ORP) Plannso Higp Dwlsfty Mulo ra1npy ResiSenunl %PRM1�;; I�—'� Inferinl Development PAdti-Fnmily Residan:iel (O-RM-) taxed Uso (Wu} tills.:_- E. 011erim Development Smgla-Fa Wy Residential iID-RS) r� Commercial.)Ihce !::411} 111166111 Drvelnpmwlt ResFarch Prrk(tD-RPj tit-Ighbgrh-W CL Ojme(<irrl (CtJi: �}. h}eghtwhond Ptlhlic;P l) HI�g!]wey C�]inmercim l �H 1( ! _ �.I lnt lityaorwl PubHcfPli 16 HBK Site Plan 017 Exhibit I - Or � hbk UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE SOLUTIONS ENGINEERING Project Number: A16-0760 APPENDIX Appendix 1: MMS Consultants Site Plan Appendix 2: Hart -Frederick PC Letter Appendix 3: Proposed Sewer Improvements Appendix 4: Fire Access Improvements — Option 1 Appendix 5: Fire Access Improvements — Option 2 Appendix 6: City of Iowa City Fire Flow Information Appendix 7: Runoff Information Appendix 8: Opinion of Cost 17 HBK Site Plan 018 Exhibit I - 018 Appendix I ;; § qKq Z s R \ / u= a 3) a /— >^ « _ `/�/ |) m A I ](§)!ƒ!| / eKSite Plan 019 Exhibit n 019 Appendix 2 HART-FREDERTCK I October, 2015 Prestige Properties 239-E. Court St, Ste 2 Iowa City, IA 52240 Atta: Tyke Oliveira Y.C. ENGINEERS & SURVEYOR; Re: Sanitary Sewer Service to 101 Lusk Avenue — Iowa City, Iowa Dear Mr. Oliveira: We have reviewed the video footage from the inspection of the sanitary. sewer service to 101 Lusk Avenue in Iowa City performed on September 23, 2015. Based on the video, we would not recommend using the existing service line in its current condition for the proposed additional single family homes. The tuberculation in the 4-inch diameter cast iron section of the service line will impede flow and possibly cause biookeges and backups. The roots protruding through the pipe joints in the VCP section have been removed, but may regrow is the future. These would again become sources of potential blockage and infiltration. Many of the joints are offset slightly from each other. The offs6ts could be considered minor and do not severely impede flow. The video camera did reach the manhole in this inspection and only two services discovered. The service to 631 Bayard Street was not found. This makes a total offour residential connects on the service line that is believed to be 6-inches in diameter. Typical standard practice for most cities is to require aminimum pipe diameter of 6-inches when more than one building is served by a single service line. According to the sewer inspection equipment operator, cast iron portion of this service live is 4-inches in diameter. Based on the latest video inspection, we recommend a now 6-inch service line be installed to replace the 4-inch cast iron section ofthe existing service line. The remaining existing service line should be lined to prevent future root growth and infiltration Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call Scott hitter, L.S., or myself at our office. inc y Benlatmn A CarhoM P.E. Hart-Prederick Consultants P.C. cc: Jason Havel, City of Iowa City enc: Video on USB Flesh Drive file 510 Scam Se= - P.O. Boa560 • Tiffin, U.52340.0560 • 319-545-7215 G Pas: 319 545-7220 • WVrw•1�8YC flEde�CIS wm Bneftee ng • Surveying n Planing HBK Site Plan 020 Exhibit I -020 Appendix 3 PROPOSED SEWER IMPROVEMENTS 702 E• I Ur Z z I 204 PROPOSED SANITARY MH 612 BAYARD W < 2 LEXINGTON BAYARD s"INV =7osssw w2 I Q 8"INV =706.765 �— J � J — — — — BAYARD STREET MANHOLE 8" INV = 705.94 E EXISTING J HYDRANT PROPERTY LINE FROM GIS ti EX WATERMAIN (6" CI) w--w—w—w—w—w—w—ww w� PROP. 880 LF 8" SANITARY 0.40°o PRIVATE SEWER (� (LOCATION MARKED IN FIELD) ' o a j 117 LUSK > U 631 i tz z ; BAYARD O J W 0 3 �rwn0 111 I 'a sw 701 F W LUSK I 10 BAYARD > i a EXISTING HYDRANT a y (TO BE RELOCATED) I Q —PROPOSED4 w—I SANITARY$ERVICE ' I: I PROPERTY LINE .I;c PROPOSED SANITARY MH 8" INV = 707.36 N ° PROPOSED BUILDING 101 LUSK CR4ND/CRAILRO.4D LEGEND — ) —) — EXISTING PRIVATE SEWER (LOCATION KNOM4 - - - - - - - - - - - EXISTING PRIVATE SEWER(LOCATION ASSUMED) -------- PROPOSED PRIVATE SEWER G EXISTING PUBLIC SANITARY MANHOLE 0 PROPOSED PRIVATE SANITARY MANHOLE RELOCATED FIRE HYDRANT ROW N L N D 40 80 FEET HBK Site Plan 021 EXISTING PAVEMENT EDGE 110 LUSK Exhibit 1 - 021 Appendix 4 FIRE ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS - OPTION 1 z - I V I 70.2 Ui Z 204 612 BAYARD Z W g LEXINGTON BAYARD I U6 < ¢ L 3 BAYARD STREET ; EX SANITARY MANHOLES EX WATERMAIN (6' CI) RO l/tw// A'D W coURT EXISTING HYDRANT � PRIVATE SEWER (LOCATION MARKED IN FIELD) PROPERTYFROM GIS I 117 I I LUSK W 637 BAYARD I j I j z p 155'-511 �w �' Q Y 1 7 ¢ I 110 J I im0 171 zw LUSK 701 I F p LUSK BAYARD > 126' EXISTING HYDRANT GRAND/O ��."r Rq/LRO,yD LEGEND N — W — W — EXISTING WATER MAIN (IODATION FROM MAPPING) 0 40 a0 —" " �' • PROPOSED WATER MAIN FEET r PROPOSED EDGE OF PAVEMENT �7Z-�7 ni�K � - PROPOSED EASEMENT HBK Site Plan 022 Exhibit I - 022 Appendix 5 FIRE ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS - OPTION 2 °j I I BAYARD W g LEXINGTON BAYARD L L J X BAYARD STREET EX SANITARY w NIA EX WATERMAIN (8" CI) w-wfsw w-w-w w w-w-w��� R0��ND w, UR EXISTING —�� � T HYDRANT 3 PRIVATE SEWER I I � (LOCATION MARKED N FIELD) PROPERTY LINE I FROM GiS I 117 LUSK U W 631 I z Z BAYARD i I Lu c j 155.5' 3 a ism I 3 1 170 U X 177 I W v LUSK 701 I I F LUSK BAYARD I j - 126' IED EXISTING HYDRANT (TO BE RELOCATED) PROPOSED PAVEMENT EDGE R28PROPOSED PROPERTY EASEMENT LINE I • • (1,808 SF) RELOCATFD PROPOSED FIRE H DRAIN BUILDING 101 70" LUSK R28' z 0R1NO/CR411ROgD L LEGEND N W- W- EXISTING WATER MAIN (LOCATION FROM MAPPING) 0 40 80 - • • • • - PROPOSED WATER MAIN FEET x�-� PROPOSED EDGE OF PAVEMENT � ` ,�7kTSZ� PROPOSED EASEMENT HBK Site Plan 023 Exhibit 1 - 023 216 Appendix 6 210 209 11 Z F Z I 204 702 ' a I ' CAST 6CAST 6CAST T T 512 $AYARD ST '1 *0W t4,VD Cr 110 ALL UTILITIES ARE GRAPHICALLY REPRESENTED AND ARE NOT G ERENCED. N THIS MAP IS NOT INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES. NO PRIVATE WATER SERVICES OF ANY SIZE ARE SHOWN. p NOT TO SCALE. W j"tj ,�E gad: srzarzois HBK Site Plan 024 Exhibit II sO24 Appendix 6 IOWA CITY WATER DIVISION Hydrant Flow Test Report LUGAI ION: 101 LUSK AVE DATE: 22-Aug-16 TESTED BY: MIKE SANSEN JR TIME: 1:15PM WITNESS: DAVE EXLINE, ERIC GRINGER PURPOSE OF TEST: HBK Engineering FLOW HYDRANT Al A2 A3 GPM 1070 STATIC B 82 RESIDUAL B 52 =CTED RESULTS: At 20 PSI Residual 1584 GPM Note: If the nozzle coefficient is assumed to be 0.9 REMARKS LOCATION MAP: Show the sizes and distance to the next cross connected line. Show the valves & hydrant branch size. Indicate North. Show flowing hydrants - Label Al and A2. Show the location of Static and Residual - Label B. Click here for drawing of this flow test area T:1Operations\Reports1101 Lusk Ave.xlsWater Dept. HBK Site Plan 025 Exhibit 1 - 025 Appendix 7 RUNOFF INFORMATION � 702 C,uj 204 Z 612 BAYARD uj LEXINGTON BAYARD ILL BAYARD STREET EX SANITARY MANHOLE EX NATERMAIN CO IVD cou, EXISTING HYDRANT PRIVATE SEWER (LOCATION MARKED IN FIELD) PROPERTY LINE FROM GIS 117 LUSKI' C) -LLI 631 BAYARD Xz < L z A w , wQ 0 110 X O�/ Xw LUSK 701 E, LLISK BAYARD UU E§5 EXISTING HYDRANT P (TO BE RELOCATED) PROPOSED 7 OPOPJED, LINE DRIVEWAY, J PROPOSED BUILDING-- - -rot LUSK CRAAVI�,�ILRq� z - -foA LEGEND N EXISTING CONTOU, (IOINSI. 111-INRY GIS) 0 40 BO RUNOFF INFORMATION FEET 9jUQINGAREA=7,330SF LOT AREA = 16.6W SF RUNOFF COEFFICIENT RAINFALL INTENSITY RATIONAL METHOD I CIA, PAVEMENTAREA=4,610SF LOT AREA = 0,302 Ayes C110YEARI =079 I (10.Y.81) -4.M,N r Q (imEArn=i.wm TOTAL IMPERVIOUS - 11 k940 SF %IMPERVIOUS-72% C 110D YEAR) = D.M *000.ysw)=6.94tM 0II0AyEAR)=2[9ds + HBK Site Plan 026 Exhibit 1 - 026 Appendix 8 OPINION OF COST Item imatd Estdltye Unit Uptonr�d o. Bid Item puar Unit nee ce Hydra tRelocation 1 Traffic Control 1 LS $ 500.00 $ 500.00 2 3 Removal of Pavement Watermain, Trenched, PVC, 6-inch 17 30 SY LF $ 10.00 $ 30.00 $ 170.00 $ 900.00 4 Hydrant, Reset 1 LS $ 1,500.00 $ 1,500.00 5 Pavement, PCC, 7-inch 17 SY $ 45.00 $ 765.00 6 Filer Socks, 8-inch 25 LF $ 3.00 $ 75.00 7 Conventional Seeding, Seeding and Fertilizing 17 SY $ 4.00 $ 68.00 Subtotal = $ 3,978.00 Sanitary Sewer l vements 1 2 3 Traffic Control Removal of Pavement Removal of Sidewalk 1 0 200 LS SY SY $ 2,500.00 $ 10.00 $ 0.00 $ 2,500.00 $ 2,000.00 $ 000.00 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Sanita Sewer, Trenched, PVC, 8-inch Santa Sewer Service Stub, PVC, flinch Sanitary Sewer Manhole SW-301, 48-inch Pavement, PCC, 7-inch Sidewalk, PCC, 4-inch Filter Socks, 8-inch Conventional Seeding, Seeding and Fertilizing 330 25 2 200 44 150 167 LF LF EA SY SY LF SY $ 35.00 $ 25.00 $ 4,000.00 $ 45.00 $ 35.00 $ 3.00 $ 4.00 $ 11,550.00 $ 625.00 $ ,000.00 $ 8,000.00 $ 1,540.00 $ 450.00 $ 668.00 Subtotal= $ 36,68500 Fire A1 aratus Access -Option 2 11 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 Traffic Control Tree Removal Topsoil, Strip, Stockpile, and Subbase, Modified IDOT 4123 3), , 6-inch Pavement, PCC, 7-inch Filter Socks, &inch Conventional Seeding, Seeding and Fertilizing Easement -50%of assessed land value per SF $109,17010.552 acres 1 1 103 620 495 250 310 1808 LS LS CY SY SY LF SY SF $ 1,500.00 $ 3,000.00 $ 15.00 $ 8.00 $ 45.00 $ 3.00 $ 4.00 $ 2.27 $ 1.500.00 $ 3.000.00 $ 1,550.00 $ 4,960.00 $ 22,275.00 $ 750.00 $ 1,240.00 $ 4,104.35 Subtotal = $ 39,379.35 Subtotal= $ 80,042.35 . 15% Mobilization $ 12,006.00 10% Contingency 8,0D4.00 Miscellaneous Total = $ 100,052.35 150/6 ngineering $ 15,008.00 5% Bidding$ 5,003.00 Subtotal = Estimated Project Costmm $ 120,063.35 - I I W012016 HBK Engineering HBK Site Plan 027 Exhibit I - 027 AaDellants' Exhibit 2 Timeline for University Heights and Lusk Ave K Carlson buys lot in U.Hgts City attorney & T. Goerdt deem not residential "commercial/recreationa ref, a 101 Lusk vacant; P. Aspel in nursing ca re 9/2014 U. Heights denies Carlson t M. Hektoen files suit for ,. Carlson 8/2015 3/2015- 3/2015 'ine for U. Heights and Lusk - withdraws lawsuit M 4/2016 Univers1tv HeNs 5/2016 5/2016 6/2016 117 1/16 6/23/16 6/29/16 kz�Nci urn Goerdt accepts w S.Hektoen Neighbors discover s co ied p Oliveira bus V building permit g p Ion interna plans via hearsay memo 101 Lusk Oliveira sells application neighbors Carlson changes, City documents shared to Carlson ask questions building plans private sewer, lack of Demolitions, and don't get Bldin ermii easements, sewer Permit 101 Lusk answers reissu condition issues T. Goerdt signs building neighb rs go City requires new fire permit to City Council neighbors appeal & sewer infrastructure to BOA AD-Dellants' Exhibit 3 Affidavit of Karin Southard AFFIDAVIT OF KARIN SOUTHARD COMES NOW, Karin Southard, and, being first duly sworn, hereby states as follows: My name is Karin Southard. My husband, Tom, and I have lived in Iowa City for more than twenty-five years; we live at 420 Lexington Avenue, which is about two blocks from 101 Lusk Avenue. 3. My neighbors recently elected me President of Neighbors of Manville Heights Association (NMHA). 4. Our group formed approximately mid -June of 2016 when we gathered on a day's notice at the corner of Lusk Avenue and Bayard Street when we were informed by our neighbor Bill Ackerman of the planned "party venue" at 101 Lusk Avenue, to be constructed by persons identified as Reed and Sandra Carlson, from the Decorah area. 5. Bill and his wife, Karen Ackerman, own a house on Bayard Street that is adjacent to the 101 Lusk Avenue property; Bill had inadvertently heard by hearsay about the Carlsons' plans to build a large Kinnick Stadium replica building and he alerted neighbors. 6. In our initial neighborhood discussions, we realized that none of us knew anything about the proposed building for certain and we decided to investigate. 7. On very short notice, we organized ourselves into the Association so that we could represent interests of the neighborhood and efficiently learn information about the Carlsons' project. 8. What little information we could obtain caused us to conclude that this project was inappropriate for our low density single family neighborhood, generally, and particularly for the location at 101 Lusk Avenue. We believed that, if constructed, and if used as intended, the building would cause a nuisance and would threaten the health and safety of the neighborhood and those who used it for large party events. AFFIDAVIT of KARIN SOUTHARD Page 1 9. Members of our group appeared at a City Council meeting on June 21, 2016, to express our distress. We were assured by the Mayor and members of the Council that we would be allowed time on the agenda of the very next meeting, two weeks later —which caused us to believe that there would be time for the community to address the issues of concern in an orderly and informed manner. 10. However, within a few days of that meeting we noted that City staff member Doug Boothroy, in an interview with ABC News, indicated that a Building Permit would be issued the very next week —even though, at the time he made such a statement, the Building Permit earlier -issued had been suspended and the only Site Plan that the Carlson had submitted to the City showed a driveway leading to a place on Lusk Avenue where there was no paved surface. 11. The City rapidly moved forward just as Mr. Boothroy had predicted — approving a Site Plan that moved the driveway to the north side of 101 Lusk Avenue, but, this time, the driveway is located right in the way of a fire hydrant. This quick -approval appears to make a mockery of the Site Plan approval process. 12. Our concerns about this kind of conduct the appearance that at least some City staff members have failed to play a neutral role when interpreting and applying the Code —have been amplified as we have learned more about the situation. 13. Some members of our Association have continued to meet to share information we have been able to learn about the 101 Lusk Avenue situation, including careful reviews of public records produced, at our written requests, by the City of Iowa City, University Heights and the University of Iowa. We are unsettled by what we have learned. 14. At first, many of us thought it was a bad joke —the kind of thing a person would read about in the Onion --to build this "mini Kinnick" building on such a quiet, half -paved, dead-end residential street with old growth trees, charming cottages and minimal parking. Now, we are just stunned that this could happen in Iowa City. Neighbors were never given any opportunity to be informed. Indeed, the public records we have reviewed show that a possible "meet and greet" with neighbors was discussed by City staff AFFIDAVIT of KARIN SOUTHARD Page 2 persons but dismissed them as a "lose/lose" situation. Since when, and why, has providing information to taxpayers about a major project been considered "lose/lose" by our City government? 15. The public records we have reviewed cause many of us to believe that the determination by and the apparent goal of at least some members of the City's staff to allow this project to be constructed has overwhelmed all other considerations —including issues of public safety and health. 16. Based on our review of the records it would appear that plans for this project in Iowa City evolved in a very deliberate, biased fashion by a select few City staff persons who operated with very little oversight and no public scrutiny. 17. We now know that at least some members of the City staff were aware of the true nature of this project when it was presented by the Carlsons to the City of University Heights as early as 2015. At that time, the University Heights City Attorney and its Building Official, Terry Goerdt, reviewed the drawings for the Carlson building and deemed the proposed building, then, initially, as an entertainment venue, and not as a residential structure. A petition was circulated in opposition to the Carlson building, signed by many residents, and was copied to the Iowa City City Attorneys. 18. The public records for University Heights show further that the Carlson filed a lawsuit against that community when the City did not approve his project. Two facts about the Carlsons' threat and filing of litigation in that community were of special note -to us in our review. First, the City Council concurrently discussed paying for Mr. Goerdt's professional liability insurance --apparently in response to litigation concerns. Second, one of the lawyers retained by the Carlson to sue the City of University Heights was Matthew G. Hektoen, spouse of Iowa City Assistant Attorney Sara Hektoen. That lawsuit was in effect with the Carlson purchased 101 Lusk Avenue. 19. Remarkably, Mr. Goerdt's name frequently comes up in our review of the public records produced by the City of Iowa City. Mr. Goerdt, the same person who was involved in the City of University Heights' controversies about the same Carlson-Kinnick project was placed in charge of approving, or not approving Site Plan and Building Permit Application for the same project in Iowa City. Additionally, Assistant City Attorney Sara Hektoen, the spouse of Matthew G Hektoen, the attorney who filed the lawsuit for the Carlson against University Heights for that community's refusal to approve AFFIDAVIT of KARIN SOUTHARD Page 3 construction of the replica Kinnick Stadium building, was a recipient of documentation involving the Carlson structure, including, for example, on an occasion in which she was one of only 4 City staff member copied on a key internal memorandum to City Manager Geoff Fruin summarizing the status of this situation, a memorandum that was generated when neighbors were alarmed and requesting information. 20. To avoid the possibility or appearance of bias, to assure a neutral frame of mind when applying City Code provisions, taxpayers, at the very least, expect that the City would remove from decision -making processes those persons, such as the ones involved in this case, who come to the matter with pre -established opinions or other real or perceived biases. That did not happen in this instance. 21, From what we can determine, Mr. Goerdt was the principal staff person responsible for rendering an opinion as to whether the building should be classified as a residential or other type of structure. Mr. Geordt was in repeated communication with the Carlsons and their representatives. When one of the most important of the City Memoranda was completed, the City records reflect that Mr. Goerdt supplied the Carlsons with a copy of it --even before they requested it. 22. From our review of the public records, it would appear that at least some Iowa City staff anticipated the Carlsons' plans and expressed concerns as to the potential non -conforming nature of the building that they proposed to build. 23. Our reading of the record causes us to be concerned as to whether dissenting voices were considered or whether they, like earlier renditions of the Carlsons' building plans, were air -brushed out of the way. 24. We know that select City staff went through multiple efforts to compose wording on the Plan Review list and composed wording for a notarized affidavit to be supplied to, and signed by, the Carlsons. This odd affidavit is one that some members of our Association, having reviewed it, believe to be of dubious regulatory value. Perhaps it was intended to provide some sanctuary to City employees who are concerned as to the propriety of the City's approval of the Carlsons' Plan and Building Permit. AFFIDAVIT of KARIN SOUTHARD Page 4 25. Public records show that the City possessed unique and important knowledge not held by its citizens. Therefore, we are concerned that when inquiring citizens, such as Bill Ackerman, sought answers to their questions about issues such as private sanitary sewer lines, their capacities and locations, such persons were sometimes not treated respectfully and truthfully. 26. The City's absence of timely and substantive communications with nearby residents who would be adversely affected by the Kinnick Stadium -replica building, if it were to be built, stands in vivid contrast to the City's frequent communications with the Carlsons and their representatives in the same time period. Not only did the City fail to inform affected nearby residents in a timely and substantive way, further, it approved a Site Plan and a Building Permit to allow this frivolous project to move forward, a project that all neighbors we know of agree threatens the sewer, safety, security and property interests of adjacent owners downstream. 27. We note that one prior owner of 101 Lusk Avenue, Mr. Oliveira, of Prestige Properties, in response to his own Application to build two smaller homes, was appropriately required by the City to abide by provisions of the Code that assure public safety and health. We are concerned that the very next owners of that same property, the Carlsons, were treated very differently by the City and were excused from the reasonable application of the same, and similar, Code provisions. 28. We are just shaking -our heads asking "how can this possibly be happening in Iowa City?" We are normally proud to reside in —and to pay taxes in support of-- a City that takes care of its citizens and neighborhoods. 29. Something has gone terribly wrong in this instance. We are grateful that Iowa law requires the establishment of a Board of Adjustment and empowers it to correct serious errors made by Building Officials. We are confident that, upon the Board members' review of this situation, they will make the necessary corrections: (1) to determine that this project cannot be classified as a residential structure; and, (2) to revoke the Building Permit for 101 Lusk Avenue. AFFIDAVIT of KARIN SOUTHARD Page 5 FURTHER I SAYETH NOT. Ceti- � s�69�f-rr.�PG� KARIN SOUTHARD Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of September, 2016. `�`gOTARY PUBLIC EDAMES C �AREW Notarial Seal - loWA�nnalselon No. 771499Blon Expirea4'02, 201a AFFIDAVIT of KARIN SOUTHARD Page 6 Appellants' Exhibit Affidavit of Anne G. Sadler and Craig H. Syrop AFFIDAVIT OF ANNE G. SADLER AND CRAIG H. SYROP COME NOW, Anne G. Sadler and Craig H. Syrop, being first duly sworn, and hereby state as follows: We, Anne G Sadler and Craig H Syrop, are the sole owners of Blitz, LLC. As such, since purchasing it in 2009, we have been and we are the sole owners of real estate whose street address is 117 Lusk Avenue, Iowa City, Iowa, which is located less than 100 feet from the 101 Lusk Avenue property. We are citizens of Iowa City. At the time of our purchase of 117 Lusk Avenue, at a location two lots to the south, at 101 Lusk Avenue, there was a modestly -sized single family dwelling. It was owned and occupied by Pauline Aspel. According to records we have seen more recently, that home had 1 full bathroom. Within the last year we observed that the Aspel home was demolished. It was not either in whole or in part "destroyed or damaged by fire, explosion, act of God or by a public enemy," but, instead, was removed by voluntary demolition. We have learned more recently that F. Reed Carlson and Sandra Carlson were the owners of that residential structure when it was demolished. When we purchased the property at 117 Lusk Avenue we were not informed, nor, until very recently, did we know, that our residential property had shared a sanitary sewer with the residence at 101 Lusk Avenue. We first received rumors of a shared sewer line only after the City of Iowa City had issued a Building Permit to the Carlsons for a new building at 101 Lusk Avenue. In response to that rumor, we did some investigation, including a review of records produced by the City of Iowa City in response to a public records request. We discovered in those records that City officials and a prior owner of 101 Lusk Avenue, Mike Oliveira, owner of Prestige Properties, LLC,—a party who had purchased the property after Pauline Aspel had died —knew AFFIDAVIT of ANNE G. SADLER and CRAIG H. SYROP Page 1 of the shared sewer and had had its condition reviewed by civil engineers and persons having sewer camera equipment. According to those records, the civil engineer who appears to have been retained by Mr. Oliveira, had filed a professional opinion that the shared sewer line in its then -current condition should not be used to take on additional sewage load that would be created by (at that time, by that prior owner) two new residential structures. City officials, according to the public records we have reviewed, noted concerns for the absence of any Easement Agreement between the owners of 101 Lusk Avenue and properties to the north, including our property, and insisted, as a condition precedent to Mr. Oliveira's constructing two relatively small homes, that the owner build new private sewer lines to the City's sewer main or, in the alternative, produce evidence of a written Easement Agreement amongst those who shared the sanitary sewer line. Nobody ever contacted us, however. In learning of the shared sewer line only through our review of public records, we hired a professional sewer maintenance company to conduct a video taping of the sanitary sewer and to track the location of the sewer line. Only then, and not before, did we gain knowledge equal to that of, and already held and used by, the City and owners of 101 Lusk Avenue during the City's Building Permit process. We are appalled at the situation whereby at least some members of the City's staff have been willing to act covertly with the owners of 101 Lusk Avenue and enable the Carlsons to now do what they would not let prior owners of the property do only a few months earlier. That is, to newly construct a building utilizing a shared sewer whose intended use and design —to host large entertainment events —will add a tremendous sanitary sewer burden on a line that, in the written opinion of a licensed civil engineer, cannot bear that burden without causing difficulties for the properties, such as ours, that are downstream from the crowds. We are appalled that at least some City officials who, only a few months earlier, had insisted upon proof of a written Easement Agreement amongst the owners of 101 Lusk Avenue and properties to the north of it (including AFFIDAVIT of ANNE G. SADLER and CRAIG H. SYROP Page 2 ours) before a Building Permit would be approved for two proposed smaller ` residential structures. Now, a short time later, for the Carlsons' huge entertainment structure, imposed no such comparable requirement and no action was taken by the City to inform us that the issuance of a Building Permit to the Carlsons would place our property at risk. We have read section 14-1A-3 of the City's code that purports it should be implemented in a manner that "promotes the health, safety, order, convenience, prosperity, and general welfare of the citizens of Iowa City". However, we believe the issuance of a RS-5 building permit for new construction at 101 Lusk Avenue occurred without due application of these tenets and instead promoted the use of a shared sewer and un-granted use against, and placed an unlawful burden upon, our private property. Further, we believe that allowing, and indeed encouraging, new construction to utilize a shared private sewer violates the very code requirement for a separate sanitary sewer line required for RS5 designation as set forth by the City under section 16-3D-6D of city code. It is clear from City's documents that the shared sewer line and relevant concerns for easements across other's private property were prominent in prior considerations by the City during the processing of applications for building permits by Mr. Oliveira. 1) Notably, we have had our abstract reviewed repeatedly by attorneys, we have had our property surveyed by a licensed surveyor, we have had the premises inspected by Iowa One Call with any located buried services marked by it. None of these investigative actions revealed any evidence of any documented easement. Nor has any consideration ever been delivered to us or to any prior owner of our property for the use of this sanitary sewer by any owners of 101 Lusk Avenue —including the Carlsons. However, by contrast, another easement of record for a shared driveway is both obvious in terms of use and is well documented in our abstract and survey. 2) In addition, at no time since our ownership, have we been contacted by any owners of the property at 101 Lusk Avenue, their representatives or any agent of Iowa City Housing or Public Works or City Attorney or any other representative of the City regarding the existence of a shared, private sewer line or opinions expressed by persons, and placed in City files, that our AFFIDAVIT of ANNE G. SADLER and CRAIG H. SYROP Page 3 property would be placed at risk if added sewage burdens were to be placed upon the existing sanitary sewer line. 3) At no time has our approval or permission to use, to re-establish use or to clarify responsibilities or liabilities for the use for this shared private sewer line ever been sought by any owner of 101 Lusk Avenue, their representative or any agent of Iowa City. 4) Our review of city records documents a clear fore knowledge by at least some members of the City's staff that a separate, lawfW sewer line, as directed by RS-5 code, directing egress of sewage contents from 101 Lusk Avenue directly to the City's sewer main, could be established by the owners of 101 Lusk Avenue by accessing available and public right of way on Lusk Avenue. Further, this could be done without the un-granted use of our private property. Therefore, it is our stance that by granting the Carlsons' permit for new construction, the City has misapplied its own Code and thereby benefited asymmetrically these particular Building Permit Applicants and despite the City's own awareness concerning, and identification of, a clear and previously sought alternative. The City's failure to balance and protect our health, safety, convenience, and prosperity —citizens of the community —in clear favor of persons who do not reside in our neighborhood, is deeply troubling and has caused us to consider all possible private actions we can take to defend our property interests in the absence of impartial and effective government conduct. FURTHER WE_SAYETH NOT. JAMES C LAREW Notarial Seal - IOWA Commission No. 7714W 1MY 0"Nalon ExpIrb FeM ary 02, 2018 Subscribea and sworn to before me aARY and Craig H. Syrop this-foLday of September, 2016.. LIC-IOWA AFFIDAVIT of ANNE G. SADLER and CRAIG H. SYROP Page 4 Appellants' Exhibit 5 Affidavit of Dennis Befeler AFFIDAVIT OF DENNIS BEFELER COMES NOW Dennis Befeler, being first duly sworn, and hereby states as follows: 1. My name is Dennis Befeler. 2. I reside at 234 Hutchinson Ave. with my wife and children. 3. That location is about 1 block away from 101 Lusk Avenue and is located in the Manville Heights neighborhood, zoned as RS-5, Low Density Single Family Residential. 4. When I heard about the controversy involving the planned construction of a large event space, a replica of Kinnick Stadium, I was interested, from the perspective of a planner and designer, and concerned as a father with a young family living not too far away. 5. The more I learned about this proposal, the more concerned I became and I have become active with my neighbors in trying to steer the City in a better direction. 6. To that end, in addition to my own personal advocacy, I have become involved and helped to establish the Neighbors of Manville Heights Association (NNVIHA), of which I serve as one of its officers. 7. I am employed as an audio-visual system consultant. 8. I possess over twenty years' experience overseeing construction aspects of event spaces. 9. I am currently employed by the University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics (UIHC), to design and overseetheinstallation of audio and video systems in event spaces, including the ongoing construction of over 30 event spaces in the Children's Hospital currently underway in Iowa City. 10.I hold a Master's degree from the University of Nebraska, Lincoln, in Theater Design and Technology, and dual BA's (Bachelors of Arts in Theater Arts and Business Administration), both from Coe College in Cedar Rapids, IA. 11.I have worked the bulk of my professional career in the design and installation of event venues. I am a LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) Accredited Professional and have been a member of USITT (United States Institute of Theater Technology). 12.I worked at The Savannah College of Art and Design, in Savannah GA, helping the Media and Performing Arts department establish new facilities, including the design and construction of several theater and event spaces. 13.I have supervised audio-visual system installations at the Paramount Theater (001 in Cedar Rapids, IA; Kirkwood's Ballyntine Auditorium, Cedar Rapids, IA; Kinnick Stadium, in Iowa City, IA; St. Mary's Church, Iowa City; and numerous other conference room, theater, church, and athletic venues. 14.A common feature of my educational training and professional work is assessing spaces for performance and social functions. 15.To that end, I have taken special note of statements I have read in newspapers by the Carlson family, as they have described their intended use of the structure, as well as studying and reviewing drawings and plans submitted by the Carlsons to the City —drawings and plans which seem to have changed frequently. 16.As I have educated myself better about the Carlsons' proposed structure and applicable provisions of the City Code, as well as hundreds of pages of documents produced by the City of Iowa City in response to a public records request, I can find no evidence that any City employee of Building Official analyzed the uses and activities to which the Carlson' structure will be put, if it is built. 17.My understanding of the City Code is that such an analysis should have been objectively and impartially performed by a Building Official —but, it was not. 18.In reviewing the Use Categories described in the City Code, I am of the view that a person with a reasonable background and training could perform the kind of analysis that the City Code anticipates. 19.I believe that my own educational and professional training and experience allows me to offer the basis for my opinion that, as defined by the City Code, the Carlsons' proposed structure cannot be accurately classified as a residential structure. 20.Indeed, I don't believe that there is any classification for this building that is allowed under the permitted classification for the RS-5 zone. Given that the exterior structure is designed to emulate the University of Iowa's Kinnick Stadium, the advertised use is more of commercial in character, not residential. 21.In my professional view, this project is primarily designed and intended as a commercial -type large events venue —even if products are not to sold on the premises. 22.The planned structure does not fit the definition of a single family home. 23.As a basis for formulating this opinion and conclusion I have reviewed the evolving plan, including views, dimensions, and lay -outs of the proposed construction project at 101 Lusk Avenue in Iowa City. 24.Based on industry standards with which I am familiar in the performance of my vocation, one normally plans for banquet seating a space allowance of 13.5 square feet per person. 25.The main level is designed to allow opening rooms on the same level to the courtyard. This configuration can comfortably seat over 200 persons, with access aisles to (what appears in some of the plans), built-in food catering serving lines and a beverage center in the three season porch. 26.Seating square footage within the courtyard area allows for roughly 100 people; interior space allows for 100 more. 27.The series of drawings submitted to the city show a clear intention for this property: it is designed to be used as an event venue for 200 person parties. 28.The plans for the event venue at 101 Lusk Avenue clearly show a different primary intent than for residential use. 29.The structure is principally intended to host large events first, and the bedrooms and living spaces are of secondary, or accessory use. 30.No series of small modifications to the plans for 101 Lusk Avenue (and, there have been many, as if to "air brush" details that speak to the large group intent e.g., lockers were recently removed from the bathroom drawings; bathroom names were recently changed from "men's" and "women's") will change the intent; an intent both publicly stated by the owners and clearly shown in plans. 31.If one were to analyze the numbers of hours that occupants would spend in particular activities as one measure of an appropriate use classification, it is notable that the owners have recently described an intent to be at the home only very occasionally —most of the time it will be empty. 32.If so, one can easily visualize the intensity of entertainment use (e.g. 200 persons per event lasting, say, four hours, or 800 entertainment hours) compared to the residential use for the same calendar period (2 owners staying for a weekend of 48 hours, or 96 hours) establishes a entertainment:residential use ratio of about 16:1, conservatively. 33.Altematively, if one were to compare the floor space devoted to typical residential uses (bedrooms; a reasonable proportion of the dining and living spaces) compared to the floor space devoted to entertainment uses, the ratio yields a similar outcome. For example: a. The planned structure has a Building Permit -described footprint of 7476 square feet ("sq.ft."). However, that square footage does not include a 1482 sq ft court yard, an entertainment space —or, a total of more than 8900 square feet of living and entertainment space. b. Of that amount of total space, the upper -most (third) level is 1528 sq ft. in size, and is described in some drawings as having three bedrooms. c. It is possible that any of the three bedrooms could have alternative uses, insofar as the owners, Mr. and Mrs. Carlson, would likely use the master bedroom which is on what could be called the main (second) level. d. The main (second) level has the following rooms and spaces: i. The master bedroom / bathroom and "owner entrance" (there are two entrances —this back door, one that faces to the West and that enters into private space; and one front door, one which opens to Lusk Avenue, to the East. ii. An exercise room, which appears to be an adjunct to the master bedroom and owner entrance. The master bedroom / bath and this exercise room have a footprint of 807 sq ft. iii. The kitchen is 480 sq ft in size (not counting the "dining area" by the stairs). 1. Average kitchens in Manville Heights that I have observed and worked on are most frequently sized in the100-200 sq ft range, and even lavish luxury homes typically do not very often exceed 350 sq ft in size as it is hard to cook in such a huge space. 2. With a 16-long island (which is larger than some commercial bars in Iowa City), the kitchen is designed more for entertaining (or impressing), than for food prep. e. Even counting She full kitchen, and not counting the courtyard, living, residential space constitutes about 38% of the whole interior space. If one were to include the courtyard area, the space devoted to residential uses would shrink to about 33%. f. If one were to deduct for a "normally lavish" kitchen, and include the courtyard, living space is approximately 29% of the available "party" space. g. By any reasonable measure, it would appear that less than 1/3 of the space has been designed for residential use. The rest is designed to host large -group entertainment events. 34.While Carlson's official statement is that "he plans to host family gatherings" and the structure "will stand vacant most of the year," by any reasonable, objective measure, I am of the opinion, and I conclude, that, on the basis of common functional and physical characteristics, combined with multiple public statements such as made by Carlson to ABC news (6/24/16), that their intended use of this structure "is to build a house to tailgate at". If it is built, the structure is designed for high volumes of pedestrian flow, and will be used as, an events venue for up to 200 people, for which it is designed, and not as a residential structure. 35.The City Code allows —although I see no evidence that the City's Building Official ever considered —an evaluation of vehicle use, building and site arrangements and the number of vehicle trips generated by the use of the property when classifying a building's use. 36.In this instance, it is clear that the civil infrastructure on Lusk Avenue in Iowa City is intended to support RS5 single-family homes, and not a structure of this size and constructed for entertainment purposes. 37.This infrastructure is not designed to support 200 people in an event venue. There are safety concerns, as emergency vehicle access is very limited, slowing response times. There is not adequate parking for the events this venue is designed to accommodate, and there is not safe or adequate pedestrian egress in and out of the venue. Restroom facilities are used in a different way in event venues, where heavy water use often occurs in a very short period. Aging infrastructure in a residential neighborhood is likely not designed for the intended use of this facility. 38.A 200 person -capacity event venue should not be built at 101 Lusk Avenue. Event venues do not meet RS5 zoning classifications and the location is inadequate for this expected use. FURTHER I SAYETH NOT. ennis Befeler Subscribed and sworn to before me� De s Befeler this � day of September, 2016. %( PUBLIC JAMES C. 'AEW Not��rr{{al Seal - IOWA NY 9, C8►N1liaalon No. 771499 Y lR boas February 02, 2018 Appellants' Exhibit Affidavit of Patricia C. Koza AFFIDAVIT OF PATRICIA C. KOZA COMES NOW, Patricia C. Koza, having been first duly sworn, and hereby states as follows: My name is Patricia C. Koza. I live with my husband John Koza at 209 Lexington Avenue, which is less than one- half block North from the proposed Carlson building at 101 Lusk Avenue. I was born and raised in Manville Heights and have lived most of my adult life there. In my opinion, the proposed Carlson building has been misclassified by the City in the Building Permit process. It is nothing more than some kind of adult entertainment venue, such as a sports bar with bedrooms, masquerading as a residence. Iowa City, being a college town, has more than its share of entertainment venues and bars. The City has enacted comprehensive codes for these types of structures for the protection and safety of those who use them... certainly not for the convenience of those who own them. If it were properly classified as an entertainment venue, this building would be held to high standards of safety to protect the up to 200 persons who can occupy it at one time. The commercial kitchen would have to meet a myriad of health standards. There would be sprinklers to slow the advance of any fires. There AFFIDAVIT of PATRICIA C. KOZA Page 1 would be doors opening to the outside with crash bars to assure rapid exit in the event of danger. As it is, this 7,400 square foot building has one single door leading directly to the outside from the main level. A second door exits into the garage but it is only accessible by going through the kitchen and then through the Owner's Suite. There is one egress stairway and door from the lower level and there are no egress windows, yet that level is designed to attract crowds, holding a sports court and a large theatre. By comparison, in our 2400 square foot home, located within a block of the Carlson property, we have three doors on the main level that exit directly to the outside. Because the Carlson proposal has been misclassified as a residence, it is not being held to conform to the safety codes that have been painstakingly drawn by generations of City staff members and enacted into law by responsible, elected officials. The people who are entertained in this space will not enjoy the protections that they deserve from our City. It is the fervent hope of myself, my family and my neighbors that you embrace your duty as members of the Board of Adjustment to revisit the misclassification of this entertainment venue and that you come to the conclusion that there is no building classification for a structure such as this in the RS-S Zone. AFFIDAVIT of PATRICIA C. KOZA ( C) Page 2 Please revoke the Building Permit that was issued in error. FURTHER I SAYETTH NOT. ca6 !", PATRICIA C. KOZ Subscribed and sworn to before me by/�a ici . Koza this _day of September, 2016 11---\ PUBLIC- E� s DAMES Notarial gem REW Comnussion No. 77�1q� MY Commission Expires • ��ry 02, 2018 AFFIDAVIT of PATRICIA C. KOZA Page 3 ADDellants' Exhibit 7 Public Records Documents Subject Re: University Heights - Lot 115 From <silvia@university-heights.org> To Steve Ballard <Ballard@lefflaw.com> mike@university-heights.org <mike@university-heights.org>, Silvia Quezada <silvia@university- Cc heights.org>,jbilskemper@chive-hattery.com <jbilskemper@shive-hattery.com>, goerdt@netins.net <goerdt@netins.net> Date 2014-06-29 09:53 Priority Normal Steve - thank you for your note below, hope all went well with the family matter you mentioned! Your note has reassuring points, but I also see ordiance improvement points. what is your availability in the next week or the following? I have some ideas I'd like to toss -out there and see what comes about. Terry and Josiah - I will be reaching out to you on impact -type questions. what is your availability in the next week or so? Mike - let's regroup. I have some suggestions to help our ordinances catch up with the times. thank you all. SQ Subject RE: University Heights - Lot 115 From Steve Ballard <Ballard@lefflaw.com> To silvia@university-heights.org <silvia@university-heights.org> Cc mike@university-heights.org<mike@university-heights.org>,jbilskemper@shive-hattery.com <jbilskemper@shive-hattery.com>, goerdt@netins.net <goerdt@netins.net> Date 2014-06-29 09:55 Silvia, I am only in Monday (tomorrow) of this week, then out until July 8 (a week from Tuesday). I have good availability the July 8-11 and the week after that. Steven E. Ballard Leff Law Firm, L.L.P. P.O. Box 2447 222 South Linn Street Iowa City, Iowa 52244-2447 office: 319/338-7551 mobile: 319/430-3350 facsimile: 319/338-6902 email: ballard@lefflaw.com Subject University Heights - Lot 115 From Steve Ballard <Ballard@lefflaw.com> To Frederic Reed Carlson <frcarlson@mchsi.com> Cc terry-goerdt@university-heights.org <terry-goerdt@university-heights.org> Date 2014-09-17 06:37 Good Morning Mr. Carlson, Appellants' Exhibit 7 - 001 The University Heights Building Official, Terry Goerdt, and I have reviewed the drawings submitted by AI Zahasky concerning proposed development of Lot 115, University Heights First Addition. Our conclusion is that the proposed development, as shown in the drawings, does not comply with applicable University Heights ordinances, particularly the City's Zoning Ordinance and Sensitive Slopes Ordinance. Here's why: 1. Initially, the drawings submitted lack significant detail. a. They do not comprise a building permit application. b. There is no site plan. c. There is no description of the slopes involved on the lot and how the proposed construction complies with Ordinance 128, which regulates development and disturbance of sensitive slopes. 2. The drawings appear to show a commercial recreational use, which is not permitted in the R-1 Zone. The zone permits one single-family dwelling per lot. See Ordinance 79(6)(A)(1). Such features as a full bar, separately marked "men's" and "women's" bathroom facilities, and gym lockers appear to depict a commercial recreational use constituting the primary use. The Zoning Ordinance permits "customary accessory uses" but they must be "incidental to the principal use". See Ordinance 79(6)(A)(4). Well less than half of the square footage of the proposed construction, as shown on the drawings, relates to a residential use. 3. The drawings do not show any parking on the lot; off-street parking is required. See Ordinance 79(10)(A). 4. The drawings appear to show substantial concrete construction. Anticipating the weight and loads involved, an engineer's certificate will be required for the City to consider a building permit related to what's shown in the drawings. I want to stress that the above list is preliminary and responds only to the drawings as submitted. No building permit application has been submitted, but these items, among others, would need to be addressed before a permit could be considered. Please let me know if you have further questions or wish to discuss this matter. I trust that Mr. Zahasky might be in a position to speak with Mr. Goerdt about many of the items noted, as well. Steven E. Ballard Leff Law Firm, L.L.P. P.O. Box 2447 222 South Linn Street Iowa City, Iowa 52244-2447 office:319/338-7551 mobile: 319/430-3350 facsimile:319/338-6902 email: ballardPiefflaw.com Subject UH - Lot 115 From Steve Ballard <Ballard@lefflaw.com> To terry-goerdt@university-heights.org <terry-goerdt@university-heights.org>, jbilskemper@shive- hattery.com <jbilskemper@shive-hattery.com> Cc Louise From <louisebob@mchsi.com> Date 2014-10-0916:29 Terry and Josiah, I just sent you each a text on this. Word from neighbors (at least 2) is that there is someone with a skid loader and/or bulldozer at Lot 115 on Highland Drive in University Heights. The guy is clearing trees and dumping gravel. He told someone he was dumping gravel to level out the parking area for tailgating. Appellants' Exhibit 7 - 002 Sue Dulek From: Jason Havel <Jason-Havel@iowa-city.org> Sent: Friday, January 23, 2015 4:39 PM To: Roger Overton Subject: RE: 101 Lusk Ave Would we want/require any repairs/changes in this location? Thanks. Jason From: Roger Overton Sent: Monday, January 05, 2015 7:37 AM To: Ron Knoche; Dave Elias; Ed Moreno; Jason Havel Cc: Josh Slattery; Kevin Slutts; Paul Druivenga Subject: RE: 101 Lusk Ave Ron, It appears that the 3 houses on the west side of Lusk, which would include 101 are on a private 6" line that goes into the MH at Bayard and Lexington. See attached plat k215. Roger From: Ron Knoche Sent: Sunday, January 04, 2015 6:18 PM To: Dave Elias; Ed Moreno; Jason Havel Cc: Josh Slattery; Roger Overton; Kevin Slutts Subject: RE: 101 Lusk Ave There is no site plan. I will have Barb sketch something and we will send it out. Thanks, Ron Sent from my U.S. CellularW Smanplwne ---- --- Original message -------- From: Dave Elias <Dave-Elias@iowa-city.org> Date:01/04/2015 5:24 PM (GMT-06:00) To: Ron Knoche <Ron-Knoche@iowa-city.org>, Ed Moreno <Ed-Moreno@iowa-city.org>, Jason Havel <Jason-Havel@iowa-city.org> Cc: Josh Slattery <Josh-Slattery@iowa-city.org>, Roger Overton <Roger-Overton@iowa-city.org>, Kevin Slutts <Kevin-Slutts@iowa-city.org> Subject: RE: 101 Lusk Ave Is there a digital site plan? r Dave Elias Appellants' Exhibit 7 - 003 Sue Dulek From: Julie Tallman <Julie-Tallman@iowa-city.org> Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 10:40 AM To: Jason Havel Cc: Doug Boothroy; Tim Hennes; Jann Ream; John Yapp Subject: Proposed lot split on Lusk Attachments: Lusk Lot Split 2.25.15.pdf The lot split requires approval by Doug Boothroy. The plat of survey, creating a new Auditor's Plat, will have to be signed by the PE or licensed surveyor, and submitted to Doug for approval. Summary of earlier conversations regarding this particular lot split: 1. Ron Knoche, at the end of December 2014, estimated that the street would need to be extended approximately BO feet south to provide the required street frontage specified in the zoning ordinance. 2. In Ron's email to Mr. Oliviera, he also specified that a turn -around at the end of the street would have to be required. 3. Ron also raised the question of how water and sanitary sewer services would be extended to the lots. 4. A copy of Ron's email is available in the Building Division. Today's comments: 1. There must be 45 feet of street frontage along the south lot, with said frontage providing a means of vehicular access to the new home. In other words, Lusk Avenue must be extended to provide vehicular access for a minimum of 45 feet along the east lot line of the new lot. The presence of platted right-of-way alone is not sufficient. 2. The Fire Department should be included in discussions regarding the street design, as the turn -around would rRPN be used for emergency vehicle apparatus. 3. Driveway spacing standards require three feet (3') between the lot line extended and the curb cut on Lusk. 4. The sanitary sewer as proposed raises several questions. One, will it function? The plan shows 5 bends in the line. Two, would it not make more sense to abandon the sanitary sewer where it entered the original structure, re-route it to the Lusk Avenue right-of-way, and stub the services west from a new sewer main in the right-of-way? Is there an existing easement around the sanitary sewer where it crosses private property? 5. The trees indicated "to be saved" cannot all be saved with the necessary extension of pavement on Lusk. Appellants' Exhibit 7 - 004 Sue Dulek From: Paul Druivenga <Paul-Druivenga@iowa-city.org> Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2015 11:24 AM To: Jason Havel Subject: RE: 101 Lusk Ave. Request to subdivide lot. Attachments: Lusk.pdf Perhaps something like this. 1 know Jeff Maxwell can bore lines. From: Jason Havel Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2015 10:06 AM To: Paul Druivenga Cc: Roger Overton Subject: Re: 101 Lusk Ave. Request to subdivide lot. What would be your preferred option? Thanks. Sent from my iPhone On Feb 25, 2015, at 9:52 AM, Paul Druivenga <Paul-Druiven2ana, gAk2itv.org> wrote: Jason - The proposed house farthest to the south would have its sewer service cross 3 different properties. I'm not a fan of this proposal. Future repairs of the private line could get dicey. Generally when I'm asked about similar older sewers "why did the City OK this?". Paul From: Jason Havel Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2015 9:19 AM To: Roger Overton; Paul Druivenga; Chris Parizek; Tim Hennes; Julie Tallman; Josh Slattery Subject: FW: 101 Lusk Ave. Request to subdivide lot. All, Attached is a drawing for splitting a lot on Lusk Avenue. Please review and let me know if you have any questions/concerns. Tim/Julie, do you want the response to come from your department or would you like me to respond to Mike with comments? Thanks. Jason From: Mike Oliveira rmailto•moliveirafalorestig2prop com] Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2015 12:27 PM To: Jason Havel Cc: 'Robert Carlson'; 'J. Scott Ritter' Subject: 101 Lusk Ave. Request to subdivide lot. Appellants' Exhibit 7 - 005 Sue Dulek From: Josh Slattery <Josh-Slattery@iowa-city.org> Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 2:49 PM To: Jason Havel; Roger Overton; Paul Druivenga; Chris Parizek; Tim Hennes; Julie Tallman Subject: RE: 101 Lusk Ave. Request to subdivide lot. Jason, I have the following comments: 1. The proposed houses do not have separate and independent building sanitary sewer services as required in 16- 3D-6D. It appears that the sanitary sewer that is shown extending from a manhole at the intersection of Bayard St and Lexington Ave down to underneath the northern proposed house is a private service line. It is indicated that way in the legend on the drawing and our maps and plats do not show any sewer in this location. 117 Lusk Ave, ill Lusk Ave, and both of the proposed homes will use this sewer service. 2. The water service for the south home runs 2 to 3 feet within the ROW and may be hard to maintain without encroaching on the neighboring property to the north. 3. Will the vacated ROW become part of the south lot so that it meets the frontage requirements? 4. If this ROW is vacated then the property across the street will not be able to split and do the same thing (if this matters). If you have any question regarding these comments, please let me know. Josh From: Jason Havel Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2015 9:19 AM To: Roger Overton; Paul Druivenga; Chris Parizek; Tim Hennes; Julie Tallman; Josh Slattery Subject: FW: 101 Lusk Ave. Request to subdivide lot. All, Attached is a drawing for splitting a lot on Lusk Avenue. Please review and let me know if you have any questions/concerns. Tim/Julie, do you want the response to come from your department or would you like me to respond to Mike with comments? Thanks. Jason From: Mike Oliveira[mailto:moliveira@prestigeprop.cwm] Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2015 12:27 PM To: Jason Havel Cc: 'Robert Carlson'; 'J. Scott Ritter Subject: 101 Lusk Ave. Request to subdivide lot. Hi Jason, Appellants' Exhibit 7 - 006 Sue Dulek From: Jason Havel <Jason-Havel@iowa-city.org> Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2015 8:52 PM To: Jason Havel Subject: Lusk Ave Attachments: Lusk Avenue Comments.docx Appellants' Exhibit 7 - 007 General �a 1. A.plat of survey, creating a new Auditor's Plat, will have to be signed by a PE or licensed surveyor, and submitted to the Director of Neighborhood and Development Services for approval. 2. Zoning (RS5) requires 45 feet of street frontage. Lusk Avenue should be extended to provide vehicular access for a minimum of 45 feet along the east lot line of the new lot. Anything less than that would require a variance request. 3. Driveway spacing standards require three feet (3') between the lot line extended and the curb cut on Lusk. 4. Turn -around at the end of Lusk Avenue sufficientfor fire department? Sanitary 1 Is there an existing easement around the sanitary sewer where it crosses private property? 2. The City's preference would be to provide a sanitary sewer within the Lusk Avenue ROW and tie the services into the new line (see attached drawing as a possible option). 1- 14f�1} �P73'.fGT�L'>I':� ° o titi. �- °''�IL�I�'�P � e I e o • yy ti �,�» ..,,��.. _�.�.� -_.. .... _ _ Jr- _ �����./S�AP.L-..�7,tJr, StJJyv4�it�Fj�Jix'ii.L;•_Pfl3. Appellants' Exhibit 7 - 008 Sue Dulek From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Good afternoon, Jason Havel <Jason-Havel@iowa-city.org> Wednesday, March 25, 2015 1:58 PM John Grier; Brian Greer Turnaround on Lusk Ave Lusk Ave Lot(s).pdf A developer is looking to possibly divide an existing lot on Lusk Avenue. As part of the process, we would require a turnaround at the end of the street. Is the proposed turnaround (see attached) sufficient for the Fire Department. Thanks. Jason Havel, P.E. City Engineer City of Iowa City 410 E. Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 Phone: (319) 356-5410 Fax: (319) 356-5007 t !� CITY of Iowa CITY UNEMCnYOFUTGATUPE Appellants' Exhibit 7 - 009 e nv.• n BRYRR➢YIRCEl n.�..Ra'R .mr Ili Appellants' Exhibit 7 - 010 Sue Dulek From: Brian Greer <Brian-Greer@iowa-city.org> Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2015 3:11 PM To: Jason Havel; John Grier Subject: RE: Turnaround on Lusk Ave Attachments: Fire Apparatus Access Roads.pdf Jason, I have attached the 2012 International Fire Code (IFC) appendix for fire apparatus access roads. With the space you have to work with there, it appears that it would be impossible to provide a conforming turnaround to meet the requirements of the code. In relationship to this proposed turnaround, our fire engines are 38+ feet long, and the laddertruck is 47+feet long. The proposed turnaround definitely would not accommodate the ladder truck and quite possibly the fire engines. Are there any other options you are looking at in regards to this proposed turnaround/development? Let me know if you have any. Thanks. Stay safe, Brian 33a".T (au"- 5ke Ata"fia Iowa City Fire Department 410 E. Washington Street Iowa City, la. 52240 319-356-5257 brian-areer(cNowacity. ora From: Jason Havel Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2015 1:58 PM To: John Grier; Brian Greer Subject: Turnaround on Lusk Ave Good afternoon, A developer is looking to possibly divide an existing lot on Lusk Avenue. As part of the process, we would require a turnaround at the end of the street. Is the proposed turnaround (see attached) sufficient for theF" Department. Thanks. Jason Havel, P.E. City Engineer City of Iowa City 410 E. Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 Phone: (319) 356-5410 Fax: (319) 356-5007 ire Appellants' Exhibit 7 - oil Sue Dulek From: Mike Oliveira <moliveira@prestigeprop.com> Sent: Sunday, June 07, 2015 7:57 AM To: Jason Havel Subject: RE: 101 Lusk Ave Sewer Line Easement I will work for Friday morning right now keep that open I will get back to you with an exact time. From: Jason Havel [mailto:Jason-Havel@iowa-city.org] Sent: Saturday, June 06, 2015 7:00 PM To: 'Mike Oliveira' Cc: 'Michael Kennedy' Subject: RE: 101 Lusk Ave Sewer Line Easement Mike, What days/times would work for you this upcoming week? Friday (12a') is pretty open for me, but I maybe able to fit it in another day if you were wanting it to be sooner. Thanks. Jason From: Mike Oliveira[mailto:moliveira(rrw,prestjeeprop com] Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2015 5:04 PM To: Jason Havel Cc: 'Michael Kennedy' Subject: 101 Lusk Ave Sewer Line Easement Hi Jason, We have engaged our attorney, Mike Kennedy, to try and nail down the easement language that will satisfy your departments concerns while balancing the concerns with the multi of property owners that use the service. You and the other property owners are the last hurtle in this project. I believe the other property are going to be a huge challenge. Appellants' Exhibit 7 - 012 HART-FREDERICK CONSULTANTS, P.C. ENGINEERS & SURVEYORS I October, 2015 Prestige Properties 239 E. Court St, Ste 2 Iowa City, IA 52240 Attn: Mike Oliveira Re: Sanitary Sewer Service to 101 Lusk Avenue — Iowa City, Iowa Dear W. Oliveira: - We have reviewed the video footage from the inspection of the sanitary. sewer service to 101 Lusk Avenue in Iowa City performed on September 23, 2015. Based on the video, we would not recommend using the existing service line in its current condition for the proposed additional single family homes. The tuberculation in the 4-inch diameter cast iron section of the service line will impede flow and possibly cause blockages and backups. The roots protruding through the pipe joints in the VCP section have been removed, but may re -grow in the future. These would again become sources of potential blockage and infiltration. Many of the joints are offset slightly from each other. The offsets could be considered minor and do not severely impede flow. The video camera did reach the manhole in this inspection and only two services discovered. The service to 631 Bayard Street was not found. This makes a total of four residential connects on the service line that is believed to be 6-inches in diameter. Typical standard practice for most cities is to require a minimum pipe diameter of 6-inches when more than one building is served by a single service line. According to the sewer inspection equipment operator, cast iron portion of this service line is 4-inches in diameter. Based on the latest video inspection, we recommend anew 6-inch service line be installed to replace the 4-inch cast iron section of the existing service line. The remaining existing service line should be lined to prevent future root growth and infiltration. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call Scott Ritter, L.S., or myself at our office. S/ I�, Benjamin A. Carhoff, P.E. Hart -Frederick Consultants P.C. cc: Jason Havel, City of Iowa City enc: Video on USB Flash Drive file 510 State Stint • EO. Boa 560 • Ti9m, IA 52340-0560 • 319-545-7215 • Fas: 319-545-7220 • ww Jinn-fiedeadccom Eugheenng • Suxveymg • planning Appellants' Exhibit 7 - 013 . Sue Dulek From: Jason Havel Wason-Havel@iowa-city.org> Sent: Friday, October 23, 2015 7:15 PM To: 'Mike Oliveira' Subject: RE: 101 Lusk Ave Next Steps Mike, Yes, I did receive the letter, and supporting information on a thumb drive, from Hart -Frederick. Thanks. Jason From., Mike Oliveira [mailto:moliveira@prestigeprop.com] Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2015 5:16 PM To: Jason Havel Subject: RE: 101 Lusk Ave Next Steps Did you get the letter from the engineering company? From: Jason Havel [mailto:Jason-Havel@iowa-city.org] Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2015 4:56 PM To: WUe Oliveira' <moliveira@prestigeprop.com> Cc: U. Scott Ritter' <sritter@hart-frederick.com> Subject: RE: 101 Lusk Ave Next Steps Mike, Sure, what day/time works for you? Thanks. Jason From: Mike Oliveira [mailto:moliveira cr,nrestigeprou.coml Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2015 12:37 PM To: Jason Havel Cc: 'J. Scott Ritter' Subject: 101 Lusk Ave Next Steps Appellants' Exhibit 7 - 014 May 2, 2015 Frederick Reed Carlson 1202 Pleasant Avenue Decorah, IA 52101 Dear Mr. Carlson: You have indicated in the past that your intent is to be a good neighbor and to strengthen neighborhood bonds. The first step in this process is to rescind your site plan and submit a plan for a residence that blends into the architecture and culture of the neighborhood. Lot 115 was created as a split from the lot that encompassed the dwelling immediately north and east some years ago and hence it remained zoned R1 because the lot from which it was divided was R1. However this lot is comprised of steep and sensitive slopes, normal flora and habitat providing natural drainage. Today areas such as this are set aside by cities and are protected as greenspace to preserve the environment, promote natural wildlife habitat and enhance the communities therein. This lot is not conducive to construction, but if you persist in building a residence, it would seem reasonable that you would desire to keep within the ambiance of the surrounding community. The site plan you submitted, however, is not such a dwelling-- but rather a very large mini-Kinnick stadium party venue which simply does not fit within the charm and integrity of our "small town" neighborhood. Sincerely, Your Neighbors Enclosure cc: Steve Ballard, U Hts City Attorney U Hts City Council, c/o Mayor Louise From Eleanor Dilkes, City Attorney, Iowa City Sue Dulek, Attorney, Iowa City Appellants' Exhibit 7 - 015 NAME ADDRESS I�L ��Y? e*z AV-L ZIL /,Zu& VI U, 'j� d a r 623 ;�AdLAtty Appellants' Exhibit 7 - 016 I NAME r;- i :,11r �315 �1 ADDRESS 40 11Lc C��nl�,�tcL.„ Ikt,t. =,v;� 8`s I -ea m ev- Ca- � � (1. WV(LA N 6, 7L li�fh(anC� I>, Appellants' Exhibit 7 - 017 NAME ADDRESS f t o f3 (��-�..a� i- �`ru.•v� , 13'� t Au , 1 � 9 Hlylllal Vic% br - i 011, o,,I ..; Appellants' Exhibit 7 - 018 E-FILED 2015 SEP 16 4:26 PM JOHNSON - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT SIMMONS PERRI E MOYERQBLC ByMATT OEN AT0000297 115 Third Street SE, Suite 1200 Cedar Rapids, IA 52401-1266 Telephone: 319-366-7641 FAX 319-366-1917 mhektoen(a simmonsperrine com ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS Appellants' Exhibit 7 - 019 NEF Page 1 of 1 tf r ****** IMPORTANT NOTICE - READ THIS INFORMATION "**** NOTICE OF ELECTRONIC FILING OR PRESENTATION [NEF] A fling has been submitted to the court RE: CVCV077589 .fudge: Official File Stamp: Court: Case Title: Document(s) Submitted: Filed by or in behalf of: 09.17-2015:11;46:16 TRIAL, COURT Johnson CARLSON V. CITY OF UNIVERSITY HEIGHTS PROPOSED ORDER TO ISSUE WRIT Matthew J. Hektoen You may review this filing by clicking on the following link to take you to your cases. This notice was automatically generated by the courts auto-natification system. The following people were served electronically; MATTHEW JOHNSON HEKTOEN for REED CARLSON, SANDRA MARIE CARLSON PARTIES NOT SERVED BY EDMS The Iowa Electronic Document Management System will not serve the following parties because they are not registered filers. Per rule 16.317(I)(b), the filing party must serve at paper copy of the fled document(s) on the fallowing parties in the manner required by Iowa Court Rules. CITY OF UNIVERSITY HEIGHTS, IOWA CITY COUNCIL FOR THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY HEIGHTS IOWA Note: The roles define the clerk of court as responsible for service of court -generated documents. Additionally on small claims cases that by statute can be served by certified mail, when the filer has selected and paid for certified mail in the electronic filing system or at the clerk of court office, the clerk Of court is responsible for service of the original notice and answer and appearance by certified mail in accordance with the Code oflowa. W'Phe moving party or the individual who filed it is responsible for service of a document if it was not served by the electronic filing system. That includes, but is not limited to, service of all petitions and original notices [rule 16.316(3)], service of documents on all parties seeking to intervene in confidential cases [I6.321(1)(e)], and service of all documents on non -registered parties [I6.317(I)(b)]. https://www.iowacouils.state.ia.uslEfitelnotifyl2l7Ol294notifiration.html?pageActicin=D6npe]WMR igt7-020 E-FILED 2015 SEP 17 12:06 PM JOHNSON - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT IN THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT FOR JOHNSON COUNTY AT IOWA CITY F. REED CARLSON AND SANDRA CARLSON No. Plaintiffs, VIP! ORDER FOR WRIT CITY OF UNIVERSITY HEIGHTS, IOWA AND CITY COUNCIL FOR THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY HEIGHTS, IOWA, Defendants. On this 17th day of September, 2015, the Petition for Writ of Certiorari and Judicial Review Pursuant to Iowa R. Civ. P. 1.1401-1.1412 having been presented to the Court, and the Court having reviewed said Petition and being fully advised in the premises, finds that the Writ of Certiorari should be issued, IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Clerk of the Johnson County District Court shall issue a Writ of Certiorari under its seal commanding Defendants to certify to the Iowa District Court for Johnson County, at the Johnson County Courthouse in Iowa City, Iowa, within twenty (20) days after service of the Writ of Certiorari upon them, a transcript of the entirety of Defendant's records and proceedings as are complained of in the Petition for Writ of Certiorari and Judicial Review Pursuant to Iowa R. Civ. P. 1.1401-1.1412, together with the facts of the case, describing or referring to them or any of them with reasonable certainty. copy to: Matthew J. Hektoen Appellants' Exhibit 7 - 021 E-FILED 2015 SEP 17 12:06 PM JCHNSON - CLERK CF DISTRICT COURT State of Iowa Courts Type: ORDER TO ISSUE WRIT Case Number Case Title CVCV077589 CARLSON V. CITY OF UNIVERSITY HEIGHTS So Ordered Mmy E. ahelly, Dislrid Courl Judg Sirh Jutlinel �istrid of Iowa Electronically signed on 2015-09-17 12:06:08 page 2 of 2 Appellants' Exhibit 7 - 022 E-FILED 2015 SEP 17 3:02 PM JOHNSON - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT IN THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT FOR JOHNSON COUNTY SANDRA MARIE CARLSON FREDERIC REED CARLSON Plaintiff-Petitioner(s) vs. CITY OF UNIVERSITY heightS, IOWA CITY COUNCIL FOR THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY heightS IOWA Defendant/Respondent(s) To the Sheriff of JOHNSON County, Case No. 06521 CVCV077589 WRIT OF CERTIORARI Without Bond Clerks Docket Events are: WOAT, WOCT, WOHC, WIDA, WOU and WRIT You are hereby commanded DEFENDANTS TO CERTIFY TO THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT FOR JOHNSON COUNTY, AT THE JOHNSON COUNTY COURTHOUSE IN IOWA CITY, IOWA, WITHIN TWENTY (20) DAYS AFTER SERVICE OF THE WRIT OF CERTIORARI UPON THEM, A TRANSCRIPT OF THE ENTIRETY OF DEFENDANT'S RECORDS AND PROCEEDINGS AS ARE COMPLAINED OF IN THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI AND JUDICIAL REVIEW PURSUANT TO IOWA R. CIV. P. 1.1401-1.1412, TOGETHER WITH THE FACTS OF THE CASE DESCRIBING OR REFERRING TO THEM OR ANY OF THEM WITH REASONABLE CERTAINTY. Other (specify) SEE ATTACHED COURT ORDER AND PETITION DESCRIPTION: Date: 09/1712015 Requested by ATTORNEY MATTHEW HEKTOEN /s/ ALISON MEADE, DESIGNEE CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT JOHNSON COUNTY IOWA Appellants' Exhibit 7 - 023 E-FILED 2015 SEP 17 3:02 PM JOHNSON - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT IN THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT FOR JOHNSON COUNTY SANDRA MARIE CARLSON FREDERIC REED CARLSON Plaintiff-Petitioner(s) vs. CITY OF UNIVERSITY heightS, IOWA CITY COUNCIL FOR THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY heightS IOWA Defe n d a nURes pond ent(s ) Date of Service Date Served Who Served Address Served PROOF OF SERVICE Fees Mileage Total 0 Case No.06521 CVCV077589 Proof of Service Writ Date Writ Issued: 09/17/2015 Docket Event Code: RSOT County Sheriff Deputy Appellants' Exhibit 7 - 024 E-FILED 2015 SEP 16 4:26 PM JOHNSON - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT IN THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT FOR JOHNSON COUNTY AT IOWA CITY F. REED CARLSON AND SANDRA CARLSON Plaintiffs, vs. CITY OF UNIVERSITY HEIGHTS AND CITY COUNCIL FOR THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY HEIGHTS, IOWA Defendants. M PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI AND JUDICIAL REVIEW PURSUANT TO IOWA R. CIV. P, 1.1401- 1.1412 COME NOW, Plaintiffs F. Reed Carlson and Sandra Carlson and for their Petition for Writ of Certiorari and Judicial Review Pursuant to Iowa R. Civ. P. 1.1401-1.1412, state: 1. Plaintiff F. Reed Carlson is an individual who resides at 1202 Pleasant Ave., Decorah, Iowa 52101. 2. Plaintiff Sandra Carlson is an individual who resides at 1202 Pleasant Ave., Decorah, Iowa 52101. 3. Defendant is City Council for the City of University Heights, Iowa. 4, Defendant City of University Heights is an Iowa municipal corporation. 5. Plaintiffs own real estate within the City of University Heights, Iowa. 6. Plaintiffs were aggrieved by a Decision of Defendant City Council for the City of University Heights, Iowa when Defendant City Council for the City of University Heights, Iowa made two decisions on August 18, 2015 (the "Special Meeting"), respecting a Sensitive Acres Site Plan, Development Plan and Grading Plan for Lot 115, University Heights la'Addition (the "Real Estate") all pursuant to Ordinance No. 128 of Defendant City of University Heights. _ 7. This Iowa District Court has subject matter jurisdiction of this Petition for Writ of Certiorari pursuant to Iowa R. Civ. P. 1.1401. Appellants' Exhibit 7 - 025 E-FILED 2015 SEP 16 4:26 PM JOHNSON - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT 8. Defendants acted illegally without jurisdiction and without authority with respect to failing to approve Resolution No. 15-65 respecting the approval of a Sensitive Areas Site Plan, Development Plan and Grading Plan for the Real Estate all pursuant to Ordinance No. 128 of Defendant City of University Heights. 9. Defendants also acted illegally and without jurisdiction and authority by failing to approve Resolution Number 15-66 respecting the approval of a request to develop protected slopes for the Real Estate all pursuant to Ordinance No. 128 of Defendant City of University Heights. 10. This matter may require taking of additional evidence. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs F. Reed Carlson and Sandra Carlson. respectfully request that the Court; A. Enter an Order directing the Clerk to issue a Writ of Certiorari commanding Defendant to certify to the Court within twenty (20) days after service of the Writ of Certiorari upon it, a transcript of the entirety of Defendants' records and proceedings as are complained of in this Petition for Writ of Certiorari together with the facts of the case, describing or referring to them or any of them with reasonable certainty (Iowa R. Civ. P. 1.1404 and 1.1406); B. Set this matter for hearing as soon as reasonably possible and allow the taking of additional evidence; C. Enter an Order directing Defendants to approve the sensitive areas site plan, development plan and grading plan submitted to by Plaintiffs at the Special Meeting; D. Enter an Order directing the Defendants to find that (i) the protected slopes located on the Real Estate and shown on the sensitive areas site plan submitted by Plaintiffs to Defendants at the Special Meeting have been previously altered by human activity, (ii) the Plaintiffs' proposed development activity on the Real Estate will not undermine the stability of the protected slopes located on the Real Estate, and (iii) the Plaintiffs' proposed development activity on the Real Estate is consistent with the intent of the Sensitive Areas Ordinance of Defendant City of University Heights; E. Award Plaintiffs the cost of this action; and F. Grant all other relief the Court deems proper, just and equitable in the premises. Appellants' Exhibit 7 - 026 E-FILED 2015 SEP 16 4:26 PM JOHNSON - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT SIMMONS PERRI E MOYER B LC By \ MATT EW S HE TOEN AT0000297 115 Third Street SE, Suite 1200 Cedar Rapids, IA 52401-1266 Telephone: 319-366-7641 FAX 319-366-1917 mhektoen@lsimmonsperrine.com ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS Appellants' Exhibit 7 - 027 E-FILED 2016 FEB 26 3:43 PM JOHNSON - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT IN THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR JOHNSON COUNTY SANDRA MARIE CARLSON, FREDERIC REED CARLSON, Plaintiffs, VS. CITY OF UNIVERSITY HEIGHTS, IOWA CITY COUNCIL FOR THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY HEIGHTS IOWA, Defendants. No. CVCV077589 DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE COMES NOW, Sandra Marie Carlson and Frederic Reed Carlson, and hereby dismisses without prejudice the above cause of action. SIMMONS PERRINE MOYER BERGMAN PLC /Jn Robert S. Hatala, A 000334 Matthew J. Hektoen, AT0000297 115 Third Street SE, Suite 1200 Cedar Rapids, IA 52401-1266 Tei: 319-366-7641; Fax: 319-366-1917 rhatala(a)simmonsperrine.com ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies that on February 26, 2016, this document was electronically filed with the Clerk of Court using the EDMS System which will send notification of such filing as follows: Terry J. Abernathy: Email: tbernathy@pblawfirm.com Attorney for Defendants Steven E. Ballard: Email: ballard@lefflaw.com Attorney for Defendants SIGNED: L-yN-- Appellants' Exhibit 7 - 028 Sue Dulek From: Geoff Fruin <Geoff-Fruin@iowa-city.org> Sent: To: Thursday, April 14, 2016 4:04 PM Simon Andrew; Eleanor M. Dilkes; Marian Karr Subject: FW: 101 Lusk Attachments: Carlson Sheet A1-24x36- 04.04.16.pdf; Carlson Sheet A2-24x36- 04.04.16.pdf; Carlson Sheet A3-2436- 04.04.16.pdf Just to make your Thursday a bit more interesting.. From: John Yapp Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2016 3:10 PM To: Geoff Fruin Cc: Doug Boothmy; Tim Hennes Subject: FW: 101 Lusk Geoff —we have a building permit application for a proposed 'house' at the south end of Lusk Ave in Manville Heights. It is being proposed as a mini -replica of Kinnick Stadium. This is in an RS-5 zone in Manville Heights. We will be asking for more information from the applicant regarding the proposed use of the structure before issuing a permit— at this point just wanted to give you a heads up in case you get questions. John From: Tim Hennes Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2016 11:38 AM To, Doug Boothroy; John Yapp Cc: Terry Goerdt; Tim Hennes Subject: 101 Lusk FYI, Attached are plans we received for a new home at 101 Lusk St. This is in Manville Heights. It is an unusual design for a single family dwelling. I just wanted you to be aware of this and also let me know if you see anything that we should be cautious of. Appellants' Exhibit 7 - 029 Sue Dulek From: Zahasky Construction <zahaskyconstruction@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2016 8:07 AM To: Terry Goerdt Subject: Re: 101 Lusk Ok I'll work on getting it scoped. I did do a ResCheck and thought I had attached it in the notes? I'll log back on and see. Thanks. Al Zahasky Zahasky Construction LLC Iowa City, IA 319-331-0631 > On May 24, 2016, at 8:01 AM, Terry Goerdt <Terry-Goerdt@iowa-citv.org> wrote: > Good morning Al. I talked to Tim regarding the sewer. He says it is required to be cameraed to verify it is okay. He said he does want you to build the house and then have sewer problems since the sewer runs through some one elses property. > I also need a energy audit for the house. > Otherwise it looks like everything else is a go. > Terry >----Original Message---- > From: Zahasky Construction [mailto:zahaskyconstruction@gmail.com] > Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2016 7:49 AM > To: Terry Goerdt > Subject: 101 Lusk > Morning Terry, just checking to see if you have what you need from us on 101 Lusk Ave. > thanks. > Al Zahasky > Zahasky Construction LLC > Iowa City, IA > 319-331-0631 Appellants' Exhibit 7 - 030 BUILDING PERNUT City of Iowa City y Permit # : BLD16-00182 Issued : 6/25/2016 Applicant Name: FREDERIC R & SANDRA M CARLSON Job Address : 101 LUSK AVE Parcel # : 1009155004 Zone : ? Project Name; INFILL LOT CITY OF IOWA CITY Applicant Contractor FREDERIC R & SANDRA M CARLSON ZANASKY CONSTRUCTION 2848 AARON OR 1e1 LUSKAVE IOWA CITY, 1A 52240 IOWA CITY, IA 52246 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: SUBDIVISION: MANVILLE ADO ITION BLOCK : 14 LOT : 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: 78x94 Two story home. 1500 ft2 Unshed on upper level, 3465 finished on main level and 2500 finished in basement TYPE OF USE: RSF BEDROOMS: 5 LOT DWELL UNITS: 1 DIM., TYPE OF IMPR : NEW STRUCTURE AREA: 5f FRAME TYPE : WOOD DIM: 78' X B4' SETBACKS (fl) OCC GROUP: 7 AREA: 4,959.00 sf FR : 16.00 RE: 39.16 TYPE CONST : 7 GARAGE LT: RT : 6.00 BASEMENT?: F DIM: 25.25X63 CONT PRICE,. $750,000 STORIES: 2.00 AREA: 109.00 of ZONING DISTRICT., RS-5 FIRE SPKLRS REQ'D7 : N TREE ORD APPLIC? : N OVERLAYZONE; FIRE EXTING REQ'O?: N HANDICAP RE6IAPPLIC7: N REQD PARKING : 1.00 AIRPORT ZONE: N ST ENER CODEAPPLIC7: Y FIRE DETECT REQ'D7: Y FLOODPLAIN : N CERT OF OCC REQ'D7 : Y NOTICE: Separate permits are required for building, electrical, plumbing, heating, air oondidonng, or signs. This permit becomes null and void If work or construction authorized Is not commenced within 180 days, or It construction or work is suspended or abandoned for a period of 160 deye at any time after work Is commenced. All provisions of laws end ordinancos governing thls work must be compiled with whether epacmed herein or not Thls pannit does not presume to give authority to Volste or cancel the provisions of any other state or local law regulating construction or tha performance of construction. Y. t %%1✓]bFi[r /l//9OOJ/Gf/Y�—L WS /-6 Signature of Applicant Date S zs /f Signature of Bufldi Official 1- Original 2 - Inspector 3 - Office a - Customer bid Pntll.rpl Appellants' Eyhibit 7 - 031 PLAN CHECK SIGN -OFF SHEET Case # : BLD16-00182 Date : 512512016 Applicant Name: FREDERIC R & SANDRA M CARLSON Site Address: 101 LUSK AVE Project Name: INFILL LOT PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS Reviewer: TJG CITY OFIOWA CITY 1. Insulation levels need to be marked on the roof trusses. 2. A certificate of installed insulation levels needs to be posted on or in the electrical panel. 3. Windows at top of basement stairs required to be safety glazing. PLAN REVIEW NOTES MAY NOT REFLECT ALL CODE DEFICIENCIES. Failure to Identify a code deficiency d uring a review of plans does not alleviate any obligation to comply with all applicable code provisions. I, the undersigned, acknowledge receipt of these comments and understand that they constitute conditions on which this permit is being issued. 0 Signature ofApplicantlAgen Date bid pimrpc Appellants' Exhibit 7 - Sue Dulek From: Sent: To: Subject: fyi -----Original Message --- From: Geoff Fruin John Yapp John-Yapp@iowa-city.org> Monday, June 13, 20161:55 PM Sara Greenwood Hektoen FW: Lusk Ave extension Sent: Monday, June 13, 2016 9:11 AM To: John Yapp; Doug Boothroy Subject: RE: Lusk Ave extension Thanks. Is this the Kinnick house? ----Original Message ---- From: John Yapp Sent: Monday, June 13, 2016 8:52 AM To: Doug Boothroy; Geoff Fruin Subject: FW: Lusk Ave extension Fyi in case you get questions ---Original Message -- From: Bob Miklo Sent: Monday, June 13, 2016 8:38 AM To: John Yapp Subject: FW: Lusk Ave extension F.Y.I. Pam Michaud is asking the Planning and Zoning Commission to weigh in on the Lusk Ave. house. Bob Robert Miklo, Senior Planner City of Iowa City 410 E. Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 319 356 5240 --Original Message -- From: Bob Miklo Sent: Monday, June 13, 2016 8:36 AM To:'Freerks, Ann M' Subject: RE: Lusk Ave extension Ann, This project did not require any City approvals other than a demolition permit to remove the house that was there and a building permit for the new house. The large size of the house and its design did raise some red flags for the building inspectors, but in the end it met all building and zoning codes so they issued a permit. They did require an affidavit from the owner indicating that the property will only be used for a single family home. Appellants' Exhibit 7 - 033 Sue Dulek From: Terry Goerdt <Terry-Goerdt@iowa-city.org> Sent: Monday, June 20, 2016 8:44 AM To: Reed Carlson (reed@geo-inc.com); Al Zahasky (zahaskyconstruction@gmail.com) Subject: 101 Lusk Attachments: memo on 101 lusk.pdf Good morning Reed and AI, I just wanted to send you a copy of a memo that was drafted and sent the Interim City Manager. The City has been receiving a lot of calls on the project and wanted to keep you in the loop of all this. Thank you Terry 1. Goerdt Cea4iiied Coanbination Inspector Plans Examiner City of Iowa City (319)358-5124 Appellants' Exhibit 7 - 034 42 CITY OF IOWA CITY M Date: June 17, 2016 To: Geoff Fruin, Interim City Manager From: John Yapp, Development Services Coordinator7y 7%/ Re: 101 Lusk Ave — proposed house Introduction: Staff has been receiving questions regarding a proposed house at 101 Lusk Ave, due to the house being designed to reflect Kinnick Stadium. 101 Lusk Ave is a vacant residential lot (an unoccupied house was recently demolished) in an RS-5 (Single Family) residential zone. The lot is an existing single-family lot — no subdivision or rezoning is proposed. The property is not in a historic or conservation district, and staff has no authority to constrain the design of the structure other than existing building and zoning codes. Discussion: When staff received building plans for the house, we questioned the use of the house due to its design. The owner sent an email stating they intend to use the structure as a second home in order to spend time with their son and grandchildren in Iowa City, and potentially as a permanent home in the future. Staff also prepared an affidavit of use (attached), which the owner willingly signed. The affidavit states that the use of the property is a single family dwelling, and the use must be maintained as such; the sale of alcohol and/or charging a fee for admission to the property is prohibited; renting the property for commercial tailgating or other group gatherings is prohibited; and the maximum occupancy of the house is a single household (or three unrelated people) that occupy the dwelling as a single housekeeping unit. The parameters in the affidavit mimic existing City Code — staff solicited the affidavit and recorded it with the property in anticipation of subsequent owners so they are fully aware of the rules and regulations associated with a dwelling in a single family zone. Staff has also received questions regarding the extension of Lusk Ave. With the initial set of plans for the house, a driveway was shown on the south side of the property which would have required the extension of Lusk Ave. The designer has let us know they are revising their plans to place the driveway on the north side of the house, consistent with the existing driveway to the old house, to connect to Lusk Ave. No extension of Lusk Ave is being contemplated. Enforcement: Many of the questions and concerns we have received are related to enforcement of parking regulations, lights, and noise. We would treat this property consistent with other residential properties in the City. On -street parking is permitted unless it is signed as 'No Parking.' If residents wish to petition to have a street designated as 'No Parking,' our practice has been to survey the neighborhood and if a majority of affected households wish to limit parking on their street we would place the action item on the City Council consent calendar for approval — staff may initiate establishment of 'No Parking' if there is a significant and documented safety concern. Regarding lighting, City Code limits the height of private lights in a residential zone to 15-feet in height; bulbs greater than 2,000 lumens must be fully shielded; and any floodlights used to illuminate private outdoor recreational facilities (such as swimming pools, tennis courts, etc.) must be turned off by 10:00 PM (City Code Section 14-5G-3). Lighting concerns are enforced on a complaint basis. Regarding noise and disturbance, the Appellants' Exhibit 7 - 035 June 17, 2016 Page 2 City has adopted a disorderly house ordinance that restricts "loud, raucous, disagreeable noises to the disturbance of the neighborhood" (City Code Section 6-5-5); this ordinance also allows Police to restore order on the subject property, including the authority to order the dispersal of persons on the property. 'Disorderly house' is a criminal offense with a penalty between $65.00 to $625.00 as determined by the Magistrate and is also a civil offense subject to a $750 municipal infraction for the first offense, and up to $1,000 for the second and subsequent offenses. Status of Building Permit: The building plans have been reviewed and approved. Pending resolution of the driveway location and submittal of a plan that shows the driveway connecting to the existing segment of Lusk Ave, the building permit will be issued. It should be reiterated that issuance of a building permit for a single family house on an existing single family property does not require any rezoning or subdivision action. Staff has no authority to control the design of a single family house in an area that is not a historic or conservation district, other than for code compliance. Conclusion: With the affidavit of use in hand and recorded with the property, staff is treating the proposed house as a single family structure, and Building Inspections staff will conduct inspections to ensure the structure meets building code. Any concerns or complaints about the use of the property will be treated consistent with how we treat complaints related to other residential properties in the City — including investigation of nuisance and criminal complaints, and citations if warranted. Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Elevations of proposed 101 Lusk Ave house 3. 101 Lusk Ave affidavit of use Cc: Doug Boothroy, Director, NDS Sara Hektoen, Assistant City Attorney Bob Miklo, Senior Planner Sarah Walz, Associate Planner Appellants' Exhibit 7 - 036 Sue Dulek From: John Yapp <John-Yapp@iowa-city.org> Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2016 11:05 AM To: Terry Goerdt Subject: RE: Lusk house thx From: Terry Goerdt Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2016 11:02 AM To: John Yapp Subject: RE: Lusk house John this is not a 9 fixture dwelling. Fixture units are based on type of bathroom fixture such as a residential sink would be 2 fixture units. Every tub, sink, toilet, laundry would have a separate fixture count. Once you calculate the total number of fixture units in the dwelling, you will need to calculate the size of your drainage pipe(sewer pipe). The property starts off with a 4" pipe which will handle 216 fixture units at a''/." per foot slope and then goes to a 6" pipe which will handle 720 fixture units at YV slope. Terry From: John Yapp Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2016 10:40 AM To: Tim Hennes; Terry Goerdt Subject: Lusk house Do you have a diagram of the sewer service for the 101 Lusk property? I recall seeing something when Olivera owned the property. The question being raised now is if the service is large enough for a 9-fixture dwelling, if the owner has the 'right to use the service since it is also used by adjacent properties (legal question), and if the City can/should require them to tap into a public main. John Appellants' Exhibit 7 - 037 From: John Yapp <John-Yapp@iowa-city,org> Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2016 10:17 AM To: Eleanor M. Dilkes; Sara Greenwood Hektoen Doug Boothroy Subject: FW: 101 Lusk Bathroom revision Attachments: Bathroom Update 06.23.16.pdf; ATTOOOOt.txt Fyi - see attached for revised bathroom plan for Lusk project —Original Message -- From: Terry Goerdt Sent: Thursday, June 23, 201610A2 AM To: John Yapp Subject: FW: 101 Lusk Bathroom revision John here is the revised bathroom design Terry —Original Message — From: Zahasky Constructionjmaiito:zahaskyconstruction@gmail.comj Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2016 9:51 AM To: Terry Goerdt Subject: 101 Lusk Bathroom revision Here is bathroom revision for 101 Lusk. Appellants' Exhibit 7 - 038 T-8" 4'-0" x 9-0° MAIN LEVEL I PLAY O� it s I� __��I v BATHROOM i0 48'Sln Baae ^ 3 OYs n 4 m io 48' Smk B. BATHROOM OPEN CUBBIES WXrMNG BENCH W FWG80 i 4� 9, V+ N v v i 9x8 GLAS FWG120804 SAAS 'v Exhibits - 039 Mm We have looked at your suggestion about moving the drive to the north side of the house. We agree that it should work. Three cautions that I see are as follows: 1. Has someone verified the depth of sewer if we decide to lower the home? 2. You will have more storm water draining to the house so it will be important to slope the driveway away from the house to prevent water into lower levels. 3. The south east corner may require deeper footings as it appears that the land slopes off in that area. Glen Do you want Duane to make the suggested change? Y Glen Meisner, P.L.S. & P.E. Partner Office: (319) 351-8282 Mobile: (319) 631-2705 G.meisnerna,mrmsconsultant5 net www.mmsconsultants.net This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. From: Reed Carlson [mailto:reed@geo-inc corn] Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2016 1:15 PM To: Duane Musser; 'Glen Meisner; 'Scott Pottorff Appellants' Exhibit 7 - 040 Appellants' Exhibit Frederic Reed Carlson Quote in Iowa City Press -Citizen V L CD C) A-D-Dellants' Exhibit 9 Ackermans' Notice of Termination of Easement Interests NOTICE OF TERMINATION OF EASEMENT INTERESTS Recorder's Cover Sheet Preparer Information: James C. Larew 504 E. Bloomington St. Iowa City, IA 52245 Phone: (319) 337-7079 Taxpayer Information: William G. Ackerman and Karen S. Ackerman 631 Bayard Street Iowa City, Johnson County, IA Return Address: 504 E. Bloomington St., Iowa City, IA 52245 Notice From: William G. Ackerman Notice From: Karen S. Ackerman Notice To: Frederick Reed Carlson Notice To: Sandra Marie Carlson Legal Description: See Page 2 Document or instrument number if applicable: MANVILLE ADDITION W 50.1' OF E 65' OF N 105' LOT 2 BLK 14 (Parcel Number 1009155003) NOTICE OF TERMINATION OF EASEMENT INTERESTS COMES NOW, William G. Ackerman and Karen S Ackerman, as husband and wife, owners of real property located at 631 Bayard Street, in the city of Iowa City, Johnson County, Iowa, and pursuant to Iowa Code Chapter 564, hereby provide notice to Frederick Reed Carlson and Sandra Marie Carlson, as their ownership interests may appear, owners of the real property at 101 Lusk Avenue, in the city of Iowa City, Johnson County, Iowa, with Iowa City Assessor Legal Description: MANVILLE ADDITION COM SE COR LOT 1 BLK 14; N 123 ; W 150'; S TO N/L OF CRI & P R/W; SE ALONG CRI & P R/W TO BEG (Parcel Number 1009155004), of the termination of any existing easement, together with any easement thought to exist, which traverses or uses existing real estate, currently owned by the undersigned, and located at 631 Bayard Street in the city of Iowa City Johnson County Iowa, whose legal description is as follows: Beginning at a point 99.9 feet west of the Northeast Corner of Block 14, Manville Addition to Iowa City, Iowa, according to the recorded Plat Records of Johnson County, Iowa, thence West along the North Line of said Block 14, 50.1 feet thence South parallel with the West Line of said Block 14,105 feet, thence East parallel with the North Line of said Block 14, 50.1 feet, thence north 105 feet to the place of beginning, subject to easements and restrictions of record if any. and, Iowa City Assessor Legal Description: MANVILLE ADDITION W 50.1' OF E 65' OF N 105' LOT 2 BLK 14 (Parcel Number 1009155003). Signed this the "Iday of September, 2016. 21 William G. Ackerman Karen S. Ackerman STATE OF 1 WA, COUNTY OF JOHNSON: On this ar" day of September, 2016, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said county, personally appeared William G. Ackerman and Karen S. Ackerman, husband and wife, to me personally known to be the persons named m and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged the execution £tl e i rument to be their voluntary act and deed. =1I JAMES C LAREW Notarial Seal - IOWA Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa Commission No. 71 499 Print Name: gMEa My Commission Expires February 02, 2018 My commission expires: g • a1 -18 09/12/2016 15:34:00 WINNESHIEK COUNTY SHERIFF *** RETURN OF SERVICE *** IN THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT FOR WINNESHIEK COUNTY CASE NAME: ACKERMNA,WILLIAM G ACKERMAN.KAREN S VS CARLSON.FREDERIC REED CARLSON.SANDRA MARIE CASE NO: 20160907 (2) NOTICE RECEIVED: 09/07/2016 STATE OF IOWA WINNESHTEK COUNTY I certify that I served a copy of OTHER PERSONAL ❑ Petition and Original Notice ❑ Order Filed ❑ Modification/Application and Notice ❑ Writ ❑ Order to Show Cause ❑ Other Served CARLSON,FREDERIC REED at 1202 PLEASANT DR DECORAH, TA 52101 Special Instructions: SERVED NOTICE OF TERMINATION OF EASEMENT INTERESTS. on 09/08/2016 06:11 Service: 15.00 DAN MARX, SHERIFF Mileage: 0.00 WINNESHIEK COUNTY, IOWA : 0.00 MISC.: MISC.: 0.00 TOTAL: 15.00 STEV E NES V IK Signature Fees charged to/paidby Atty/Party: LAREW LAW OFFICE Title Page 4 1 091122016 15:34:44 WINNESHIEK COUNTY SHERIFF Page 4 *** RETURN OF SERVICE *** IN THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT FOR WINNESHIEK COUNTY CASE NAME: SUBSTITUTE ACKERMNAXILLIAM G ACKERMAN,KAREN S VS CARLSON,FREDERIC REED CARLSON,SANDRA MARIE CASE NO: 20160907 (2) NOTICE RECEIVED: 09/07/2016 STATE OF: IOWA WINNESHIEK COUNTY I certify that I served a copy of: OTHER ❑ Petition and Original Notice ❑ Order Filed ❑ Modification/Application and Notice ❑ Writ ❑ Order to Show Cause ❑ Other Served CARLSON,SANDRA MARIE NOTE:(Diligent Search, etc.) Special Instructions: SERVED NOTICE OF TERMINATION OF EASEMENT rNTERESTS. by Serving CARLSON,FREDERIC REED at 1202 PLEASANT DR DECORAH, IA 52101 on 09/08/2016 at 06:11 Service: 10.00 DAN MARX, SHERIFF Mileage: 0.00 WINNESHIEK COUNTY, IOWA Trust/Copy MIS0.00 MISC..:: 0.00 TOTAL: 10.00 STEVE NESVIK Signature Title Fees charged to/paidby Atty/Party: LAREW LAW OFFICE ADDellants' Exhibit 10 Armstrong — Termination of Easement Notice NOTICE OF TERtMINATION OF EASEMENT INTERESTS Recorder's Cover Sheet Preparer Information: James C. Larew 504 E. Bloomington St. Iowa City, IA 52245 Phone: (319) 337-7079 Taxpayer Information: Bertha R. Armstrong 701 Bayard Street Iowa City, Johnson County, IA Return Address: 504 E. Bloomington St., Iowa City, IA 52245 Notice From: Karen L. Penick Notice To: Frederick Reed Carlson Notice To: Sandra Marie Carlson Legal Description: See Page 2 Document or instrument number if applicable: MANVILLE ADDITION W 35' LOT 2 & E 55' LOT 3 BLK 14 (Parcel Number 1009155005) NOTICE OF TERMINATION OF EASEMENT INTERESTS COME NOW, Karen L. Penick, as Attorney -in -Fact for Bertha R. Armstrong, sole owner of real property located at 701 Bayard Street, in the city of Iowa City, Johnson County, Iowa, and pursuant to Iowa Code Chapter 564, hereby provides notice to Frederick Reed Carlson and Sandra Marie Carlson, as their ownership interests may appear, owners of the real property at 101 Lusk Avenue, in the city of Iowa City, Johnson County, Iowa, with Iowa City Assessor Legal Description: MANVILLE ADDITION COM SE COR LOT 1 BLK 14; N 123; W 150; S TO N/L OF CRI & P RIW; SE ALONG CRI & P RIW TO BEG (Parcel Number 1009155004), of the termination of any existing easement, together with any easement thought to exist, which traverses and uses existing real estate, currently owned by the undersigned, and located at 701 Bayard Street in the city of Iowa City, Johnson County Iowa and which is also described by the Iowa City Assessor as follows: MANVILLE ADDITION W 35' LOT 2 & E 55' LOT 3 BLK 14 (Parcel Number 1009155005). Signed this the 'S day of September, 2016. ���Q-�e as Attorney -in -Fact for Bertha R. Armstrong STATE OF�(0yyA COUNTY OF JOHNSON: On this �t day of September. 2016, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said county, personally appeared Karen L. Penick, as Attorney -in -Fact for Bertha R. Armstrong, to me peUsqAally known to be the person named in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged the executio ument to be their voluntary act and deed. t JAMES C LAREW otary Public ynd for the Notarial Seal • IOWA Print Name: J<+� ' i'.OtMpi�ei011 N0. 4" My commission expires: My Commission Expdesfebwary 02.2016 091122016 15:40:04 WINNESHIEK COUNTY SHERIFF Page q *** RETURN OF SERVICE *** IN THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT FOR CASE NAME: PENICKKAREN L VS CARLSON,FREDERIC REED CARLSON,SANDRA MARIE CASE NO: 20160907 (4) NOTICE RECEIVED: 09/07/2016 STATE OF: IOWA WINNESHIEK COUNTY 1 certify that 1 served a copy of: OTHER SPOUSE ❑ Petition and Original Notice ❑ Order Filed ❑ Modification/Application and Notice ❑ Writ ❑ Order to Show Cause ❑ Other Served CARLSON,SANDRA MARIE NOTE:(Diligent Search, etc.) Special Instructions: SERVED NOTICE OF TERMINATION OF EASEMENT INTERESTS. WTNNESHIEK COUNTY by Serving CARLSON,FREDERIC REED at 1202 PLEASANT DR DECORAH, IA 52101 on 09/08/2016 at 06:11 Service: 10.00 DAN MARX, SHERIFF Mileage: 0.00 WINNESHIEK COUNTY, IOWA TrusMISC.: 0.00 0.00 TOTAL: 10.00 STEVE NESVIK Signature Title Fees charged to/paidby Atty/Party: LAREW LAW OFFICE 09/12/2016 15:38:59 WINNESHIEK COUNTY SHERIFF *** RETURN OF SERVICE *** IN THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT FOR WINNESHIEK COUNTY CASE NAME: PERSONAL PENICK.KAREN L VS CARLSON,FREDERIC REED CARLSON,SANDRA MARIE CASE NO: 20160907 (4) NOTICE RECEIVED: 09/0712016 STATE OF IOWA WINNESHIEK COUNTY 1 certify that I served a copy of: OTHER ❑ Petition and Original Notice ❑ Order Filed ❑ Modification/Application and Notice ❑ Writ ❑ Order to Show Cause ❑ Other Served CARLSON,FREDERIC REED at 1202 PLEASANT DR DECORAH, IA 52101 Special Instructions: SERVED NOTICE OF TERMINATION OF EASEMENT INTERESTS. on 09/08/2016 06:1 l Page R Service: 15.00 DAN MARX, SHERIFF Mileage: 0.00 WINNESHIEK COUNTY, IOWA 0.00 /J —� / MISC.TrusC:opy 0.00 -1/'_ TOTAL: 15.00 STEVE NESVIK Signature Title Fees charged to/paidby Atty/Party: LAREW LAW OFFICE A-DDellants' Exhibit Syrop's and Sadler's Notice of Termination of Easement Interests NOTICE OF TERMINATION OF EASEMENT INTERESTS Recorder's Cover Sheet Preparer Information: James C. Larew 504 E. Bloomington St. Iowa City, IA 52245 Phone: (319) 337-7079 Taxpayer Information: Craig H. Syrop and Anne G. Sadler 117 Lusk Avenue Iowa City, Johnson County, IA Return Address: 504 E. Bloomington St., Iowa City, IA 52245 Notice From: Craig H. Syrop Notice From: Anne G. Sadler Notice To: Frederick Reed Carlson Notice To: Sandra Marie Carlson Legal Description: See Page 2 Document or instrument number if applicable: MANVILLE ADDITION N 52 112' LOT 1 & E 15' OF N 52 I/2' LOT 2 BLK 14 (Parcel Number 1009155001) NOTICE OF TERMINATION OF EASEMENT INTERESTS COMES NOW, Craig H. Syron and Anne G. Sadler, husband and wife, and Anne G. Sadler, as Manager of Blitz, LLC, as their respective ownership interests in real property located at 117 Lusk Avenue, in the city of Iowa City, Johnson County, Iowa, may appear, and pursuant to Iowa Code Chapter 564, hereby provide notice to Frederick Reed Carlson and Sandra Marie Carlson, as their ownership interests may appear, owners of the real property at 101 Lusk Avenue, in the city of Iowa City, Johnson County, Iowa, with Iowa City Assessor Legal Description: MANVILLE ADDITION COM SE COR LOT 1 BLK 14; N 123 ; W 150 ; S TO N/L OF CRI & P R/W; SE ALONG CRI & P R/W TO BEG (Parcel Number 1009155004), of the termination of any existing easement, together with. any easement thought to exist, which traverses or uses existing real estate, currently owned by the undersigned, and located at 117 Lusk Avenue in the city of Iowa City, Johnson County, Iowa, whose legal description is as follows: Beginning at the northeast corner of Lot 1 in Block 14 in Manville Addition, according to the plat thereof recorded in Book 1, Page 149 Plat Records of Johnson County, Iowa; thence west 99.9 feet; thence south 52% feet; thence east 99.9 feet; thence north 52'/a feet to the place of beginning, subject to a right-of-way over the south 4 feet thereof for the use of that part of said Lots 1 and 2, lying south of the above described premises. Also, an easement for the purpose of a right -of --way for the use of the above described premises over the following: Beginning 52'% feet south of the northeast corner of said Lot 1, Block 14, Manville Addition; thence south 4 feet; thence west 99.9 feet; thence north 4 feet; thence east 99.9 feet to the place of beginning. and, which is also described by the Iowa City Assessor as follows: MANVILLE ADDITION N 52 V2' LOT 1 & E 15' OF N 52 '''W LOT 2 BLK 14 (Parcel Number 1009155001). -we this the day of September, 2016. 11104 / r VP _ e C. Sadler G. SaMerf'Manager, Blitz, STATE Ol;'..,19' A, COUNTY OF JOHNSON: On this D day of September, 2016, before me, a Notary Public in and for said county, personally appeared Craig H. Syrop and Anne G. Sadler, to me personally known to be the persons named in and who executed the f e ing i rumen, and acknowledged the execution of the instrument to be their voluntary act and deed. =NotarialSeal AREWl - IOWA Notary Public intend for the State of Iowa o. 771499 pr nt Name:C. [ij7CEw- lxoary 02, 2010 My commission expires: of - nZ -/� STATE OF I0�COUNTY OF JOHNSON. On this 3—day of September, 2016, before me, a Notary Public, in and for said county, personally appeared Anne G. Sadler, to me personally known, who being by me duly sworn did say that that person is Manager of said Blitz, LLC, and that said instrument was signed on behalf of the said Blitz, LLC, by authority of its operating agreement and the said Anne G. Sadler acknowledged the execution of said instrument to be the voluntary act and deed of said Blitz, LLC, by it voluntarily execute 1a8 ary ublic iaand for the State of 7pwa f4R JAMES C LAREW Print Name: �fPP7t�FD C ��tKC`t*/ Notarlal Seal - IOWA My commission expires: A� 3 -19 09/122016 15:37:16 WINNESHIEK COUNTY SHERIFF *** RETURN OF SERVICE *** IN THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT FOR WINNESMEK COUNTY CASE NAME: SYRORCRAIG H SADLER,ANNE G VS CARLSON.FREDERIC REED CARLSON,SANDRA MARIE CASE NO: 20160907 (3) NOTICE RECEIVED: 09/07/2016 STATE OF: IOWA WINNESHIEK COUNTY I certify that I served a copy of: OTHER SUBSTITUTE ❑ Petition and Original Notice ❑ Order Filed ❑ Modification/Application and Notice ❑ Writ ❑ Order to Show Cause ❑ Other Served CARLSOMSANDRA MARIE NOTE:(Diligent Search, etc.) Special Instructions: SERVED NOTICE OF TERMINATION OF EASEMENT INTERESTS. Service: 10.00 Mileage: 0.00 Trust/Copy'. 0.00 MISC.: 0.00 TOTAL: 10.00 Fees charged to/paidby Atty/Party: by Serving CARLSON,FREDERIC REED at 1202 PLEASANT DR DECORAH, IA 52101 on 09/08/2016 at 06:11 DAN MARX, SHERIFF WINNESHIEK COUNTY, IOWA STEVE NESVIK Signature Title Pape # 09/1212016 15:36:04 WINNESHIEK COUNTY SHERIFF *** RETURN OF SERVICE *** IN THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT FOR - WTNNESHIEK COUNTY CASE NAME: SYROP,CRAIG H SADLER.ANNE G VS CARLSON,FREDERIC REED CARLSON,SANDRA MARIE CASE NO: 20160907 (3) NOTICE RECEIVED: 09/07/2016 STATE OF IOWA WTNNESHIEK COUNTY I certify that I served a copy of: OTHER PERSONAL ❑ Petition and Original Notice ❑ Order Filed ❑ Modification/Application and Notice ❑ Writ ❑ Order to Show Cause ❑ Other Served CARLSON,FREDERIC REED at 1202 PLEASANT DR DECORAH, IA 52101 Special Instructions: SERVED NOTICE OF TERMINATION OF EASEMENT INTERESTS. on 09/08/2016 06:11 Service: 15.00 _ _ DAN MARX, SHERIFF Mileage: 0.00 WTNNESHIEK COUNTY, IOWA Trust/Copy : 0.00 MISC..:: MIS 0.00 /L.. TOTAL: 15.00 STEVE NESVIK Signature Fees charged to/paidby Atty/Party: LAREW LAW OFFICE Title Page a ADDellants' Exhibit 12 Lahey's Notice of Termination of Easement Interests NOTICE OF TERMINATION OF EASEMENT INTERESTS Recorder's Cover Sheet Preparer Information: James C. Larew 504 E. Bloomington St. Iowa City, IA 52245 Phone: (319) 337-7079 Taxpayer Information: Anne M. Lahey I I I Lusk Avenue Iowa City, Johnson County, IA Return Address: 504 E. Bloomington St., Iowa City, IA 52245 Notice From: Anne M. Lahey Notice To: Frederick Reed Carlson Notice To: Sandra Marie Carlson Legal Description: See Page 2 Document or instrument number if applicable: MANVILLE ADDITION S 52 1 /2' OF N 105' LOT 1 & S 52 1 /2' OF N 105 OF E 15' LOT 2 BLK 14 (Parcel Number 1009155002) NOTICE OF TERMINATION OF EASEMENT INTERESTS COME NOW, Anne M. Lahey, an unmarried person, and sole owner of real property located at 111 Lusk Avenue, in the city of Iowa City, Johnson County, Iowa, and pursuant to Iowa Code Chapter 564, hereby Provides notice to Frederick Reed Carlson and Sandra Marie Carlson, as their ownership interests may appear, owners of the real property at 101 Lusk Avenue, in the city of Iowa City, Johnson County, Iowa, with Iowa City Assessor Legal Description: MANVILLE ADDITION COM SE COR LOT 1 BLK 14; N 123; W 1501; S TO N/L OF CRI & P R/W, SE ALONG CRI & P R/W TO BEG (Parcel Number 1009155004), of the termination of any existing easement together with any easement thought to exist, which traverses or uses existing real estate, currently owned by the undersigned, and located at 111 Lusk Avenue in the city of Iowa City, Johnson County Iowa, whose legal description is as follows: Beginning at a point 52r/a feet south of the northeast corner of Lot One (1) in Block Fourteen (14) in Manville Addition, according to the plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 1, Page 149, plat records of Johnson County, Iowa, thence west 99.9 feet, thence south 52% feet, thence east 99.9 feet, thence north 52'/ feet to the place of beginning, subject to a right of way over the north 4 feet thereof for the use of that part of said lots 1 and 2 lying north of the above described premises. Also, an easement for the purpose of a right of way for the use of the above described premises over the following: Beginning 52% feet south of the Northeast corner of said Lot 1, Block 14, Manville Addition, thence north 4 feet, thence west 99.9 feet, thence south 4 feet, thence east. 99.9 feet to the place of beginning. and, which is also described by the Iowa City Assessor as follows: MANVILLE ADDITION S 52 W OF N 105' LOT 1 & S 52 %' OF N 105 OF E 15' LOT 2 BLK 14 (Parcel Number 1009155002). Signed this thee- day of September, 2016. M. Lahey STATE OF IOW COUNTY OF JOHNSON; On this -7' day of September, 2016, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said County, personally appeared Anne M. Lahey, unmarried, to me personally known to be the person named mAnd who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged the execution of the i trument to be their vol nd deed. [MY •. DAMES C LAREW Notarial Seal - IOWANotazy Public in and for the State qf Iowa commissio469commission ExpiresfeWuary 02, 2018 Print Name: '✓ ft&S C. GR�_e-W My wmmission expires: .r-1Ga� 09/12/2016 15:30:07 WINNESHIEK COUNTY SHERIFF Page 4 *.** RETURN OF SERVICE *** IN THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT FOR WINNESHIEK COUNTY CASE NAME: SPOUSE LAHEY.ANNE VS CARLSON.FREDERIC ANDREW CARLSON.SANDRA MARIE CA SE NO: 20160907 NOTICE RECEIVED: 09/07/2016 STATE OF: IOWA WINNESHIEK COUNTY I certify that I served a copy of: OTHER ❑ Petition and Original Notice ❑ Order Filed ❑ Modification/Application and Notice ❑ Writ ❑ Order to Show Cause ❑ Other Served CARLSON,SANDRA MARIE NOTE:(Diligent Search, etc.) Special instructions: SERVED NOTICE OF TERMINATION OF EASEMENT INTERESTS. by Serving CARLSON,FREDERIC REED at 1202 PLEASANT DR DECORAH, IA 52101 on 09/08/2016 at 06:11 Service : 15.00 DAN MARX, SHERIFF Mileage: 2.00 WINNESHIEK COUNTY, IOWA Trust/Copy 0.00 MISC.: 0.00 TOTAL: 17.00 STEVE NESVIK Signature Title Fees charged to/paidby Atty/Party: LAREW LAW OFFICE A-DDellants' Exhibit 13 Nichols v. City of Evansdale L Caution As of.. September 13, 2016 3:37 PM EDT Nichols v. City of Evansdale Supreme Court of Iowa October 6, 2004, Filed No. 105/03-1385 Reporter 687 N.W.2d 562; 2004 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 278 RON L. NICHOLS and JURLY NICHOLS, Appellants, vs. CITYOFEVANSDALE. IOWA, Appellee. Prior History: ["11 Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, Jon C. Fister, Judge. Appellants appeal from a district court decree establishing an easement for the benefit of appellee and rejecting appellants' claims for declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, and rent. Disposition: Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. Core Terms sewer line, easement, trespass, parties, sewer, damages, deed, contract would make the contract voidable. As neither party sought to avoid the contract, the transaction was valid, and the quitclaim deed the LijE gave the couple had to be given effect. The trial court erred in ruling the cEt had the right to record a corrective deed reserving easements. If the r& needed to go onto the couple's property to maintain the sewer lines without being liable for trespass, it either had to purchase an easement from the couple or condemn an easement as set forth in Iowa Code ch. 6B. The couple established a claim of trespass and, as such, were entitled to damages. Outcome The decision that the EI& retained ownership of the sewer lines and was not liable for rent was affirmed. The ruling that the EjU reserved an easement by implication and was entitled to record a correction deed was reversed. The conclusion that parcel, district court, Contracts, rent, Street, easement by the presence of the sewer lines did not constitute a trespass implication, reformation, injunction, prior use, reservation, was reversed. The case was remanded for a determination of ownership, acquire, easement by necessity, mutual mistake, the amount of damages owed on that claim. Servitudes, formation, beneath, modular, underground utility, implied easement, quitclaim deed, proper remedy, circumstances Case Summary Procedural Posture The District Court for Black Hawk County (Iowa) entered a decree establishing an easement for the benefit of appellee g!2 and rejecting appellant couple's claims for declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, and rent. The couple appealed. Overview This appeal required consideration of the rights and remedies of parties to an exchange of parcels of land when both parties were unaware of sewer lines beneath the surface of one of the parcels. The E& never intended to deed its sewer mains to the couple and the couple never intended to accept them and assume responsibility for maintaining them. Accordingly, title to the sewer lines did not pass by the land -swap, and the cE& retained ownership. The E& failed to acquire an easement over the property. The mutual mistake in the formation of the LexisNexis® Headnotes Civil Procedure > ... > Jury Trials > Right to Jury Trial > Actions in Equity Civil Procedure> Appeals > Standards of Review > De Novo Review HNI Review in equity cases is de novo. Iowa R. App. P. 6A. While weight will be given to findings of the trial court, the reviewing court will not abdicate its function as triers de novo on appeal. Real Property Law > Encumbrances > Adjoining Landowners > Airspace Real Property Law> Deeds> Construction & Interpretation HN2 Under the common law, whoever owned the soil owned everything up to the sky and down to the depths. However, load Code S 557 3 (700 2 provides that every conveyance of real estate passes all the interest of the grantor therein, unless a contrary intent can be reasonably inferred from the terms Claire Diallo 687 N.W.2d 562, •562; 2004 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 278, **1 Page 2 of 12 used. This provision mirrors the principle that in interpreting a deed the intent of the grantor is the polestar. The grantor's intent is controlling, and it is ascertained by applying general contract principles. The primary rule of construction is that the real intention of the parties, particularly that of the grantor, is to be sought and carried out whenever possible. Contracts Law> Contract Interpretation> Intent Real Property Law > Deeds > Types of Deeds > Quit Claim Deeds Real Property Law > Purchase & Sale > Contracts of Sale> General Overview HN3 Since a sale is a consensual transaction, the subject matter which passes is to be determined by the intent of the parties, as revealed by the terms of their agreement in light of the surrounding circumstances. Thus, in determining whether an article secreted in the ostensible subject matter also passes by the sale the courts have looked to the terms of the contract and the situation of the parties. Where both buyer and seller were ignorant of the existence or presence of the concealed valuable, and the contract was not broad enough to indicate an intent to convey all the contents, known or unknown, the courts have generally held that as between the owner and the purchaser, title to the hidden article did not pass by the sale. Real Property Law > Torts > General Overview Real Property Law > Torts > Trespass to Real Property Torts> Premises & Property Liability> Trespass to Real Property> General Overview Torts > ... > Trespass to Real Property > Defenses > General Overview HN4 A person is liable for trespass to land if he or she fails to remove from the land a thing which he is under a duty to remove. Contracts Law > Procedural Matters > Statute of Frauds> General Overview Real Property Law > Deeds > Defenses Against Deed Enforcement> Statute of Frauds Real Property Law> Encumbrances > Limited Use Rights > General Overview Real Property Law >... > Limited Use Rights > Easements > General Overview Real Property Law > ... > Easements > Easement Creation> Easement by Implication Real Property Law > ... > Easements > Easement Creation > Easement by Prescription Real Property Law > Purchase & Sale > Contracts of Sale > Formalities HNS There are four ways to create an easement: (1) by express grant or reservation, (2) by prescription, (3) by necessity, and (4) by implication. An express easement is an interest in land, which is within the statute of frauds and must be in writing. Real Property Law> Adverse Possession> General Overview Real Property Law > Encumbrances > Limited Use Rights> General Overview Real Property Law > ... > Easements > Easement Creation> Easement by Prescription HN6 An easement by prescription is akin to adverse possession. Yet, instead of acquiring title to the property, the putative easement -holder acquires the right to legally use the property. Under Iowa law, an easement by prescription is created when a person uses another's land under a claim of right or color of title, openly, notoriously, continuously, and hostilely for 10 years or more. Iowa Code f 564.1 (1999). Real Property Law> Encumbrances> Limited Use Rights > General Overview Real Property Law> ... > Limited Use Rights > Easements > General Overview Real Property Law > ... > Easements > Easement Creation> Easement by Implication Real Property Law > ...> Easements> Easement Creation> Easement by Necessity Transportation Law > Bridges & Roads> Easements HN7 An easement by necessity is a form of implied easement, but it is separate, and courts have always recognized it as such. One significant difference is that an easement by implication requires a showing the parties intended such a right to exist. An easement by necessity involves no such intent. In order to establish an easement by necessity, the putative easement -holder must establish: (1) unity of title to the dominant and servient estates at some point prior to severance, (2) severance of title, and (3) necessity of the easement The doctrine of easement by necessity is most commonly applied when a landowner parcels out a landlocked portion of his or her land and conveys it to another. Under these circumstances, courts may imply an easement by necessity across the dominant tenement to provide the purchaser of the landlocked parcel with access to a public road. Real Property Law > Encumbrances > Limited Use Rights > General Overview Claire Diallo 687 N.W.2d 562,'562; 2004 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 278, "1 a me ,m rc Real Property Law > ... > Limited Use Rights> Easements> General Overview Real Property Law >... > Easements > Easement Creation> Easement by Implication HNS An easement by implication exists when the owner of two parcels employs one so as to create a servitude on the other and then transfers one parcel without a specific grant or reservation of easement in the conveyance, and easements by implication can be gained in underground pipes and tile lines. Real Property Law> Encumbrances > Limited Use Rights > General Overview Real Property Law > ... > Limited Use Rights > Easements > General Overview Real Property Law > ... > Limited Use Rights> Easements> Continuous & Discontinuous Easements Real Property Law> ... > Easements > Easement Creation> Easement by Implication HN9 An easement by implication requires: (1) a separation of the title; (2) a showing that, before separation took place, the use giving rise to the easement was so long continued and obvious that it was manifest it was intended to be permanent; and, (3) it must appear that the easement is continuous rather than temporary, and that it is essential to the beneficial enjoyment of the land granted or retained. Real Property Law> Encumbrances > Limited Use Rights > General Overview Real Property Law >--- > Limited Use Rights > Easements > General Overview Real Property Law > ... > Easements > Easement Creation > Easement by Implication Transportation Law> Bridges & Roads> Easements HNIO For the necessary unity of ownership for an implied easement to exist, the adjoining lots must be owned as a unit, not under separate deeds treated as separate properties. Real Property Law> Encumbrances > Limited Use Rights > General Overview Real Property Law > ... > Limited Use Rights> Easements> General Overview Real Property Law > ... > Easements > Easement Creation > Easement by Implication HNII An implied easement must be essential to the beneficial enjoyment of the dominant tenement. Continuance of the prior use must be reasonably necessary to enjoyment of the parcel, estate, or interest previously benefited by the use. To imply an easement on the severance of property from the fact that one part of the property has been subjected to a use for the benefit of another part, it is essential that such use be necessary and not merely convenient to the beneficial enjoyment of the dominant tenement. Contracts Law> Defenses > General Overview Contracts Law> Defenses> Ambiguities & Mistakes> General Overview Contracts Law > Formation of Contracts> Mistake> General Overview HN12 A mistake is a belief that is not in accord with the facts. Mistakes involving contracts can be made in the formation, integration, or performance of a contract. Mistake in expression, or integration, occurs when the parties reach an agreement but fail to accurately express it in writing. Mistakes in the formation of contracts include mistakes in an underlying assumption concerning matters relevant to the decision to enter into a contract. In this category of mistake, the agreement was reached and expressed correctly, yet based. on a false assumption. Contracts Law > Defenses> General Overview Contracts Law> Defenses> Ambiguities & Mistakes > General Overview Contracts Law> Defenses > Ambiguities & Mistakes> Mutual Mistake Contracts Law > Defenses> Ambiguities & Mistakes> Unilateral Mistake Contracts Law > Formation of Contracts > Mistake > General Overview Business & Corporate Compliance > ... > Formation of Contracts> Mistake > Mutual Mistake Business & Corporate Compliance > ... > Formation of Contracts> Mistake> Unilateral Mistake HNI3 When the mistake is in the expression of the contract, the proper remedy is reformation, and it normally makes no difference if the mistake is mutual or unilateral. A mistake to justify the reformation of a contract must have been in drawing the instrument, and not in making the contract out of which it grew; that is, it must occur in reducing to writing the contract upon which the parties had agreed; and in all cases it must relate to something within the contemplation of the parties in making the contract, to something agreed upon, but not contained in the written contract. Where a writing that evidences or embodies an agreement in whole or in part fails to express the agreement because of a mistake of both parties as to the contents or effect of the writing, the court may at the request of a party reform the writing to express the agreement. Claire Diallo 687 N.W.2d 562, *562; 2004Iowa Sup. LEXIS 278, **1 Page 4 of 12 Contracts Law > Defenses> Ambiguities & Mistakes > General Overview Contracts Law> Formation of Contracts > Mistake > General Overview HN74 When the mistake is in the formation of the contract, avoidance is the proper remedy. Reformation is the appropriate remedy when the mistake is one as to expression, while voidance is the proper remedy where a mistake as to a basic assumption on which the contract was based has a material effect on the agreed exchange of performances. Specifically, when a mistake of both parties at the time a contract was made as to a basic assumption upon which the contract was made has a material effect on the agreed exchange of performances, the contract is voidable by the adversely affected party unless he bears the risk of the mistake. Contracts Law > Defenses> Ambiguities & Mistakes > General Overview Real Property Law> Deeds> Types ofDeeds > Quit Claim Deeds Real Property Law> Deeds> Validity Requirements > Enforceability HN1S Courts are not at liberty, under the guise of reformation, to rewrite the parties' agreement and foist upon the parties a contract they never made. Contracts Law> Defenses> Ambiguities & Mistakes> General Overview Contracts Law> Defenses> Ambiguities & Mistakes> Mutual Mistake Contracts Law> Formation of Contracts> Mistake > General Overview Business & Corporate Compliance > ... > Formation of Contracts> Mistake> Mutual Mistake HN76 A mutual mistake in the formation of a contract does not render it void; it merely renders it voidable. Contracts Law> Formation of Contracts> Mistake> General Overview Contracts Law> Remedies> Ratification HNl7 A voidable contract is one where one or more parties have the power, by a manifestation of election to do so, to avoid the legal relations created by the contract, or by ratification of the contract to extinguish the power of avoidance. In the case of a voidable contract, if neither party seeks avoidance, the court cannot void the contract, and the contract remains valid. Civil Procedure> Remedies > Injunctions > Permanent Injunctions HN18 When no statute expressly authorizes injunctive relief, the decision to issue an injunction is a discretionary function of the court based on the traditional principles of equity and the specific circumstances of the case. Specifically, the following factors are considered in determining whether to enjoin a tort: (a) the nature of the interest to be protected, (b) the relative adequacy to the plaintiff of injunctive, (c) any unreasonable delay by the plaintiff in bringing suit, (d) any related misconduct on the part of the plaintiff, (e) the relative hardship likely to result to defendant if an injunction is granted and to plaintiff if it is denied, (f) the interests of third persons and of the public, and, (g) the practicability of framing and enforcing the order orjudgment. Civil Procedure> ... > Injunctions> Grounds for Injunctions> General Overview HN79 Injunctive relief is an extraordinary remedy that is granted with caution and only when required to avoid irreparable damage. Civil Procedure> ... > Equity> Maxims> Do Equity Principle Civil Procedure> > Defenses, Demurrers & Objections> Affirmative Defenses> Unclean Hands Civil Procedure > ... > Jury Trials > Right to Jury Trial > Actions in Equity HN20 One seeking equity must do equity and be in court with clean hands. He who seeks equity must at least offer to do equity. A plaintiff can ask equity only on condition that he does equity. Real Property Law> Torts> Trespass to Real Property Torts > ... > Types of Damages > Property Damages > General Overview Torts > ... > Types of Damages > Property Damages> Measurements Torts > Premises & Property Liability > Trespass to Real Property > General Overview Torts > Premises & Property Liability > Trespass to Real Property> Elements Torts >... > Trespass to Real Property> Remedies> General Overview Torts > ... > Remedies > Damages > General Overview Torts > ... > Remedies > Damages > Measurement of Damages Claire Diallo 687 N.W.2d 562, •562, 2004Iowa Sup. LEXIS 278, ••1 Page 5 of 12 Torts >... > Trespass to Real Property> Remedies> Injunctions HN21 From every unlawful entry, or every direct invasion of the person or property of another, the law infers some damage. The measure of damages for trespass is either the diminution of the property value caused by the encroachment or the cost to remove the encroachment. Civil Procedure > ... > Jury Trials > Right to Jury Trial > Actions in Equity Civil Procedure> Appeals> Remands HN22 An appellate court may remand an equity case for further proceedings when essential to effectuate justice. Civil Procedure> Judgments > Relief From Judgments> Motions for New Trials HN23 If it appears from the record that the material facts relating to an issue were not fully developed at the trial or if in the opinion of the appellate court the ends of justice will be served thereby, a new trial shall be awarded of such issue or the whole case. Real Property Law> Property Valuations Real Property Law> Torts> General Overview Real Property Law > Torts > Trespass to Real Property Torts> ...> Types of Damages> Property Damages > Loss of Use Business & Corporate Compliance> ... > Acceptance > Apparent Acceptance> General Overview Business & Corporate Compliance> ...> Contracts Law> Types of Contracts> Contracts Implied in Fact HN26 An implied -in -fact contract requires mutual manifestation of assent. Generally, silence or inaction does not constitute a manifestation of assent. There are exceptions to this general role when: (1) an offeree takes the benefit of offered services with reasonable opportunity to reject them and reason to know that they were offered with the expectation of compensation; (2) the offeror has stated or given the offeree reason to understand that assent may be manifested by silence or inaction, and the offeree in remaining silent and inactive intends to accept the offer; (3) because of previous dealings or otherwise, it is reasonable that the offeree should notify the offeror if he does not intend to accept; and, (4) in some circumstances, when the offeree does any act inconsistent with the offeror's ownership of offered property. Counsel: Jay A. Nardini, of Nardim Law Office, Cedar Falls, for appellants. William G. Nicholson, of Rush & Nicholson, P.L.C., Cedar Rapids, for appellee. Judges: CADY, Justice. All justices concur except Larson, J., who takes no part. Torts > ... > Duty On Premises > Trespassers > General Overview Opinion by: CADY Torts> Premises & Property Liability> Trespass to Real Property > General Overview Opinion Torts >... > Trespass to Real Property> Remedies> General Overview Torts > ... > Remedies > Damages > General Overview HN24 Loss -of -use damages are available in trespass cases when the trespasser dispossesses the landowner of the land or prevents his or her use of the land. Torts >--- > Types of Damages> Property Damages> General Overview Torts> Premises & Property Liability > Trespass to Real Property > General Overview HN25 A landowner who is also an occupant of the land may recover damages for discomfort and annoyance. However, the owner of land who is not an occupant is not entitled to recover for these harms except as they may have affected the rental value of his land. [•565] CADY, Justice. This appeal requires us to consider the rights and remedies of parties to an exchange of parcels of land when both parties were unaware of sewer lines beneath the surface of one of the parcels. The district court rejected the plaintiffs' claims for trespass, rent, and declaratory relief and granted the defendant an easement. On our de novo review, we affirm the decree of the district court in part, reverse in part, and remand for a hearing on damages for trespass. 1. Background Facts and Proceedings The origins of this dispute extend back to April 1997, when Ron and Jurly Nichols and the C� [••2] ofEvansdale, Iowa exchanged parcels of land. The Nichols owned a parcel of land located at 122 Brown Street (hereinafter Brown Street Property). The Ca was interested in acquiring this land in order to extend a road, Industrial Drive, to connect with Claire Diallo 687 N.W.2d 562, *565; 2004 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 278, **2 Page 6 of 12 Brown Street. The Citv owned a larger, undeveloped parcel of land one block away. This lot was 215 feet by 108 feet and was bordered on three sides by Trail Avenue, Evans Road, and Gilbert Drive (hereinafter Gilbert Drive Property). The Nichols were in the business of selling modular homes and Additionally, on March 28, 2000, Ron Nichols sent a letter to the City demanding $ 350 per month in rent for the Gilbert Street Property, beginning April 1, 2000. The City did not respond to his demand. were interested in acquiring the Gilbert Drive Property in On November 14, 2001, the Nichols filed a petition against order to subdivide it into two lots, erect a modular home on the City, seeking a declaratory judgment that the 0ty had "no each, and sell each parcel. Consequently, the City quitclaimed legal right to have its sewer lines passing through and under its interest in the Gilbert Drive Property to the Nichols, and [the Nichols'] property" and asked the court to order the CitV the Nichols quitclaimed their interest in the Brown Street to remove the sewer [**5] lines at its own expense. The Property to the C_yir . The quitclaim deed for the Gilbert Drive . Nichols further asserted that the presence of the sewer lines Property did not reserve any easements. constituted a trespass and that they were entitled to $ 350 per month in rent from April 1, 2000 until the sewer lines were After the exchange, the Nichols purchased three modular homes: two twenty -eight -foot by forty -eight -foot models and one twenty -eight -foot by sixty -foot model. The Nichols built one of the smaller homes on the western half of the Gilbert removed. The 21E counterclaimed. Due to a mutual mistake as to the existence of sewer lines on the Gilbert Drive Property, it Drive [**3] Property. When the Nichols connected the home alleged it was entitled to reformation of the deed to either to the sewer system, the COY Waste Water Superintendent informed them that there were sewer mains running beneath the eastern portion of the property. Ron Nichols claimed this was the first time he learned of the existence of the utilities beneath his land. However, he took no action concerning the existence of the utilities at this time. In March 1999, the Nichols began plans to place the other smaller modular home on the eastern half of the property. In preparing for the construction, they confirmed that the City did have two sewer mains located under the eastern half of the property. The location of the sewers made it impractical to erect the home on the property. Thus, the Nichols eventually sold the home and erected it on another lot. In April 1999, the Nichols located a prospective buyer for the larger modular home, who was interested in erecting it on the eastern half of the Gilbert Drive Property. However, when the prospective buyer discovered the location of the underground utilities, he declined to proceed with the purchase. A city ordinance required buildings on the property to be set back twenty-five feet from the street. [**4] In addition, the _City required easements to span between eight and fifteen feet on either side of the sewer mains. Thus, the larger home could not be erected in the desired position on the lot. The Nichols asked the C�'r to move the sewer mains. The p: refused. It claimed it would cost approximately $ 75,000 and would require closing Evans [*566] Road for weeks. Instead, the C� offered the Nichols $ 9000 and then $ 10,000 to purchase a utility easement. The CC'r also offered the Nichols $ 20,000 to purchase the eastern half of the Gilbert Street Property, although the entire Gilbert Street Property only had an assessed value of $ 18,090. The Nichols refused the CQ's offers and insisted the go., move the sewer mains. exclude the portion of land containing the sewer lines from the transfer or to reserve a utility easement for the placement and maintenance of the sewer lines. Alternatively, the claimed the Nichols should be ordered to reconvey to the City the portion of land on which the sewer lines are located. The district court issued its decree following a bench trial. The court found that although the City did not reserve an easement for public utilities in its deed and their location was unknown at the time of the exchange, there is no dispute that the gtE never intended to deed its sewer mains to the Nichols and the Nichols never intended to accept the sewer mains and assume responsibility for maintaining them. The court concluded that the parties did not have a landlord - tenant [**6] relationship and that the C� thus did not owe the Nichols rent, that the presence of the sewer lines did not constitute a trespass, and that "the C& has an easement by implication over the Nichols' property even though not reserved in the jQWs deed and even though the Nichols were unaware of the location of the sewer mains when they acquired the property." The court ordered that "the Ca had the right to record a corrective deed excepting its sewer lines from the conveyance to [the Nichols] and reserving easements, 16' wide, lying 8' on each side of [the C&s] sewer mains for their maintenance, repair, and replacement" The Nichols appeal. 11. Standard of Review HNl "Review in equity cases shall be de novo." Iowa R. App. P. 6.4. "While weight will be given to findings of the trial court, this court will not abdicate its function as triers de novo on appeal." Hansen v. Chonin. -'3' Ar PF.1d 506 509 (loan Claire Diallo 687 N.W.2d 562, *566; 2004 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 278, **6 Page 7 of 12 1975) (citing Slate ex rel. Turner v. Younker Bras.. lue, 210 ;V. JV 2d 550. 567 (lama 1973)). Ill. Ownership of the Sewer Lines HN2 Under the common law, "whoever owns the soil owns everything up to the sky and down to the depths. [**7] " Black's Law Dictionary 1712 (8th ed. 2004) (defining the legal maxim mjus est solum, ejus est usque ad coelum et ad inferos). However, loan Cade section 557.3 provides: "Every conveyance of real estate passes all the interest of the grantor therein, unless a contrary intent can be reasonably inferred from the terms used." Iowa Code o 557.3 [*5671 (2003) (emphasis added). This provision mirrors the principle, expressed by this court many times, that "in interpreting a deed the intent of the grantor is the polestar." Skoog v. Fredell. 332 .N. A'.2d 333 334 Noss 1983) (citing Schenck V. Dihel. 2421owa 1289, 129150 N. l3%2d 33 34-35 (1"11; 73 ,4ni..hir. 2d Deedv 6 159, at 205-08 (1965); 26 C.J.S. Deeds § 82, at 807-09 (1956)); accord Hark v. Rice. 325 N.PV..2d 97 99 (Iowa 1982) ("The grantor's intent is controlling, and it is ascertained by applying general contract principles.") (citing Awn v. Michigan-FVisconsin Pipeline Co 101 A' W 2d 56 64-65 (Iowa 1968)l; 7n re Flecks Esieve 261 Iowa 4.34 75 N. IV.2d 865, 867 (Iowa 19Q [**81 ("'The primary rule of construction is that the real intention of the parties, particularly that of the grantor, is to be sought and carried out whenever possible ...... (Citation omitted.)). The record clearly shows, as the district court found, "that the Chv never intended to deed its sewer mains to the Nichols and the Nichols never intended to accept the sewer mains and assume responsibility for maintaining them." The mayor of Evansdale. r John Mardis, testified that the Q claims ownership of the sewer lines on the Gilbert Drive Property. In addition, Mr. Nichols testified that he had no knowledge of the sewer lines prior to the land -swap, thus demonstrating that he could not have intended to accept them. Further, he testified that when the Waste Water Superintendent first mentioned the location of the sewer lines, "I didn't believe that it —truthfully believe that there was a line under there 'cause I didn't figure the Cy would sell me the sewer system" Accordingly, we conclude the parties did not intend the sewer lines to pass to the Nichols as part of the land -swap - See O pperman v Al.R L Dehl,Inc.,644 N. W. 2d 1 3 Notva 2002) ("Although we are not[**9] bound by the district court's factual findings, we give weight to those findings, especially when witness credibility is in issue.") (citing Iowa n R. App. P. 6.14(6)(g); :Vorest Bank o Philip • Realt}_Cn 594 N. if.2d 3. 6 (Iowa 1999)). Having established that the parties did not intend the sewer lines to pass, we look to general contract principles to determine their ownership: HN3 Since a sale is a consensual transaction, the subject matter which passes is to be determined by the intent of the parties, as revealed by the terms of their agreement in light of the surrounding circumstances. Thus, in determining whether an article secreted in the ostensible subject matter also passes by the sale the courts have looked to the terms of the contract and the situation of the parties. Where both buyer and seller were ignorant of the existence or presence of the concealed valuable, and the contract was not broad enough to indicate an intent to convey all the contents, known or unknown, the courts have generally held that as between the owner and the purchaser, title to the hidden article did not pass by the sale. W.E. Shipley, Annotation, Tide to Unknown Poluablec L*701 Secreted in Anicler Sold 4 9 L R 2d 318, 319 (1949). Here, neither the C� nor the Nichols were aware of the presence of sewer lines on the Gilbert Drive Property, and the quitclaim deed from the gLq to the Nichols did not pass "all the contents, known or unknown." Id Accordingly, title to the sewer lines did not pass by the land -swap, and the Citv retains ownership. Nevertheless, the Nichols claim that the presence of the sewer lines on the Gilbert Drive Property constitutes a continuing trespass. HN4 A person is liable for trespass to land if he or she "fails to remove from the [*568] land a thing which he is under a duty to remove." Restatement (Second) of Torts $ 158(c) (1982). If the City had an easement over the Nichols' property, it had no duty to remove the sewer lines and is not liable for trespass. Accordingly, we must first address whether the citv had such an easement. HN5 There are four ways to create an easement: (1) by express grant or reservation, (2) by prescription, (3) by necessity, and (4) by implication. Kahl v. Clear Lake Methodist Conm Asv n 265 rV [V 2d 622 624 (low a 1978) (citing Phillips v. Gri rin. 250 Iowa 1350 1354. 98 :N.W.2d 822. 824 (19M), [**111 An express easement is an interest in land, which is within the statute of frauds and must be in writing. 25 A . Jur. 2d F,asenrents $ 15 (2004). It is undisputed that the Nichols did not expressly grant an easement to the C�'t and that the City did not expressly reserve an easement in its quitclaim deed to the Nichols. Thus, no express easement was created. HN6 An easement by prescription is akin to adverse possession. Yet, instead of acquiring title to the property, the Claire Diallo 687 N.W.2d 562, *568; 2004 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 278, ** I 1 Page 8 of 12 putative easement -holder acquires the right to legally use the property. Johnson v. Koster. 6.57 M fff 2d 174, 178 (Jowa 2001) (citing Collins Tntst v. rlllumakee Counro Bd of Suvervisors. 599 N.W.2d 460. 463-64 (1mva 1999U. "Under Iowa law, an easement by prescription is created when a person uses another's land under a claim of right or color of title, openly, notoriously, continuously, and hostilely for ten years or more." Id.. (citing Iowa Code $ 564.1 (1999); Collins Trust. 599 N. H7.2d at 463)). Clearly, the City never acquired an easement by prescription in this case because the Nichols did not own f **12] the Gilbert Drive Property for the requisite ten years. It is unnecessary to consider the other elements. HN7 An easement by necessity is a form of implied easement, 25 Am. Jur. 2d Easements $ 30, but it "is separate, and we have always recognized it as such." Sc•hwob v. Green 215 N'.IR2d 240. 244 (Iowa 1974) (citations omitted). "One significant difference is that an easement by implication requires a showing the parties intended such a right to exist. An easement by necessity involves no such intent." Id. In order to establish an easement by necessity, the putative easement -holder must establish: (1) unity of title to the dominant and servient estates at some point prior to severance, (2) severance of title, and (3) necessity of the easement. Kennedv v. Bedenbaueh 352 S.C. 56 572 S.E2d 452. 454 (S.C. 2002) (citation omitted); 25 Am. her. 2d Easements ,SAS 33.35. The doctrine of easement by necessity is most commonly applied when a landowner parcels out a landlocked portion of his or her land and conveys it to another. 1 Restatement (Third) 1**)3) oiProperty Servitudes d 2.15 emit. b (2000). Under these circumstances, courts may imply an easement by necessity across the dominant tenement to provide the purchaser of the landlocked parcel with access to a public road. See id. illus. 1-2. The f& did not claim an easement by necessity in this case, so we will not address its applicability to the facts on appeal. See DeVoss v. Stale. 648 X ff.2d .56, 61-61 (lowa 2002) (stating that the supreme court can affirm "a district court ruling on a ground other than the one upon which the district court relied provided the ground was urged in that court" (citations omitted)). Consequently, we turn to consider the existence of an easement by implication. IV. Easement by Implication The district court concluded the P A had an easement by implication over [*569] the Gilbert Drive Property. While the court correctly noted that HN8 "an easement by implication exists when the owner of two parcels employs one so as to create a servitude on the other and then transfers one parcel without a specific grant or reservation of easement in the conveyance," see McKeon v. Brammer. 1381owa 1113 1119 29 iVW2'd 518, 522 (lows 1947). [**14] and that "easements by implication ... can be gained in underground pipes and tile lines," see id., these principles do not resolve the doctrine's application to this case. We have stated that HN9 an easement by implication requires "I, a separation of the title; 2, a showing that, before separation took place, the use giving rise to the easement was so long continued and obvious that it was manifest it was intended to be permanent; and 3, it must appear that the easement is continuous rather than temporary, and that it is essential to the beneficial enjoyment of the land granted or retained." Tanmr. Inc. v Pildis 249 N.W.2d 823, 838 Omva 1976) (quoting Tfimer v. Daenillo 162 N W.2d 514 517 llowa /9�. The district court apparently found that the relevant unity of title was between the Gilbert Drive Property, which the owned before the Nichols, and the three E!& streets surrounding it. However, HN70 "for the necessary unity of ownership for an implied easement to exist, the adjoining lots must be owned as a unit, not under separate deeds treated as separate properties." 25 Ane. Jar 2d Easements S 25 [**15] . The Chit did not own the Gilbert Drive Property and the streets as a unit and then carve out the Gilbert Drive Property and deed it to the Nichols, as is required. Rather, the _City owned them separately, as separate properties. Thus, the relevant unity of title is lacking. Moreover, it is far from clear that the use of the land (i.e., the presence of the sewer lines) was sufficiently apparent for the C� to have retained an implied easement over it. We have previously observed "the words 'apparent' and 'visible' have not been considered synonymous." ,ifcKeon. 238 lows at 1122. 29 A<VV?d at 523 (citing G.R.B., Annotation, Implied Easements in Respect of Drains, Pipes, or Sewers upon Severance of Tract, 58 A.L.R. 824, 832 (1929)). Rather, "apparent" in this context refers to "susceptibility of ascertainment on reasonable inspection by persons ordinarily conversant with the subject." 15 .4m. Jur. DdEavements 516; accord Wiesel v. Smira 49 R I 146 141 A 148 151 (R I 1928), cited with approval in McKeon. 138 lower at 1124. 19 NW 1d at 524; see also 3 Herbert T. Tiffany, [**16] The Law of Real Property § 784 (Basil Jones ed., 3d ed. 1939) (stating that a use is apparent "if its existence was indicated by signs which must necessarily have been seen, or which might have been seen or known on a careful inspection by a person ordinarily conversant with the subject, although not readily or entirely visible"). The American Law Institute, apparently finding this definition strained and unrealistic, has in the Restatement (Third) of Property: Servitudes excepted Claire Diallo 687 N.W.2d 562, *569; 2004Iowa Sup. LEXIS 278, **16 Page 9 of 12 underground utilities from the requirement that the prior use be apparent. See 1 Restatement (Third) of Property. Servairdes 5' 2.12 (requiring that either "existence of the prior use was apparent or known to the parties" or "the prior use was for underground utilities serving either parcel"). A comment to this Restatement section explains: "Implying the servitude will normally,impose a relatively slight economic burden, while the costs of relocating the utility lines will often be high." Id. tint. g. The C& asserts that the prior use was apparent because there were manholes at [*570] each end of the diagonal along which the sewer lines ran and because there was a sewer location map "available[**171 to Nichols had he made a 'reasonably prudent investigation."' We need not decide whether these factors make the Cat 's prior use of the Gilbert Drive Property apparent, nor need we decide whether to take the Restatement (Third)'s approach of not requiring prior use for underground utilities to be apparent. Even assuming the Cgg1 s prior use was apparent, or that it is not required to show that it was, the most essential requirement for an easement by implication is lacking: the easement would not be necessary to the beneficial enjoyment of what the Cart claims is the dominant tenement—i.e., Trail Avenue, Evans Road, and Gilbert Drive. See W'rmea .162 N. W 2d cr1517 (stating that the HNII implied easement must be "essential to the beneficial enjoyment of the dominant tenement); Farmers c4 Mechanics Say. Bank c Campbell 258 Iowa 12381249 141 N.li'.2d 917, 923 (Iowa 1966) ("necessary to the reasonable enjoyment of the property"); 1 Restatement (Third) of Properly: Servitudes b 2.12(2) ("Continuance of the prior use [must be] reasonably necessary to enjoyment of the parcel, estate, or interest previously benefited by the use."); 25Am. Jur. 2d Ectsenrents S 29 [**18] ("To imply an easement on the severance of property from the fact that one part of the property has been subjected to a use for the benefit of another part, it is essential that such use be necessary and not merely convenient to the beneficial enjoyment of the dominant tenement."); see also Schwoh. 215 N. ii'.2d ui 244 (explaining that while "strict necessity need not be proven, ... mere inconvenience is not enough"). Thus, we conclude that the CE failed to acquire an easement over the Gilbert Drive Property by express reservation, by prescription, by necessity, or by implication. Notwithstanding, the CQti , in its counterclaim, asserted that its deed to the Nichols should be reformed based on the doctrine of mutual mistake as to the absence of underground utilities on the Gilbert Drive Property. We therefore turn to consider this claim. V. Mutual Mistake MN12 "A mistake is a belief that is not in accord with the facts." Restatement (Secon(l) of Contracts S 151 (1981). As we have recently explained, Mistakes involving contracts "can be made in the formation, integration, or performance of a contract" Mistake in expression, [**19] or integration, occurs when the parties reach an agreement but fail to accurately express it in writing. Mistakes in the formation of contracts include mistakes in an underlying assumption concerning matters relevant to the decision to enter into a contract. In this category of mistake, the agreement was reached and expressed correctly, yet based on a false assumption. Slate ex rel. Palmer v Unisys Corn 637 N W'2d 142 1-1 flower 2001) (citations omitted). HN13 When the mistake is in the expression of the contract, the proper remedy is reformation, and "it normally makes no difference if the mistake is mutual or unilateral." Id. (citation omitted); accord Merle O Milligan Co v Loll 210 lava 1043. 1046 163 N W 267 263-64 (1935) ("[A] mistake to justify the reformation of a contract must have been in drawing the instrument, and not in making the contact out of which it grew; that is, it must occur in reducing to writing the contract upon which the parties had agreed; and in all cases it must relate to something within the contemplation of the parties in making the contract, to something agreed upon, but not contained in the written[**20] contract"); [*571] Restaremmy (Second) ol'Contracts $ 15i ("Where a writing that evidences or embodies an agreement in whole or in part fails to express the agreement because of a mistake of both parties as to the contents or effect of the writing, the court may at the request of a party reform the writing to express the agreement ...."). HN14 When the mistake is in the formation of the contract, on the other hand, avoidance is the proper remedy. United .Staten m,. Williams, 198 Fad 988 994 (71h Or 1999) (citation omitted); Restatement (Seconcli o(Coniracts c 155 emt b; see also id i 202 ("Reformation is the appropriate remedy when the mistake is one as to expression, while voidance is the proper remedy where a mistake as to a basic assumption on which the contract was based has a material effect on the agreed exchange of performances."). Specifically, when a mistake of both parties at the time a contract was made as to a basic assumption upon which the contract was made has a material effect on the agreed exchange of performances, the contract is voidable by the adversely [**21] affected party unless be bears the risk of the mistake. Claire Diallo 687 N.W.2d 562, *571; 2004 Iowa Sup. LEXiS 278, "21 Page 10 of 12 Id. a 152(1). In this case, the mistake was in the formation of the contract, not in the expression of the contract. It is undisputed that neither party was aware that the sewer lines ran under the Gilbert Drive Property. Thus, they cannot have reached an agreement with respect to the sewer lines that was mistakenly expressed or omitted from the quitclaim deed. Consequently, reformed to reserve an easement to the E- Under the unique facts of this case, the C_yir r had no legal right to have its sewer lines running beneath the Nichols' property free from any accountability to the Nichols.] Thus, we turn to the Nichols' trespass claim. ['•241 VI. Trespass the mistake was not in the expression, and reformation is not As previously stated, "failing to remove from the land a thing the proper remedy. HNIS "Courts are not at liberty, under the which [a person] is under a duty to remove" constitute guise of reformation, to rewrite the parties' agreement and foist upon the parties a contract they never made." 66 Am. Jur. 2d Reformation oflnstruments S 1 (2001). It is abundantly clear that the mutual mistake present in this case is the type of mistake that would make the contract voidable by the parties. See Restatement (S'ecand) of Contracts S 152 ("Where a mistake of both parties at the time a contract was made as to a basic assumption upon which the contract was made has a material effect on the agreed r sa trespass. Res'taletnew (Second) of Torts d 158(c) accord 75 Ant. Jur. 2d Trespass t' 52 (1991); see also Index. Sch. Dist. v DeW'ilde 243 Iowa 645 693 53 4rffld 256 261 (1952) (holding that when tile drain was laid beneath plaintiffs Property without lawful right, "its presence there was illegal and constituted a continuing trespass" (citations omitted)). Because the C� has no legal right to have its sewer lines on the Nichols' property and has failed to remove them, it is committing a continuing trespass. exchange of performances, the contract is voidable by The Nichols assert that under such circumstances, they are the [••22] adversely affected party unless he bears the risk of entitled to a "mandatory injunction." However, at least HN18 the mistake ...."). However, HN16 a mutual mistake in the formation of a contract does not render it void; it merely renders it voidable. First State Bonk r. Shirlev Ae Serr. 1ne 417 N.Fl:2d 448. 452 (Iowa 1987) (citing Restnten+enr (Second) of Contracts 5152. at 385). HN17 A voidable contract is one where one or more parties have the power, by a manifestation of election to do so, to avoid the legal relations created by the contract, or by ratification of the contract to extinguish the power of avoidance. Restatetnent (Second) of Contracts ��' 7. In the case of a voidable contract, if neither party seeks avoidance, the court cannot void the contract, and the contract remains valid. Firs State Bank, 417 N. W1d at 452 (citing Poole c. Poole. 219 lmw 70, 74, 257 M fV. 305, 307 (1934)). Accordingly, while the parties made a mutual mistake in the formation of the contract, because reformation is not the proper remedy and neither party sought to avoid the contract, the transaction between the ['•23] Nichols and the C� was valid, and the quitclaim deed the fW gave the Nichols on April 15, 1997 must be given effect as it was originally written. The district court erred when it ruled that the Cltv "had the right to record a corrective deed ... reserving easements, 16' wide, lying 8' on [•572] each side of each of [the Cis s] sewer mains for their maintenance, repair, and replacement." We conclude the agreement between the parties cannot be when no statute expressly authorizes injunctive relief, "the decision to issue an injunction ... [is) a discretionary function of the court based on the traditional principles of equity and the specific circumstances of the case." 3fbrthineton c. Kenkel 684 N 4' 2d 228 23' (Iowa '004) (citingKent Prods. Inc• • a M yh 24.5 In ra 205 211 61 A' W.2d 711 714 (1953)). ["25] Specifically, the following factors are considered in determining whether to enjoin a tort: (a) the nature of the interest to be protected, (b) the relative adequacy to the plaintiff of injunction and of other remedies, (c) any unreasonable delay by the plaintiff in bringing suit, (d) any related misconduct on the part of the plaintiff, (e) the relative hardship likely to result to defendant if an injunction is granted and to plaintiff if it is denied, (f) the interests of third persons and of the public, and It is unclear why the C� did not complete proceedings to acquire an easement using its power of eminent domain. See Im+vr Cpde a 6A.4(6) (2003). In any event, if the C_,ya needs to go onto the Nichols property to maintain the sewer lines without being liable for trespass, it must either purchase an easement from the Nichols or condemn an easement under the procedure set forth in Iowa Code chapter 6B. Claire Diallo 687 N.W.2d 562, *572; 2004Iowa Sup. LEXIS 278, **25 Page 11 of 12 (g) the practicability of framing and enforcing the order orjudgment. Restatement (Second) of Torts S' 9360). Moreover, HN19 "injunctive relief is an extraordinary remedy that is granted with caution and only when required to avoid irreparable damage." Skow v. Gofrth 618 N.TV2d 275 277-78 flo a )ono) (citing Sea- v. Cl,vron County Zoning Bd of .4diusttnem. 590 A{W.1d 512 515 (Iowa 1999)). Considering the foregoing factors and principles in our de novo review, we conclude that the Nichols have not shown they are entitled to injunctive relief in this case. Foremost, [**26) the Nichols can be adequately compensated by damages. Mr. Nichols conceded that it is possible to place either a forty -eight -foot or a sixty -foot home on the eastern half of the Gilbert Drive Property without the sewer, lines causing a problem. He requests an injunction for the removal of the sewer lines in order to [•5733 place a sixty -foot home with an attached garage on the property facing Evans Road. However, he admitted that he did not know whether he was going to put a forty -eight -foot or a sixty -foot home on the eastern half at the time he received the Gilbert Drive Property or even at the time he ordered the homes. Nichols obtained the property to place a modular home thereon and sell it, and he is still able to do so. He cannot come to a court in equity and ask the QE to remove the sewer lines at great expense and disruption to the public just because he insists on making one specific use of the property when he admits he did not acquire the property for that specific use. See Riess v. 41oka, 236 Iowa 118. 122 17 A'. II' 2d 101. 103 (1945) MN20 ("One seeking equity must do equity and be in court with clean hands."); Burns v. Prudential ins. Co. of 4m 229 Iowa 61C> 618, 294 N.W. 906, 907 /1940) [**27) ("He who seeks equity must at least offer to do equity."); Coulter v. Smith. 201 Iowa 984. 969 Iowa 984, 988206 N.If827 828 (1926) ("The plaintiff can ask equity only on condition that he does equity."). Although injunctive relief is not warranted here, the Nichols have established a claim of trespass and, as such, are entitled to damages. See 75 Aun Jur, 7d TresLrasS 8 117 HN21 ("From every unlawful entry, or every direct invasion of the person or property of another, the law infers some damage."). The measure of damages for trespass is either the diminution of the property value caused by the encroachment or the cost to remove the encroachment. See White v. Citizens Nar'1 B(unk. '62 K IV..2d 812 817 Onwo 19,,81; Restatement (Second) of Torts 0 929-30; 75 dm. Jur- 2d Trespass SC 1301, 133. Because we have already concluded that the Chi is not obligated to remove the sewer lines, the Nichols are entitled to damages equal to the difference between the value of the Gilbert Drive Property on April 15, 1997 and the value [**28) it would have had on that date if the gaffs sewer lines were not running beneath the, land. We reject all other claims for damages based on trespass. 2 We remand to the district court for a determination of damages based on the diminution in the value of the Gilbert Drive Property. See In re Afarrirtee of Bertdeld. 465 N II%'d S64 869 (Iowa 1991) (noting that HN22 an "appellate court may remand an equity case for further proceedings when essential to effectuate justice" (citing Wolf v. Alurrane 199 N 4''d 9U 101 (low•, 1970)); accord Iowa R. App. P. 6.26HN23 ("If it appears from the record that the material facts relating [to an issue] were not fully developed at the trial or if in the opinion of the appellate court the ends of justice will be served thereby, a new trial shall be awarded of such issue or the whole case."); see also Reinhold v. Wolff, 555 N W.2d 454 466 (Iowa 1996) (remanding a case reviewed de [*574) novo to the district court to calculate diminution in value damages for nuisance). [**29] VII. The Nichols' Claim for Rent Generally, a claim for rent based on occupancy of property and a claim for trespass are mutually exclusive. See Hawketie Land Co. v. Laurens Slate Bank. 480 N. W 2d 854 857 flows 1992) (citing 49 Am. Jur. 2d Landlord and Tenant § 1116 (1970)). However, the Nichols' claim for rent in this case is not based solely on the trespass, but the implied -in -fact contract derived from its written demand to the Cie for the payment of $ 350 per month commencing April 1, 2000. HN26 An implied -in -fact contract requires mutual manifestation of assent. Frank Millard & Co.v 1lonsew•ri >hi Lumber Co. 588 MW.2d 44( 442 (Iowa 1999) (citing Rinsland-Johnson-Crawley Co v Firm Cent. Serv. Corp., 255 NJV.2d 149, 152 (Iowa /977)). Generally, silence or 'We note that while damages for loss of use and discomfort and annoyance may be recoverable in some cases of trespass to land, see 75 Am. Jer. 'd Trespass 5 130 such damages are not appropriate in this case. HN24 Loss -of -use damages are available when the trespasser dispossesses the landowner of the land or prevents his or her use of the land. See Restatement (Second) of Torts 2 931 & illus. 1. The C_yrr did not dispossess the Nichols of the Gilbert Drive Property and did not prevent them from using the land —at most, as discussed above, the presence of the sewer lines prevented one specific use of portion of the property. HN25 A landowner who is also an occupant of the land may recover damages for discomfort and annoyance. See id. S 929(1)(c). However, "the owner of land who is not an occupant is not entitled to recover for these harms except as they may have affected the rental value of his ]and." Id. cmt. e. The Nichols were not occupants of the land and were not renting out the land. Thus, they cannot recover damages for discomfort and annoyance. Claire Diallo 687 N.W2d 562,'574; 2004 Tows Sup. LEXIS 278,''29 Page 12 of 12 inaction does not constitute a manifestation of assent. Resrasement /Second) aJ Contracts 0 69 cna a; E. Allan Farnsworth, Contracts § 3.14 (3d ed. 1999) (stating it is a "fundamental ... tenet that mere silence is not acceptance"). There are exceptions to this general rule ["301 when: (1) "an offeree takes the benefit of offered services with reasonable opportunity to reject them and reason to know that they were offered with the expectation of compensation, Reslatenvenr (Second) of Contracts 5 69t11(a); (2) "the offeror has stated or given the offeree reason to understand that assent may be manifested by silence or inaction, and the offeree in remaining silent and inactive intends to accept the offer," id i 69(1) )); (3) "because of previous dealings or otherwise, it is reasonable that the offeree should notify the offeror if he does not intend to accept," id S 69(1)(e); and (4) in some circumstances, when the offeree "does any act inconsistent with the offeror's ownership of offered property," id. § 69(2). None of these exceptions is applicable to the facts of this case. Thus, the C9's silence and inaction in response to Mr. Nichols' offer to enter into a landlord -tenant relationship did End of Document not constitute acceptance. Accordingly, there was no contract for rent between the parties, express or implied -in -fact, and the ! does not owe the Nichols rent. VIIL Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, ["311 we affirm the portion of the district courfs decision holding the C� retained ownership of the sewer lines on the Gilbert Drive Property and finding it was not liable to the Nichols for rent. We reverse the district court's ruling that the C� reserved an easement by implication over the property and was therefore entitled to record a correction deed. Finally, we reverse the district coures conclusion that the presence of the sewer lines on the Property did not constitute a trespass, and we remand for a determination of the amount of damages owed to the Nichols on that claim. AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED. All justices concur except Larson, J., who takes no part, Claire Diallo ADDellants' Exhibit 14 Iowa Code Chapter 564 CHAPTER 564 EASEMENTS 564.1 Adverse possession - "use" as evidence. 564.2 Light and air. 564.3 Pedestrian rights -of -way or easements. EASEMENTS, §564.6 564.4 Notice to prevent acquisition. 564.5 Effect of notice. 564.6 Notice, service and record. 564.7 Evidence. 564.8 Action to establish. 564.1 Adverse possession - "use" as evidence. In all actions hereafter brought, in which title to any easement in real estate shall be claimed by virtue of adverse possession thereof for the period of ten years, the use of the same shall not be admitted as evidence that the party claimed the easement as the party's right, but the fact of adverse possession shall be established by evidence distinct from and independent of its use, and that the party against whom the claim is made had express notice thereof; and these provisions shall apply to public as well as private claims. [C73, §2031; C97, §3004; C24, 27, 31, 35, 39, §10175; C46, 50, 54, 58, 62, 66, 71, 73, 75, 77, 79, 81, §564.1] 564.2 Light and air. Whoever has erected, or may erect, any house or other building near the land of another person, with windows overlooking such land, shall not, by the mere continuance of such windows, acquire any easement of light or air, so as to prevent the erection of any building on such land. [C73, §2032; C97, §3005; C24, 27, 31, 35, 39, §10176; C46, 50, 54, 58, 62, 66, 71, 73, 75, 77, 79, 81, §564.2] ( 564.3 Pedestrian rights -of -way or easements. An easement or right-of-way for pedestrian traffic shall not be acquired by prescription or adverse use for any length of time except when claimed in connection with an easement or right-of-way to permit passage of public or private vehicular traffic. [C73, §2033; C97, §3006; C24, 27, 31, 35, 39, §10177; C46, 50, 54, 58, 62, 66, 71, 73, 75, 77, 79, 81, §564.3] 2008 Acts, ch 1031, §62 564.4 Notice to prevent acquisition. When any person is in the use of a way, privilege, or other easement in the land of another, the owner of the land in such case may give notice in writing to the person claiming or using the way, privilege, or easement of the owner's intention to dispute any right arising from such claim or use. [C73, §2034; C97, §3007; C24, 27, 31, 35, 39, §10178; C46, 50, 54, 58, 62, 66, 71, 73, 75, 77, 79, 81, §564.4] 564.5 Effect of notice. Said notice, when served and recorded as hereinafter provided, shall be an interruption of such use, and prevent the acquiring of any right thereto by the continuance thereof. [C73, §2034; C97, §3007; C24, 27, 31, 35, 39, §10179; C46, 50, 54, 58, 62, 66, 71, 73, 75, 77, 79, 81, §564.5] 564.6 Notice, service and record. Said notice, signed by the owner of the land, the owner's agent, or guardian, may be served in the same manner as in a civil action, upon the party, the party's agent, or guardian, if within this state, otherwise on the tenant or occupant, if there be any, and it, with the return Fri Jan 08 18:51:40 2016 Iowa Code 2016, Chapter 564 (6, 0) §564.6, EASEMENTS thereof, shall be recorded within three months thereafter in the recorder's office of the county in which the land is situated. [C73, §2034; C97, §3007; C24, 27, 31, 35, 39, §10180; C46, 50, 54, 58, 622 66, 71, 73, 75, 77, 79, 81, §564.61 Manner of service. R.C.P. 1.302 - 1.315 564.7 Evidence. A certified copy of such record of said notice and the officer's return thereon shall be evidence of the notice and the service thereof. [C73, §2034; C97, §3007; C24, 27, 31, 35, 39, §10181; C46, 50, 54, 58, 62, 66, 71, 73, 75, 77, 79, 81, §564.71 564.8 Action to establish. When notice is given to prevent the acquisition of a right to a way or other easement, it shall be considered so far a disturbance thereof as to enable the party claiming to bring an action for disturbing the same in order to try such right, and if the plaintiff in the action prevails, the plaintiff shall recover costs. [C73, §2035; C97, §3008; C24, 27, 31, 35, 39, §10182; C46, 50, 54, 58, 62, 66, 71, 73, 75, 77, 79, 81, §564.8] Fri Jan 08 18:51:40 2016 Iowa Code 2016, Chapter 564 (6, 0) Appellants' Exhibit 15 Email — RE: Lusk property question (Yapp, Bollinger, Rosenquist) S�:e Dulek From: John Yapp John-Yapp@iowa-city.org> Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2016 9:00 AM To: Marcia Ballinger Subject: RE: Lusk property question Yes — I'm not sure what they want at this point, but I'll he talking to legal and/or Geoff about it From: Marcia Bollinger Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2016 8:45 AM To: John Yapp Subject: RE: Lusk property question 1 see that the council asked that this be put on their agenda. Can you keep me updated on when that is scheduled and if there will be any additional information provided to the council as part of that discussion? Thanks! From: John Yapp Sent: Tuesday, tune 21, 2016 3:54 PM To: Marcia Bollinger Subject: RE: Lusk property question They can feel free to contact the owners directly — we typically only facilitate neighborhood meetings when there is a legislative action required {rezoning, subdivision, etc.) From: Marcia Bollinger Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2016 3:47 PM TO: John Yapp Subject: FW: Lusk property question I'll leave this up to you but 1 wouldn't suggest it. It's a lose/lose. From: and rosenquist[mailto;mdrosenquist@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2016 3:45 PM To: Marcia Bollinger Cc: John Yapp Subject: Re: Lusk property question It looks like a modem castle. Could the city set up a meeting between new owners and the surrounding residents for a meet and greet and question and answer session? Thanks, AM Appellants' Exhibit 16 Email — RE: Council (Boothroy, Yapp) Sue Dulek From: Doug Boothroy <Doug-Boo1hroy@Iowa-city.or9> Sent: Tuesday, .July 05. 2016 10:28 PM To: John Yapp Subject: RE: Council Thanks for the update. Great news! ... IH and FUSE and fees all adopted. Thanks for all your help. Senl awn my V.S. Cellular® sreanphenc ------- Original message ------ From: John Yapp Date:07/05/2016 9:02 PM (GMT-06:00) To: Doug Boothroy Subject: Council • Lots of Lusk public comment. A lot of 'staff is at fault; 'staff should have known better... `type of comments. Council stayed quiet. • Re Rose Oaks— Charlie says the reason some residents don't want to apply for assistance is that they do not have social security numbers, and that is why they need cash (I'm paraphrasing). • Orchard St Comp Plan amendment —approved. Some harrumphing about the scale, but mostly positive. • FUSE and IH both passed and adopted. • Fee in lieu —approved. Susan said she has strong concerns about how it was calculated, but is willing to approve it. Cheryl was a no-show. • Pine Grove — some discussion, but ultimately approved • Everything else approved. Sleep tight! John Yapp rw� _MHA IC 000584 . I6 A-P-Dellants' Exhibit 17 Email — RE: Lusk (Oliveira, Ream, Ritter) Sage Dylek From: Mike Oliveira <moliveira@prestigeprop.com> Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2015 5:27 PM To: Jann Ream Cc: 'J. Scott Ritter' Subject: RE: Lusk HiJann, It a pain waking with no sidewalks so 1 clearly uaderstand the need for sidewalks. The know firsthand because when I walk to the park and go down north Gilbert Street north of Brown street those new houses don't have sidewalks and it a pain in the butt having to walk in the street. Thanks for moving this forward. Scott and I working with Jason on the other issues and the Fire Department on the Turn Around size. Mike From: Jam Ream [mailto:Jann-Ream@iowa-city.org] Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2015 3:37 PM To: `Mike Oliveira; U. Scott Ritter' (sritter@hart-frederick.com) Cc: Jason Havel; Tim Hennes; Julie Tallman Subject: Lusk Mike and Scott — I finally had a chance to go over your latest plat proposal with Doug. In terms of zoning for lot size, configuration and frontage, Doug feels this plat is compliant and therefore, approvable for a lot split. However, he does see the sewer, water and tun -around size issues that have been discussed previously and that Jason brought up is his email concerning this configuration. Doug will not sign off on the plat until these issues have been resolved. Also, Doug wanted to make you aware that a sidewalk will be required to the end of the new turn -around that is adjacent to the proposed lot in order to continue the existing sidewalk to the newly created lot. Jann 117 Appellants' Exhibit 18 Email — FW: 101 Lusk Ave /Split Lots —Street Entention (Oliveira, Havel, Knoche, Ream) Sue Dulek From: Mike Oliveira <moliveira@prestigeprop_t:om> Sent: Friday, January 23. 2015 3:06 PM To: Jason Havel Cc: 'Robert Carlson' Subject: FW: 101 Lusk Ave I Split Lots - Street Enlention Jason please contact me about the next steps in this process so we can have all the information to give to our Engineering Firm that is planning to do the design. From: Mike Oliveira[mailto:moliveira@prestigeprop.comj Sent: Tuesday, December 30, 2014 5:35 PM To: 'Ron Knoche' Cc: 'Jason Havel; 'Jam Ream' Subject: RE: 101 busk Ave Yes we are looking to Split the lots. From: Ron Knoche [mailto:Ron-Knoche(i�jowa-city org1 Sent: Tuesday, December 30, 2014 5:20 PM To: Mike Oliveira" Cc: IMson Havel; Jam Ream Subject: RE: 101 Lusk Ave Mike: Jason Havel will be City Engineer. Lusk is currently 25 feet wide. You will need to hire an engineering company to develop the plans to extend the street. You will need to provide a turn around at the end of the street. Based on the aerial there may be a significant amount of gr ' g ary necessto he able to buiid a ro Based on Jann's email to you I estimate you will need to extend the street approximately 80 feet to meet the _ requirement of 60 foot lots and the south lot having 45 foot of street frontage. I think the bigger question is how will water and sanitary sewer service be extended to these lots. Are you just s looking at sp tong a ot�in halt? If that is the case I will have Water and Waitewater review it quick. Thanks, Ronald R. Knoche, PE City Engineer i�!?/uretseoenwtu irruurwe[ Website: www.icgov.ora From: Mike Oliveira [mailto:moliveira(alnrestieeorop cam] Sent: Thresday, December 30, 2014 3:41 PM To: Ron Knoche Subject: 101 Lusk Ave Hi Ron — I understand Jason Hobe] is taking your place as of January l We need a proposal to extend 101 Lusk Ave so we can subdivide the lot Let me now what the next steps are. Mike Oliveira M ADDellants' Exhibit 19 Email — Lusk.pdf (Druivenga, Havel, Overton, Carlson, Ritter) Sue Dulek From: Paul Drulvengs Paul-Druivenga@iowa-oity.orgn Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2015 11:24 AM To: Jason Havel Subject: HE: 101 Lusk Ave. Request to subdivide lot. Attachments: Lusk.pdf Perhaps something like this..1 know Jeff Maxwell can bore lines. From: Jason Havel Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2015 10:06 AM To: Paul Drulvenga Cc: Roger Overton Subject: Re: 101 Lusk Ave, Request to subdivide lot. What would be your preferred option? Thanks. Sent from my iPhorie On Feb 25, 2015, at 9:52 AM, Paul Druivenga <paul-Dtvivenea Iowa -city org> wrote: Jason - The proposed house farthest to the south would have its sewer service cross 3 different properties, I'm not a fan of this proposal. Future repairs of the private line could get dicey. Generally when I'm asked a bout similar older sewers "why did the City OK this?". Paul Fri0m: Jason Havel Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2015 9:19 AM To: Roger Overton; Paul Druivenga; Chris Parizek Tim Hennes; Julie Tallman; Josh Slattery Subject: FW: 101 Lusk Ave. Request to subdivide lot. All, Attached is a drawing for splitting a lot on Lusk Avenue. Please review and let me know if you have any questions/concerns. TEm/Julie, do you want the response to come from your department or would you like me to respond to Mike with comments? Thanks. Jason From: Mike Oliveira m Etc•rn IveiraCwnre_ srioe r .corr�] Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2015 12;27 PM To; Jason Havel Cc: 'Robert Carlson'; 'J, Scott Ritter' Subject: 101 Lusk Ave. Request to subdivide lot. 1q Appellants' Exhibit 20 Hart -Frederick Consultants, P.C. — Sanitary Service Letter to City of Iowa City (Carhoff, Oliveira) HART-FREDERICK CONSULTANTS, P.C. ENGINEERS & SURVEYOR I October, 2015 Prestige Properties 239 E. Court St, Ste 2 Iowa City, IA 52240 Attn: Mike Oliveira Re: Sanitary Sewer Service to 101 Lusk Avenue —Iowa City, Iowa bear Mr. Oliveira: We have reviewed the video footage from the inspection of the sanitary- sewer service to 101 Lusk Avenue in Iowa City performed on September 23, 2015. Based on the video, we would not recommend using the existing service line in its current condition for the proposed additional single family homes. The tubercaladon in the 4-inch diameter cast iron section of the service line will impede flow and possibly cause blockages and backups. The roots protruding through the pipe joints in the VCP section have been removed, but may re -grow in the $rttae. These would again became sources of potential blockage and infiltration. Many of the joints are offset slightly fmm each other. The offsets could be considered minor and do not severely impede #low. The video camera R dial reach the manhole in this inspection and only two services discovered. The service to 631 Bayard Street was not found. This makes a total of four residential camnects on tha service line that is believed to be 6-inebes in diameter. Typical standard practice for most cities is to require a minimum pipe diameter of 6-inches when more than one building is served by a single service line. According to the sewer inspection equipment opera5or, cast iron portion of this service line is 4-inches in diameter. Based on the latest video inspection, we recommend a new 6-inch service line be iastalled to replace the 4-inch cast iron saction of the existing service line. The remai u g existing service line should be lined to prevent future root growth snd infiltration. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call Scott Ritter, L.S., or myself at our office. S Y, Benjamin A, Carhofi; P.E. Hart -Frederick Consultants P.C. cc: Jason Havel, City of Iowa City ene: Video on USB Flash Drive BIe 510 Since Smeet • P.O. Hos 560 • TAn, M 57340-0560, • 319-50-7215 • Pam: 319-W-7220 • www.hut fi kd mm Fa smearing • Surveying • planning 10 Appellants' Exhibit 21 Email; FW: City Sanitary sewer conditions. (Knoche, Yapp, Hennes, Wilkey, Havel) -Sue Ruiek 40� From: Ron Knoche Sent: Wednesday, ,tune 29, 20161�51 Plvi To: John Yapp; Tim Hennes Subject: FW: City Sanitary sewer conditions. FYI Ronald R, Knoche, PE Public Works Director City of Iowa City 414 East Washington Street owa City, Iowa Email- ron-knoche_@iowa-city.org Phone: (319) 356-5138 Cell: W9) 430-3625 Fay;; (319) 356-5007 From; Roger Overton Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2016 1:42 PM To: 'ba iowacity@yahoo.com' 00. CC: Tim Wilkey; Ron Knoche; Jason Havel Subject; FW: City Sanitary sewer Condit ons. From; Roger4verton Seat: Wednesday, June 29, 2016 12-:07 PM To: 'bada_lowacity@yahoo.com' CC: Tim Wilkey; Ron Knoche; Jason Havel Subject: City Sanitary sewer conditions. Dear Mr. Ackerman, The City Wastewater Division has inspected it's 8"53nitary sewer mains in the tusk Ave and Bayard St area and they appear to be in good working condition and capable of accommodating additional flow from the proposed single family house that wilt be built at 101 tusk Ave, The City doesn't have any information about the condition of the joint private sewer that you share with your neighbors. Ram -Ov�r:xv. .Assistant Superintendent City of Iowa City Waste Water TreatMent 1)1,1,1on Office- 319-987-6104 Cell-319-321-3353 Air)Dellants' Exhibit 22 Email; 101 Lusk Ave (Overton, Havel, Wilkey, Knoche, Diruivenga) Sue Duiek From; Roger Overton <Roger-Ov9non@iowa-c:ilyorg> Sent: Wednesday, ,tune 29, 2016 9:15 AM To: Jason Havel Cc: Tim Wilkey; Ron Knoche; Paul Druivenge Subject: 101 Lusk Ave Jason, Bill Ackerman called me yesterday concerned with the sanitary sewers near his home on Lusk Ave. I had some discussion with him about the sewers being able to handle the flow from the new " Kinnick House". My last recollection of this area was that we were going to require the new development south of Biil's house to install a new 8" line to Lexington. I did not realize that using the existing combined 4" service was going to be allowed. Bill wanted me to email him detalis of the condition and flow capacity of sewers in the area to assuage his and his neighbor's concerns. We don't know or have we investigated anything about the condition of the 4" private service. How would you like to proceed with contacting Wit about his concerns? We have video of the main north of Lexington and it indicates a 4" sag about 14' outside the MH at Bayard/Lexington that runs for about 20' to the North. This defect shouldn't hinder development of the lot . Assistant Superintendent aty of Iowa City Wastewatn`rreatment dWislon Gfnce-319-887-511)4 Cell-319-321-3353 rdi Appellants' Exhibit 23 Email; RE: 101 Lusk Avenue Property (Hennes, Carlson, Goerdt, Hennes, Zahasky Construction) Sue Dulek a From: Tim Hennes <Tim-Hennes@iowa-city.org> Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2016 8:21 AM To: 'Reed Carlson' Cc: zahaskyconstruction@gmail.com; Terry Goerdt; Tim Hennes Subject RE: 101 Lusk Avenue Property Attachments: 101 Lusk Affidavit of Use2.doo; 101 Lusk plan review.docx Mr. Carlson, Following is a list of issues that need to be submitted in order for use to continue plan review and approval of your new home at 101 Lusk St. 1. Attached is an Affidavit of Use must be signed by owners and a recorded copy returned to City, and; 2. Documentation the home will meet the 2012 International Energy Code. This is usually done with an energy audit showing the home will meet the standards. You can also have a third party in -field inspection to verify compliance. 3. Assurance the existing sewer to the site is capable of providing required capacity for the new home. A. Submit revised plans that address the plan review notes attached. S. Reminder that engineering is required on concrete walls greater than 10 feet in height. 6. Please let Terry Goerdt, who's copied on this email or myself know if you have any questions. Tim Hennes Senior Building Inspector I City of Iowa City, 1A 319.356.5222 1 tim-hennes@iowa-city.orfc From: Tim Hennes Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2016 8;32 AM To: 'Reed Carlson' Cc: zahaskyconstruction@gmail.com; Terry Goerdt; Tim Hennes; ]arm Ream Subject. RE: 101 Lusk Avenue Property Thank you for the explanation Mr. Carlson, this will suffice. We are also preparing an affidavit of use that will need to be signed, notarized and recorded with the property prior to issuance of the building permit. I will forward that to you for your signature for you to have recorded when it is finished. Thanks again. Tim Hennes Senior Building Inspector I City of Iowa City, IA 319.356.5122 1 tim-hennes@iowa-city.orQ From: Reed Carlson [matlto:reed@geo-lnc.com] Sent: Friday, April 22, 2016 9:30 AM To: Tim Hennes; Terry Goerdt Cc: zahaskymnstructlon@gmail.com Subject: 101 Lusk Avenue Property MHA IC 000106 03 Appellants' Exhibit 24 Email; Lusk Ave Comments (Havel) Sue Dulek From: Jason Havel <Jason -Havel lows-cily.org> Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2015 8:52 PM To: Jason Havel Subject: Lusk Ave Attachments: Lusk Avenue Comments.docx d4 General 1. A plat of survey, creating a new Auditor's Plat, will have to be signed by a PE or licensed surveyor, and submitted to the Director of Neighborhood and Development Services for approval. i. Zoning (RS5) requires 45 feet of street frontage. Lusk Avenue should be extended to provide vehicular access for a minimum of45 feet along the east lot line of the new lot. Anything less than that would require a variance request. 3. Driveway spacing standards require three feet (3') between the lot line extended and the curb cut on Lusk_ 4. Turn -around at the end of Lusk Avenue sufficient for fire department? Sanitary 1. Is there an existing easement around the sanitary sewer where it crosses private property? 2. The CWs preference would be to provide a sanitary sewer within the Lusk Avenue ROW and tie the services into the new line (see attached drawing as a possible option). Transcription of Exhibit 24 The proposed houses do not have separate and independent building sanitary sewer services as required in 16-3D-6D. It appears that the sanitary sewer that is shown ectending from a manhole at the intersection of Bayard St and Lexington Ave down to underneath the northern proposed house is a private service line. It is indicated that way in the legend on the drawing and our maps and plats do not show any sewer in this location. 117 Lusk Ave, 111 Lusk Ave, and both of the proposed homes will use this sewer service. 2. The water service for the south home runs 2 to 3 feet within the ROW and may be hard to maintain without encroaching on the neighboring property to the north. 3. Will the vacated ROW become part of the south lot so that it meets the frontage requirements? 4. If this Row is vacated then the property across the street will not be able to split and do the same thing (if this matters). The trees indicated "to be saved" cannot all be saved with the necessary extension of pavement on Lusk. Appellants' Exhibit 25 Email; RE: New Concept for splitting 101 Lusk Ave per our discussions (Havel, Oliveira, Ream, Tallman, Carlson, Ritter) Sue Dulek From: Jason Havel <Jason-Havel@iowa-city.org? Sent: Tuesday, May 05. 2015 6:53 PM To: 'Mike Oliveira` Jann Ream; Julie Tallman Subject: RE: New Concept for splitting 101 Lusk Ave per our discussions Mike, A few comments/questions on the revised plan: 1) It appears from the aerial that the existing sanitary sewer runs underthe garage adjacent to 631 Bayard Street. Is there language in the easement to address repairs under that structure if needed? That layout is obviously less than ideal, and could be a concern for the users of the sanitary sewer. 2) What are the elevations/grades for the sanitary service from the south house? That line is shown with a number of bends and could be a maintenance issue. Will the southern property be required to have a grinder pump or a force main type setup? An easement should also be added for the service line where it crosses the neighboring property. Maintenance of that line would also be needed in the easement agreement. 3) The private sanitary main should not be shown as extending under the northern house. The house service should connect to the main outside of the building footprint at a manhole or other connection location. 4) The water services must come perpendicular from the main to the property line, which will require extension of the water main for the south property, They cannot run parallel to the property line as shown in the drawing. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, Jason From: Mike Oltvelra[mailto:moliveira@presdgeprop.com] Sent: Friday, April 17, 2015 3:39 PM To. Jann Ream; Julie Tallman; Jason Havel Subject: New Concept for splitting 101 Lusk Ave per our discussions Here are revised split lot plan per our last meeting. Please take a look and we believe it meet all the requirements. I will thank take to the fire department to get a blessing or rejection! Thank you — enjoy the nice weather. Mike Oliveira Prestige Properties, LLC_ 9S To: Jason Havel; 'Mike Oliveira' Cc: 'J. Scott Ritter ;'Robert Carlson' Subject: RE: Request for a meeting for Lusk Ave Lot Division My schedule is completely open those days. Mike — please coordinate with Scott and Bob and suggest a time. I will schedule a meeting here at City Hall. Jann From: Jason Havel Seat: Tuesday, March 31, 2015 11:51 AM To: Jana Ream; TA&e Oliveira' Cc: I Scott Ritter; Robert Carlson' Subject: RE: Request for a meeting for Lusk Ave Lot Division I am available the following times next Monday or Tuesday: Monday: 8 am- 10 am, 11 am — 5 pm Tuesday: 8 am —1 M 3 pm — 5 pm Jason From: Jann Ream Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2015 11:49 AM To: 'Mike Oliveira; Jason Havel Cc:'J. Scott Ritter; Robert Carlson' Subject: RE: Request for a meeting for Lusk Ave Lot Division A meeting is fine but my schedule this week is very full. Would next Monday or Tuesday work for everyone? From: Mike Oliveira jinailto:moliveira c�,proarestigepcoml Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2015 10:15 AM To: Jason Havel; Dann Ream Cc: U. Scott Ritter; Robert Carlson' Subject: Request for a meeting for Lusk Ave Lot Division d5 Jason and Jann, Here are your original questions/responses and here are our responses (Scott Ritter and Bob Carlson) and questions/recommendations. We need to have a meeting to see if we can iron out the issues and get this project moving forward. Also we need to know what other land mines we are facing! Thank you in advance for your consideration and cooperation in this matter! Let me know some dates. Mike Oliveira 319-512-7616 x 5 City's Responses: We were finally able to get this in front of joint staff yesterday. Our comments are as follows: 1. A plat of survey, creating a new Auditor's Plat, will have to be signed by a PE or licensed surveyor, and submitted to the Director of Neighborhood and Development Services for approval. 2. Zoning (RS5) requires 45 feet of street frontage, and the frontage is required to be along the street. Lusk Avenue should be extended to provide vehicular access for a minimum of 45 feet along the east lot line of the new lot. 3. Driveway spacing standards require three feet (3') between the lot line extended and the curb cut on Lusk. 4. Our preference would be to provide new sanitary service out the front of the house(s) to a new line along Lusk Avenue and installed by the developer. The new line could be within the ROW and eventually tie into the manhole at the Lexington/Bayard intersection (see attached). If you would choose to tie into the existing private line, we would need proof of the ability to do so, such as proof of an easement, agreement, etc. 5. The water main would need to be extended (see attached) and a water tap -on fee may be required. 6. The lots must be 60' in width at the front setback line. Related to that, here is a comment from Jann Ream: Attached is the plat for Lusk with the dimensional adjustments that would have to be made in orderfor the two new lots to meet the required dimensional requirements. The new lot line would have to move south approximately 7)l (6.59' exactly). This would add 1, 050 sf to the north lotfor a total of 9,050sf and take away 1, 00sffrom the south lot for a total of 7, 595sf. This is a problem since the minimum lot size is 8, 000sf. o16- If the new lot line was angled north from the east boundary to the west boundary, the square footage of the two lots could probably be balanced so they would both have a little over 8, 000sf. The only potential problem I can see with that is maintaining the 60' width at the required front setback line which is 20f1 backfrom the front lot lines. It would definitely be 'threading the needle" to make that happen. They have about .5fl (112 foot) to play with but I think it could be done. The drawing is attached for your information. I am also awaiting a response regarding another potential issue, but wanted to get you these comments. Let me know if you have any questions or want to discuss. Thanks. Here are the responses from our Scott Ritter. We need to setup a meeting to discuss! 1) Not a problem 2) 6) I feel these 2 bullets can be resolved as long as we can use the proposed width of street vacation as our street frontage and area calculations. From the intentions involved are to save the trees in the street area 3) Can we ask for a variance on this? For again we are trying to save the trees. 4) As an estimate this could cost $45642 and then what happens to the other 3 houses who must hook up to same line. I haven't seen the video of the line that was done to know this. The three other property owners will need to be receptive to an easement for this line. I think it would be to their advantage. 5) As an estimate this could cost $10047. My take on this is the hydrant is moved further from the North two properties and across street. Leaving the hydrant where it is, makes it more centrally located. Both 4 & 5 above includes the cost of street replacement. I believe if a meeting can be set up with all, we can resolve and/or get more definite answers to these bullets. J. Scott Ritter, PLS Hart -Frederick Consultants PC 510 State Street, PO Box 560 Tin, IR 52340-0560 P. 319-545-7215 F.319-545-7220 aS Appellants' Exhibit 26 Email; RE: Need a respond please 101 Lusk Ave (Havel, Olivei ra) Sue Dulek From: Jason Havel <Jason-Havel@iowa-city,org> Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2015 2:11 PM To: 'Mike Oliveira' Subject: RE: Need a respond please 101 Lusk Ave Attachments: Lusk -sanitary option.pdf,, Lusk Ave Lot(s).pdf, Lusk Ave - Water.pdf Mike, We were finally able to get this in front of joint staff yesterday. Our comments are as follows: 1. A plat of survey, creating a new Auditor's Plat, will have to be signed by a PE or licensed surveyor, and submitted to the Director of Neighborhood and Development Services for approval. 2. Zoning (RSS) requires 45 feet of street frontage, and the frontage is required to be along the street. Lusk Avenue should be extended to provide vehicular access for a minimum of 45 feet along the east lot line of the new lot. 3. Driveway spacing standards require three feet (3') between the lot line extended and the curb cut on Lusk, 4. Our preference would be to provide new sanitary service out the front of the house(s) to a new line along Lusk Avenue and installed by the developer. The new line could be within the ROW and eventually tie into the manhole at the Lexington/Bayard intersection (see attached). If you would choose to tie into the existing private line, we would need proof of the ability to do so, such as proof of an easement, agreement, etc. 5. The water main would need to be extended (see attached) and a water tap -on fee may be required. 6. The lots must be 60' in width at the front setback line. Related to that, here is a comment from Jann Ream: Attached is the plat for tusk with the dimensional adjustments that would have to be made in order for the two new lots to meet the required dimensional requirements. The new lot line would have to move south approximately 7ft (6.59' exactly). This would add 1,050 sf to the north lot for a total of 9,050sf and take away 1,05osf from the south lot for a total of 7,595sf. This is a problem since the minimum lot size is 8,000sf. If the new lot line was angled north from the east boundary to the west boundary, the square footage of the two lots could probably be balanced so they would both have a little over 8,000sf. The only potential problem I can see with that is maintaining the 60' width at the required front setback line which is 201t back from the front lot lines, It would definitely be 'threading the needle" to make that happen. They have about .5ft (112 foot) to play with but I think it could be done. The drawing is attached for your information. I am also awaiting a response regarding another potential issue, but wanted to get you these comments. Let me know if you have any questions or want to discuss. Thanks. Jason From: Mike Oliveira [manta:moliveira@prestigeprop.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 201s 10:50 AM To: Jason Havel Subject., Need a respond please lot Lusk Ave Jason you had this for over three weeks — have you made a decision! ab Appellants' Exhibit 27 Email; RE: Lusk Ave (Havel-, Overton, Wilkey, Knoche, Druivenga) Sue Duiek From: Jason Havel <Jason-HaveI@iowa-oity.org> sent: Tuesday, July 05, 201611:42 AM To: Roger Overton Cc: Tim Wilkey; Ron Knoche; Paul Drulvenga Subject: RE: 101 Lusk Ave Roger, The stance we've taken is we would allow use of the existing shared private service if it is for a single family dwelling, A previous owner was interested in splitting the lot and building two homes, and we requested they install new sewer for that improvement. Let me know if you have any additional questions, thanks. Jason From: Roger Overton Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2016 9:15 AM To: Jason Havel Cc: Tim Wilkey; Ron Knoche; Paul Druivenga Subject: 101 Lusk Ave Jason, Bill Ackerman called me yesterday concerned with the sanitary sewers near his home on Lusk Ave. I had some discussion with him about the sewers being able to handle the Flow from the new "Kinnick House". My last recollection of this area was that we were going to require the new development south of Bill's house to install a new Jr line to Lexington. I did not realize that using the existing combined 4" service was going to he allowed. Bill wanted me to email him details of the condition and flow capacity of sewers in the area to assuage his and his neighbor's concerns. We don't know or have we investigated anything about the condition of the 4" private service. How would you like to proceed with contacting Bifl about his concerns? We have video of the main north of Lexington and it indicates a 4" sag about 14' outside the MH at Bayard/Lexington that runs for about 20'to the North. This defect shouldn't hinder development of the lot . ?a$ah- Dwftrrfasc Assistant Superintendent City of Iowa City Wastewater Treatment Dlvlslon Office- 319-657-6104 CER-319-32L-3353 a� ADDellants' Exhibit 28 Email; RE: 101 Lusk Ave — Request to Split the lots (Oliveira, Ream, Havel) Sue ®ulek From: Mike Oliveira <moliveira@prestigeprop.c om> = Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 2015 2:07 PM To: Jann Ream Subject: RE: 101 Lusk Ave - Request to Split the lots Ok Great that is what I needed to know. Appreciate your prompt response. Thanks. From: Jann Ream [mailto:Jann-Reanagowa-city.org] Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 2015 1,14 PM To: %like Oliveira' <moliveira@prestigeprop.com> Cc: Jason Havel <Jason-Havel@iowa-city.org> Subject: RE: 101 Lusk Ave - Request to Split the lots Mike — I got your voice mail and, yes, you are ok moving forward based on Jason's email. We will need a plat of survey submitted similar to the latest one you submitted but showing the sewer and water coming in from the Lusk right of way and eliminating the sewer and water lines coming across the adjacent private properties, Jann From: Jason Havel Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 2015 11:37 AM To -'Mike Oliveira' Cc: Jann Ream Subject: RE: 101 Lusk Ave - Request to Split the lots Mike, Our expectation is that splitting the existing lot would require the existing water main on Lusk Avenue to be extended and new sanitary sewer installed in the City ROW to provide public water/sewer services to the new lots. I believe this is consistent with what we had discussed during our meeting, as well as previous correspondence. Any plats submitted for splitting the lot would need to reflect those improvements, and remove references to the private connections. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks. E Appellants' Exhibit 29 Email; RE: 101 Lusk Ave Sewer Line Easement (Oliveira, Havel, Kennedy) d�q Sue Dulek From: Mike Oliveira Kmoliveira@prestigeprop.com> Sent.- Sunday, June 07, 2015 7:57 AM To: Jason Havel Subject: RE: 101 Lusk Ave Sewer Line Easement 1 will work for Friday morning right now keep that open I will get back to you with an exact time. From: Jason Havel [mai]to:Jason-Havelgowa-city,orgj Sent: Saturday, June 06, 2015 7:00 PM To: 'Mike Oliveira' Cc: 'Michael Kennedy Subject: RE: 101 Lusk Ave Sewer Line Easement Mike, What dayaltimes would work for you this upcoming week? Friday (12s') is pretty open for me, but I may be able to fit it in another day if you were wanting it to be sooner. Thanks. Jason From: Mike Oliveira [mailto:moliveira restigro .corn Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2015 5:04 PM To: Jason Havel Ce:'Michael Kennedy' Subject: 101 Lusk Ave Sewer Line Easement Hi Jason, We have engaged our attorney, Mike Kennedy, to try and nail down the easement language that will satisfy your departments concerns while balancing e ctTi— once�Yts w`i the multi of property owners use service. You and the other property owners are the last hurtle in this project. I believe the other property are god tn_be a huge challenge. aq ADDellants' Exhibit 29(a) Email — RE: Lusk house (Yapp, Goerdt, Hennes) nulek From: John Yapp <John-Yapp@iowa-cily.org> Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2016 11:06 AM To: Terry Goerdt subject: RE; Lusk house thx From: Terry Goerdt Sent. Wednesday, June 22, 2016 11:02 AM To. John Yapp Subject: RE. Lusk house John this is not a 9 fixture dwelling. Fixture units are based on type of bathroom fixture such as a residential sink would be 2 fixture units. Every tub, sink, toilet, laundry would have a separate future count. Once you calculate the total number of fixture units in the dwelling, you will need to calculate the size of your drainage pipe(sewer pipe). The Property starts off with a 4" pipe which will handle 216 fixture units at a W per foot slope and then goes to a 6" pipe which will handle 720 fixture units at Y.." slope. Terry From: Join Yapp Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2016 10:40 AM To: Tim Hennes; Terry Goerdt Subjech Lusk house Do you have a diagram of the sewer service for the 101 Lusk property? I recall seeing something when Olivera owned the property. The question being raised now is if the service is large enough for a 9-fixture dwelling, if the owner has the 'right' to use the service since it is also used by adjacent properties (legal question), and if the City ran/should require them to tap into a public main. John ADDellants' Exhibit 30 Email; RE: Turnaround on Lusk Ave (Greer, Havel, Grier) Sue From: Brian Greer cBrian-Greer@iowa-city.org> sent: Wednesday, March 25.2015 3:11 PM To: Jason Havel; John Grier Subject: RE: Turnaround on Lusk Ave Attachments: Fire Apparatus Access Roads.pdf Jason, I have attached the 2012 International Fire Code (IFC) appendix for fire apparatus access roads. With the space you have to work with there, it appears that it would be impossible to provide a conforming turnaround to meet the requirements of the code. In relationship to this proposed turnaround, our fire engines are 38+ feet long, and the ladder truck is 47+ feet long, The proposed turnaround definitely would not accommodate the ladder truck and quite possibly the fire engines. Are there any otheroptions you are looking at in regards to this proposed turnaround/development? Let me know if you have any. Thanks. Stay safe, Brian Aru"t T gum- the .Mana&ii Iowa City Fire Department 410 E. Washington Street Iowa City, la_ 52240 319-356-5257 brian- reer iowa- it .or From, Jason Navel Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2015 1:58 PM To- John Grier; Brian Greer Subject; Turnaround on Lusk Ave Good afternoon, A developer Is looking to possibly divide an existing lot on Lusk Avenue. As part of the process, we would require a turnaround at the end of the street, Is the proposed turnaround (see attached) sufficient for the Fire Department. Thanks. Jason Havel, P.F. City Engineer City of Iowa City 410 E. Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 Phone: (319) 356-5410 Fax. (319) 356-5007 rma Appellants' Exhibit 31 Email; RE: 101 Lusk Ave (Oliveira, Greer, Ream) Sue Dulek From: Mike Oliveira <moliveira@prestigeprop.com> Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 3:16 PM To: Brian Greer Cc: Jann Ream Subject: RE: 101 Lusk Ave Thank you very much for your quick turnaround have a nice weekend. Mike From: Brian Greer [mailto:Brian-Greer@iowa-city.org] Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 2:35 PM To: `Mike Oliveira' Cc: Jann Ream Subject: RE: 101 Lusk Ave Mike, We discussed the access and turnaround proposed and we believe it will enable our apparatus to turn around if necessary. I don't believe there were any other issues related to the Ere department for this project, Let me know if you have any questions or concerns. Stay safe, It Brian T. Greer- Fire Marshal Iowa City Fire Department 410 E_ Washington Street Iowa City, J& 52240 319-356-5257 A-DDellants' Exhibit 32 Email; 101 Lusk Ave. lot split (Klinefelter, Boothroy, Knoche) Erlulek From: Gary Ktinatelter rgary(Winefoher.us- Senn: Friday, August 14, 2016 6:17 PM To: Doug Soothroy, Ron Knoche Cc: Cindy Persons subject/ 101 Lusk Ave. lot split Gentlemen, 1 have some questions regarding the proposat to split the lot at 101 Lusk Ave. 1 have two main concerns. I have received by email a seamed plat that was submitted to the City for this lot split_ Concern #L The extension of Lusk Ave, which appears to show 30`9" south of where the pavement ends, is within about 10' of a massive oak tree. This tree sits higher dtan where the pavement ends. 1 assume that the Paving would ooni inue the slope to the south. If this is the case this would necessitate excavation that would disrupt tree roots. The approach turning to the west at about a 45 degree angle would also encroach on the tree roots, This paving looks to be too close to the tree to not result in damage damage to this tree. Could he Paving extension be 25' or 20' to lessen the impact on this tree? Concern #2. Tbere is currently r10 storm water management of the surface water that travels on tusk A ve. (some of it coming off of Bayard St. as well). The pavement just ends, and heavy rains just wash out the area south of the street moving toward the CRANDIC right-of-way. I do not see anything on the plat that addresses storm water control. In addition there is a turn out that goes @tat to otu glean from the pint which way the storm water is direct o s° at ] 10 Lusk A . 1 cannot PmPosod street extension. There has been significant erasion overtime from the current lack of storm water control. It appears that this extension of the street could make things worse if storm water drainage is not adequately addressed. I believe these are valid conoerns that, need to be addressed prior the the granting of this proposal to split the lot at 101 Lusk Ave, Thank you for your attention to this matter. I look forward to hearing back from you. Sincerely, Gary A Kiinefelter 319-631-1236 Parsons Properties ZiY�,dAMinefelter.us ADDellants' Exhibit 33 Email; RE: Just a thought or two about Lusk ... (Yapp, Tallman) Sue Dulek ` From: John Yapp aJohn-YaPPQiowa-dty.org> Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 20165:12 PM To: Julie Tallman Subject: RE: Just a thought or two about Lusk ._. hmmmmm From: Julie Tallman Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2016 5:10 PM To: John Yapp Subject: Just a thought or two about Lusk ... So I was looking through the single-family dwelling development standards and noticed that the purpose statements for minimum lot requirements and building bulk standards are uniform in that they seensure dominate existing buildings." k to ,e consistency and compatibility between new and existing development,, and "discourage new buildings that I assume that the proposed building meets all height, setback, and other dimensional requirements it) our code that are intended to fiuthar the stated purposes. So maybe itour code that fails to achieve the purpose statement, and it's not a reason to deny the building permit. And then I wondered .., is it defensible to take down a home that conforms with those purpose statements in order to build something that does NOT meet those purpose statements? Is this related to removing conforming development and replacing it with non -conforming development? Would we allow the constrtrciion of a Mini -Arena is Walnut Ridge, for instance, where large homes dominate the landscape and where lots are so huge that there is more separation between homes? Just a thought or two. "s3 Appellants' Exhibit 34 Email; Re: 101 Lusk (Zahasky Construction, Goerdt) From: Zahasky Construction <zahaskyronstrucVon So 1: Tuesday, May 24, 2016 8:07 AM (a3gmail.com> To: Terry Goerdt Subject: Re: 101 Lusk Ok V11 work on getting it scoped.: did do a Rescheck and thought had attached it in the notes? i'D log back on and see. Thanks. AlZahasky Zahasky Construction LLC Iowa City, IA 319-331-0631 > On May 24, 2016, at 8:01 AM, Terry Goerdt <Terry Goert#t(aiowa-city nre> wrote: > Good morning Al, t talked to Tim regarding the sewer. He says it is required to be cameraed to verify it is okay. He said he does want you to build the house and then have sewer problems since the sewer runs through Borne one elses property, > I also need a energy audit for the house. > Otherwise it looks like everything else is a go. > Terry >---Original Massage -- !Oa > From: Zahasky Construction [mailto:zahaskyconstruction a@gmail.com) > Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2016 7:49 AM > To: Terry Goerdt > Subject: 101 Lusk > Morning Terry, just checking to see if you have what you need from us on 101 Lusk Ave. • thanks. > Al Zahasky > Zahasky Construction LLC > Iowa City, IA > 319-331-0631 '/w Appellants' Exhibit 35 Abstract Entries — Lahey, Ackermans, Syrop &Sadler Anne M. Lahey 111 Lusk Avenue Iowa City, Johnson County, Iowa Ed R. Loan and Ella E. Loan, husband + Warranty Deed dated April 1, 1924. and wife, Recorded April 2, 1924, Hook 138, Page 398. * to Convoys, i6( James C. Burns. to ne hereby also sell and aanvay Ymta the said i.e. C. nun. eM to his hsln In an does' the for tftP.f..ee e( t right -of -Hay, fat the 9qn ;it of the Dmyerty eys6f eves tea seutR Jaur (bJ feet and the set tee (10/ feet of the fetlowing premi{se, 'te-d1t1 Ooemeneinl, at the ne ethenet earner Of Hold lee 1 thende feet, thane !ut 150 fast, than marsh 52} fast, the Hand 150 feet to t1u a91.lag. are elan a'rana to the said gran to. his head -a-dares, Stight to use Me Balm naiad dish the property nhev end 0envyed and yusingg ae»ee the Pcepsrty tentore to the eauth thereof, Pmvldtd that eudh uea .hell De 'sntlagant open t tq' this grantee, his hells and nselot, of one hni; the ..at end aspedu{ en16 ease! Se Proper anndltlan, and Provided, "her that old east; hsll my until yed time u a puhlSe cads yed.atoll hs evall aid far the use the bell ntil sued Except a mortgage to Henry G. Walker on which there is a balance due of 61250, with interest from April 1, 1924, at all and one-half per cent, which said mortgage the grantee assumes and agrees to pay. William G. Ackerman and Karen S. Ackerman 631 Bayard Street Iowa City, Johnson County, Iowa (44) - Ed. R. Loan and Warranty Deed. Dated April, 1924. Filed Ella E. Loan, husband April 2, 1924. Recorded in Vol. 1j8, and wife, page ..3-9g. Conveys: The following described real to estate situated in Johnson County, Iowa, t 0- wit a: - James C. Barns. A part of Lots 1 and 2 in Block 14, Manville Addition to Iowa City, Iowa, said Addition being a sub -division of a part of the Wp NE+ of Sec. 9 Twp. 79, N. R. o', West of the 5th P: M. as shown by Plat Book 1 at page 149 of the Plst Recor=s of Johnson County, lowa, to -wit: Beginning 52g feet south of the northeast corner of said Lotl; thence west 150 feet; thence south 52z feet; thence east 150 feet; thence north 521 feet to the place of beginning, subject to an easement over the north 4 feet of said above described tract for the purposes of a right Of nay for the benefit of the following described premises, to -wit- Commencing at the northeast corner of said Lot 1; thence, south`3'z feet; thence west 150 feet; thence north 522 feet; thence east 150 feet to the place of beg- inning. The grantors hereby also sell and convey unto the said James C. Huns. nd to his heirs and assigns an easement (for purpose of a right of way,�for the benefit`of the property above conveyed,) over the south 4 feet and thb west 10 feet of the following described premises,' to -wit: Commencing at the northeast corner of said Lot 1; thence south 52- feet; thence west 15C feet; thence north 521 feet; thence east 150 feet to the place of beginning, Said grantors also grant to the said grantee, his heirs and.assisns, the right to use the sewer now connected with the property above conveyed and passing across the property of these grantors to the south thereof, provided that such use shall be conti- ngent upon the payment by this grantee, his heirs and assigns, of one- half the cost and expenses of keeping said sewer in proper condition, and provided, further, that said use shall continue only until such time as a public sewer shall. be avAd.'IlLble for the use of the property above conv.eyed. ,,Except a mortgage to Henry G. Walker on which there is a bal- ance due of 125000 with interest from April 17 1924, at six and one- half per centl-rwhich said mortgage the grantee assumes and agapes to pay._ Craig H. Syrop and Anne G. Sadler 117 Lusk Avenue Iowa City, Johnson County, Iowa Ellen Rock and ° Warranty Deed dated July 21, 1924. J.-W. Rock, her husband, Recorded July 30,1924, Book 138,page 526. a Conveys: A part of Lots 1 and2, Block 14, (44) to Manville Addition to Iowa City, Iowa, said * addition being a sub —division of a portion James C. Burns. of the 1.4 of the NEg of Section 9, Township * 79 North, Range West of the 6th P.M. as shown by Plat Book 1, page 149 of the Plat Records of Johnson County, Iowa, towit: Beginning at the northeast corner of said Lot 1, thence west 150 feet, thence south 521 feet, thence east 150 feet; thence north 521 feet to the place of beginning, subject to a easement over the west 10 feet and the south 4 feet thereof for the purpose of a right of way for the use of that portion of said Lots 1 and 2 lying south of the premises above described. Also an easement for the purpose of a right of way for the use of , the premises above described over the following described real estate, towit: Beginning 521 feet south of the northeast cornerof said Lot 1, thongs`;south_4 feet, thence west 150 feet, thence north 4 feet, thence east 150 feet to the place of beginning: .. Warrants except all apsaial-assessments U,S.Internal Revenue stamps $6.00 affixed and cancelled. Appellants' Exhibit 36 Memorandum —Sarah Walz to Board of Adjustment City of Iowa City _MEMORANDUM TO: Board of Adjustment FROM: Sarah Walz, Associate Planner DATE: September 14, 2016 RE: APPEAL OF A DECISION BY THE DEPARTMENT OF NEIGHBORHOOD AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES TO ISSUE A BUILDING PERMIT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE LOW DENSITY SINGLE-FAMILY (RS-5) ZONE AT 101 LUSK AVENUE The purpose of this memorandum is to set forth the rules that govern your consideration of the above -referenced appeal. In deciding the appeal you must first determine: Whether Neighborhood and Development Services (NDS) exercised its powers and followed the regulations established in the Zoning Code with regard to classification of the structure as a residential use; site plan approval requirements for sanitary sewer; compliance with Mire safety regulations for street access and provision of water for firefighting; and 2. Whether the actions of NDS staff were patently arbitrary or capricious. You will receive a memo from NDS staff on the background of the appeal, the record produced by the staff, and the zoning code regulations that apply to the regulations cited in the appeal. Element No. 1 above requires you to determine whether NDS staff properly followed (used/relied on) the zoning regulations. Element No. 2 requires you to determine whether the Development Services decision to approve the application was patently arbitrary and capricious. A decision is "arbitrary" or,"capricious",w.hen it is made without regard to the law or the underlying facts of the case. Arora v. Iowa Board of Medical Examiners 564 N.W. 2d 4, 7 (Iowa 1997). A decision is also "arbitrary" or "capricious" when it involves an "abuse of discretion". An "abuse of discretion" occurs when the action rests on grounds or reasons clearly untenable, unreasonable, or lacking rationality in light of the actors' authority. DiM Inc. v. Iowa Employment Appeal Bd., 576 N.W.2d 352, 355, (Iowa 1998). The above -stated "standard of review" is a narrow one. The Board is not entitled to simply substitute its own judgment for that of NDS staff. In other words, you may not reverse the decision merely because you disagree with it. Rather, if you find that the NDS staff exercised its powers and followed the guidelines established by law, and that its decision was not patently arbitrary or capricious then you must uphold the decision. If, however, you find that NDS staff did not exercise its powers and follow the regulations established by law, abused its discretion, or acted patently arbitrarily and capriciously you may, in conformity with the provisions of the Zoning Code, affirm (for a different reason), wholly or partly; reverse, wholly or partly; or, modify the decision of the NDS staff to grant the building permit. In other words, you will stand in the shoes of the staff and make such September 8, 2016 Page 2 decision as ought to have been made based on the regulations with regards to the approval of an accessory structure. The motion to decide the appeal will be in the form of a motion to affirm the appeal to overturn the decision of NDS staff. Again, in making your decision, you step into the shoes of and have all the powers of the NDS staff. The reasons for your decision must be clearly articulated based on the regulations in the zoning code. Appellants' Exhibit 37 Petition and Public Comments enange.org [4 Start a petition ._ Browse a Search is Log in Petitioning Iowa City Board of A 'ustment and 1 ather Rescind Building Permit for "Kinnick" Party Venue on Lusk Ave in Iowa City 71ra HaiDhb*M Of Manvala Halahts A=*Mft1en We, the undersigned property owners and voters of Iowa City, petition the Board of Adjustment to rescind the building permit for the proposed structure at 101 Lusk Ave for the following reasons: 1. The City of Iowa City staff mistlessified the proposed structure as a single family residence and erroneously approved it for RS-5 zoning. This sets a dangerous precedent for all of Iowa City. o There is no showing that the proposed structure will have a separate sanitary sewer to the City's sewer main, which is required for all single family dwellings. o At 7400 square feet in size, the proposed building will replace a single family home of less then 1,000 square feet. o The structure is not designed a single family residence. If built, it will be a party venue owned by non-residents to entertain very large game -day gatherings. o Equipped with a commercial kitchen, large numbers of toilets or urinals, a twastory basketball court, and a separate entrance for the family, the building is more in keeping with a commercial or entertainment district than e low -density single-family residential zone. Sign this petition 275 suppaners Tll neddod 10 rea:F. SGG United States _-I tj Sheee nl{h vdcpllppi, blonds >d NerRp me upda[ad an lks campaigc anJ Dehcrs Rom Tha ryDijh46rb Di MadvllEc He�gMs AstaciafYDn Q D splay my name ardtom. men on this Wl!ne NV algolnu, pu auctpt ehecac wgS [cans e 5urvxe and f`rlvy[y PgpCr. ar:d Gylcv to reacwu e=omondl emak Obx M,M9m or Chanpearg �'eu can dncuSsvrbe al env timd. 2. Taxpayers —now, or later -will be required to subsidize this private scheme heavily because of public infrastructure improvements that the project will require. Lusk Ave is narrow and the infrastructure of the location is very old and woefully inadequate for this project. 0 It constructed, this building will endanger public interests with respect to fire, safety and rescue efforts; parking; traffic congestion; and watershed. Taxpayers will eventually be asked to widen streets, improve storm sewers, guard fragile areas against watershed and erosion, and provide safe means to get to and from this location. 3. The use of this facility will threaten public safety. o Fire trucks and emergency vehicles will not be able safely to get to, or exit from, emergency calls at this large -capacity, entertainment venue, because It is at the dead-end of one of Iowa City`s most narrow paved streets. Lusk Ave. is a dead-end, 20-foot wide street and it only extends one-third of the length of the party venue's lot. o Fire trucks are ten feet wide and have large turning radii. Parking is allowed on one side. Fire trucks and emergency vehicles called to the site will not be able to turn around. The public is placed at risk when response times to real emergencies are slowed. a Pedestrians and other vehicles will be placed at risk by the burdens placed on this area by this Proposed entertainment venue. Sign this petition 27e �ue�ow.cr 22! needed to fearT SCfI United States (J Snare with Facebookfnelds 0 Kntp me uptted on this campaign and others Gem The N60h6ws of Name lle Neighls A=c.mbn 0 Display my name and c mert on This paliQun BN ;ignmg, You asxat C4r dc.uy's ?erns et tarrvr[6. and Prlvgcv i'trlrcr, end afire& in retsire oceesierra: bma iEs abuul umpaiprs en Ctranga.erQ. You tan un§u6scllbe a! any Llmtl, 4. Starm-water runoff from this very large entertainment venue will cause environmental harm by threatening bordering property with large amounts of runoff. Q The very large lot for this proposed entertainment building will be cleared of mature trees and foliage and it will be covered with a massive structure and herd -pavement surfaces. o There are no storm -water sewers on either Lusk Ave. or the adjacent Bayard St, which also drains to Lusk Ave. c The proposed structure will add significant runoff to Lusk Ave., which ends abruptly on the steep slope of a ravine —right of way owned by the City of Iowa City, and, then, by private land owners. o There is significant erosion at this site already. Except for the property of others, including the City's property, the storm -water runoff has nowhere else to go, and the erosion will worsen substantially. o The City imposes strict guidelines upon private owners Insensitive ecological areas involving slopes but has Issued a Building Permit for a project which will cause great amounts of run-off P on the City's own property. 5, The proposed structure will have many negative affects an the surrounding neighborhood. o The RS-5 zone that covers Lusk Ave. is for low -density, single family residential homes, not entertainment venues, o This planned 7400 sq ft entertainment structure is roughly 10 times larger than any of the 3 abutting residential properties. n The proposed building is nearly three -times taller than neighboring properties_ o The proposed building iines a street with brick facie with few windows- appropriate to a football stadium, but unfriendly to those residing in and walking through the neighborhood. ^ 6 Property values and privacy of neighboring properties are threatened when the City does not enforce minimum expectations created by our zoning laws. Sign this petition 2YJ svPAarcars 721 dewd^J" IG eraeh 50C• united Statm -� rj Snatd with Famiswwt.lnwnda O Kttp mt updated an thla eampalgnaM othats Row ,ho NaphbwE oFWavdle Y.wiphlw A95wawtion a 131-P*mynamva dcmm twn ihrs plitlon �' wR'^Myr,v atwpt Cnervyaa,gy Tsran or SOrWrO and Etb!U Wirt, and oetsn tw Ia W aee.•a 1i 0amtif than ra Nlan on Ohnpm% Yw can encplr.-vbwel arty dma r4"k We believe that the letter and spirit of City code have been ignored and abandoned at the expense of our neighborhoods and taxpayers. This sets a dangerous precedent. The correct action is for the Board of Adjustment to rescind the Building Permit. Shia pmition vela la dellrarod we Iowa GTIy Beard al AdJustmen[ LRy of Iowa GEy Road the lotter KvI.,, 1uwe C.ty Lusk. Am Party +aoao TaUgaiC The Neighbors of Manville Heights Amociatlon t started this petition with a single signature, and start a petition - rww has Zia supporters. Start a petition today to change something you care about. Updates 250 sueporieft �,04f0t Tire NNgtibm of lAarMlla Heights k55odatiwr wztiad thin, petiliae rmonihago Supporters TOP COMMENTS I drove through Manville Heights the otherday and saw these signs in virtually every yard. Though i live on the west side, I know I would NOT enjoy a monstrosity like this in my neighborhood, with all of the accompanying noise and nuisance. It is kind of a wonder to me that the property owners would go through with this proj act given the obvious apposition of the entire neighborhood. This silly project, If it must go through, belongs far out of town on a large enough acreage of land so that neighbors are not disturbed of the peace they deserve- MerheAno Carlem fovea Chy. IA 2 wrnks egu The building Permit was given after the original protest by neighbors. This contradicts the spirit of the City adhering to the codas and !s thus setting a very bad precedent for Iowa city in general, Sortie iW Wr, lax Llc,: IA . rvt2Md epo r 2 Rmart i believe in a government that applies consistent standards and common sense to decision making stepfren mtao n, Iowa Cily.iz r. wneAa epu Sign this petition 2/a auPPortan �an S nenete3 to wxch :AC II Lin itad States 13 Spate with Faeabeokfncnda O Krop mo ugblad on lMs gmOalgn andeaLLvS !mm Yha Naigkbars of Manviflo Hnlghts A99ocimlon m display my name and comment on Fhis Pe1lElon By slgniry, vau Q=Vt charp" sTermsN serv�rn and prrvecv Pe[¢t, erd agrm re reccere oamsivrsl nmaii5 aacuF pmµcigas cn Ch;mgeurg. Tau tan uncubstgbC al 8lry time. Comments Name of rf Location... Date Comment Dennis Befeler Iowa City, IA 2016-08-01 1 want to keep my kids safe from drunk drivers and don't want my tax dollars - used to subsidize a rich out-of-towner. joel maxey Iowa City, IA 2016-08-02 this project would not be appropriate in ANY Iowa City neighborhood. That is what bars are for!] I also agree with all the objections noted in the petition. Made Ravn Iowa City, IA 2016-08-13 Our neighborhood can barely support the increased parking and traffic from the stadium itself during football season. Narrow streets and blind corners will make increased traffic dangerous for our community's children and families, as well as the many cyclists and pedestrians in this neighborhood who, like myself, work in or around the UIHC and VA. Jan Ahlberg Iowa City, IA 2016-08-14 ..... ......... . ........... This structure and its proposed function are not compatible with single family residential homes in the neighborhood Lu Ann Dvorak Iowa City, IA 2016-08-14 I'm signing because of all the reasons already stated, and wildlife. Sue Curry Iowa City, IA 2016-08-14 The letter thoughtfully summarizes the reasons this structure should not be permitted in our neighborhood. Nora Roy Iowa City, IA 2016-08-14 ............ . Manville Heights is a residential neighborhood of historically significant homes with gardens and yards. It is not engineered or zoned for the construction of a large party venue. Charles Musser Iowa City, IA 2016-08-14 Keep our kids safe! William Musser Iowa City, IA 2016-08-14 . .. ..... .. .. 1 don't want this inappropriately sized/purposed parry house/tourist attraction to destroy the peace, safety and serenity of a lovely, block -long street of small, . .. ....... nice homes. Osnat Stramer ....... Iowa City, IA ... .. .................. 2016-08-14 ........ 1 live close by and care about the neighborhood. Nattaly Stramer Iowa City, IA 2016-08-14 This is going to be a huge noise and pollution for the neighborhood. ... .. .......... .................. Lori Ziegenhorn Iowa City, IA 2016-08-14 ....... ......... This is not consistent with the other structures in the neighborhood. Ramdications of a structure this size on such a small street will increase noise as well as stress on the current infrastructure and lead to higher taxes to cover a private concem. kathedne rebal Iowa City, IA 2016-08-14 ........... ... Detrimental to an established residential neighborhood John Pienta Iowa City, IA 2016-08-15 This represents the beginning of terrible entrificalion d I g a won e u neighborhood. Stephan Arndt Iowa City, IA 2016-08-15 This is a family residential area with traditional styled houses. Turning it into a parry location will disrupt the neighborhood, as well as bring in drugs and ..................... crime. ..................... . Robert Hamilton Iowa City, IA 2016-08-15 I'm signing because it is obvious that this structure is intended as a guest house and event facility, not a home, and because it is completely out of character with the neighborhood, and in particular, the neighboring houses. .............. .... .............. ..... . Paul Keller Iowa City, IA 2016-08-15 Everything about this proposed monstrosity is misguided The BOA needs to correct a wrong the City allowed to occur. ................... ................... . Kendal! Atkinson Iowa City, IA 2016-08-15 1 do not want a "party house" in the neighborhood, it is totally inappropriate to the surrounding houses, and it will result in congestion in area around the proposed house. Name Location" `- Date : - Comment Jean Hogan Iowa City, IA 2016-08-15 1 am concerned about the inconsistency of the location of this building in a residential area with the very large capacity of the building plans which indicate it will be used for purposes other than a personal residence. Dean Harken _ Coralville, IA 2016-08-15 Infrastructure will not support the proposed building. .............. Michael D'Alessandro Iowa City, IA 2016-08-15 ..... _. This party house simply does not belong in a residential neighborhood, for all the reasons outlined in the petition. Please right this wrong. Mary New Iowa City, IA 2016-08-15 As a former 24 year resident of Manville Heights, and having lived just a few shorts blocks from this proposed building, I sign for all the reasons listed in the .. .. ......._..................... .. . ........................... petition. Robbie Kilbride Mediapolis, IA 2016-08-15 .................. . ... ......_. .. ... ... ... .... .... . 1 am signing this because 1. Iowa City is already KNOWN as a party town. 2. We frequent the UIHC for appointments and driving to get around is bad enough as it is, let alone making a parry house. Think of SAFETY people, SAFETY. Julia Moffitt Iowa City, IA 2016-08-15 ................... .. ........ ...... .. .............. 1 live in this neighborhood hand this structure in no way shape or form is consistent with the character or culture of our neighborhood. This building would impact our property values in a negative way and therefor we have a right to protest and do everything possible from allowing this building to move forward. thomas novak Iowa city, IA 2016-08-15 ............................ . ... _... .. .... This an inappropriate use of a residential lot. Connie Funk Iowa City, IA 2016-08-15 ............................ ...... ............. ...... . 1 support the neighbors who have voiced concern Terry Kilbride Mediapolis, IA 2016-08.15 1 go to the hospital for appointments and its already hard to get around. Please don't allow this party house. jackie blank Iowa City, IA 2016-08-15 1 agree that this building Is not a residence . It would be a dangerous nuisance. Marilyn Rosenquist Iowa City, IA 2016-08-15 It is obvious from the building plans that this is an events venue/party house not a single family residence. Randy Kardon Iowa City, IA 2016-08-15 1 think the proposed houselbuilding is contrary to the neighborhood atmasohere Ellen Van Laere Iowa City, IA Leonard Burkart Connie Burkad Susan Loomis Richard Haendel and is a threat to the neighborhood well being 2016-08-15 1 live in a protected, i.e. historic neighborhood, and appreciate what this ._ neighborhood is opposing. Iowa City, IA 2016-08-15 This structure doesn't fit in Iowa City, IA 2016-08-15 Much to large and out of place Iowa City, IA Iowa City, IA Kri[3rI3f: 2016-08-16 Susan Dnina Woodbury, MN 2016-08-16 Joshua Koza Iowa City, IA 2016-08-16 John Murry Iowa City, IA 2016.08-16 Cecily Gabel Coralville, IA 2016-08-16 I am concerned about the impact of this venue facility on our neighborhood. It is clearly NOT intended as a residential unit, and it should not be built in this residential location. This proposed building is a commercial, not residential building. With increased traffic from hundreds of people gathering at this venue, it is a safety risk. Someone will get hurl or worse. My mom lives in Manville Heights and this house is out of place on the tiny street. This structure is being built as a large crowd entertainment venue and nothing more. An establishment of this nature does not belong in ANY neighborhood. The plans clearly reveal that the purpose of this building is hosting large events and NOT a single family dwelling. The proposed house appears to be Inconsistent with current zoning of our neighborhood. This is wrong! CoreFour pull it together! Date Comment 2016-08-16 My former neighborhood; its character would be damaged by such a structure. 2016-08-16 The Kinnick imitation proposed for 101 Lusk Avenue is a ghastly idea and it is hard to understand why the City approved the application. University Heights in turning it down was more intelligent. A better location for this architectural horror would be in the country somewhere OUTSIDE of Iowa City and on land incapable of anything better!!! 2016-08-16 My concern is the way this issue has been handled, below the radar so to speak, designed to "railroad" an obviously substandard and possibly dangerous structure to be foisted upon a quiet residential neighborhood. In addition, stormwater drainage HAS to be considered EVERY TIME increased impervious surface is created, and it seems obvious that consideration as not been applied in this case! 2016-08-16 1 think this is ridiculous of this family to do just because they have money. I don't even live in Iowa City, but am familiar with the family being from the Decorah area originally. Building a house is one thing, but this is extreme & my question is "WHY? Give your money to a worthy charity instead! ....... "................ ..... _. ..................... Joanne Madsen Iowa City, IA 2016-08-16 This structure does not belong in our neighborhood The cityshas made Douglas Madsen Iowa City, IA Mary Ervanian Marilyn Olson Name Location. Sarah Pdneas Solon, IA phyliis jones Iowa City, IA David Jones Gail Masters Iowa City, IA New Hampton, IA a ...... ....."........ .... ... mistake in thinking it does. 2016-08-16 the city has made a serious error in its application of the zoning laws, which if not reversed will do great harm to our community. 2016-08-16 The RS-5 zone designation states that related nonresidential uses and structures should be planned and designed to be compatible with the character, scale and pattern of the residential development. The 7,476 sq. ft. home with tailgating functions does not fit the RS-5 zone designation. Nor would the structure contribute to the livability of residential neighborhoods. 2016-08-16 This is my neighborhood, I'm concerned about its future. I feel that the city either didn't adequately think through the negative ramifications of approving this structure, or chose to turn a blind eye. ft is not an appropriate building for a RS-5-zoned neighborhood. ................................................._"...... ......................... _... Jennifer M Iowa City, IA 2016-08-16 1 was born and raised in Iowa City and know this nei hborhood well Th Jill Kahn Donald Black Lori Clark Stephen McGowan Sonia Ettinger Iowa City, lA Iowa City, IA i Name Carol deProsse Laura Routh Cristi Johnson Wayne Johnson Dina Janzen Location : Date Comment - Lone Tree, IA 2016-08-17 This is a party venue, not an intended residential home property. It's intrusive on the neighborhood, will be a nuisance as people come to gawk, and negatively affect home values in the broader neighborhood. It should be build in the country, where 5 acre lots are a minimum requirement. Lawrence, KS 2016-08-18 1 am sick of residential property taxes being used to support sport fanaticism. Iowa City, IA 201&08-18 Lusk Ave is narrow and the infrastructure of the location is very old and woefully inadequate for this project. Iowa City, IA Iowa City, IA Catherine Woodman Iowa City, IA Eli Perencevich Iowa City, IA Susan Wall Solon, IA Evelyn Weirich IOWA CITY, IA Veronica Hubbard Iowa City, IA Teresa Mangum Iowa City, IA John Chase Iowa City, IA Susan Binell Iowa City, IA Victoria Lim Iowa City, IA . .... ......... ............. ........ Gerard Rushton Iowa City, IA Margaret Menninger Austin, TX 2016-08-18 This structure is obviously designed as a commercial parry venue, not a single family residence. The owner will not reside there. Any sort of whitewash over the issue is clearly an attempt to circle around zoning laws and the neighborhood environment. 2016-08-18 A venue designed to entertain 200 people will have an adverse effect on my street. I live half a block away from the proposed location. For the 23 years that we have lived at this location the people who park on our street on game days have been very respectful of the neighborhood. It has been wonderful. Adding 100+cars and 200 people to this tiny street multiple times during the fall and winter would overwhelm the aged sewer system, our ability to come and go in our cars and it is hard to see how the police and fire vehicles could respond to emergencies. Doesnl this structure belong somewhere with more appropriate zoning? . ............. .. .... . 2016-08-19 1 am opposed to this project for the reasons stated in the petition 2016-08-19 Building Kinnick Party house will threaten the safety of children playing in the neighborhood and cost tax payers money. And the design is completely out of character for the neighborhood. A travesty. 2016-08-19 1 own the house at 354 Lexington, in the neighborhood. 2016-08-20 Itn signing this petition because my husband and I purchased a house in this neighborhood, 28 years ago, because it was zoned RS-5. I do not believe this structure is in keeping with our neighborhood, and in fact, has the potential to bring in a party crowd. 2016-08-20 The proposed party house is not appropriate for a residential neighborhood. I don't want it near my home and I bet no one on the council wants it near their home either. 2016-08-20 This is not an appropriate venue for a residential neighbor. Seriously? 2016-08-20 In addition to all that is pointed out on this site, to the builders this structure is a toy ....... a party toy. This structure will do nothing to further Manville Hieghts as a neighborhood. In fact it will at the very least erode the neighborhood structure of Manville Heights. .... .. .............. .... .. . 2016-08-21 This has no place in a residential neighborhood. 2016-08-21 1 am signing because such a "party venue" is not appropriate in a family neighborhood. .... .. ........___.... 2016-08-21 Because 1 believe that an event venue as this that did not meet the conditions for receiving a permit to build, and does not meet the low density housing conditions for receiving a permit to build should. Not have been issued a permit in the first place 2016-08-22 1 am signing because I oppose a "party house" pretending to be a real house. The permit should never have been granted. Name Location Date Comment - barbara wagonef Iowa City, IA 2016-08-22 Sad how Iowa City and its architure can get so out of hand. Kin nick stadium is appropriately a stadium. Possibly a replica model for your appropriate home in Manville His.. Cindy Kubu Iowa City, IA 2016-08-22 This house/design is inappropriate for the neighborhood. It smacks of a disruptive, grotesque and vulgar, overprivledged culture. Not Iowa City's finest moment. Carol Weingeisi Hanover, NH .... ............................ .. 2O16-08-22 1 am signing because I used to live in Manville Heights and I hope that the Kinnick Parry Venue is not permitted. From my house on Richards St, we could always hear the games' cheers and expanding the parry noise after a game is not respecting the neighbors. Do not permit it. Anne Wilson Bettendorf, IA 2016-08-22 1 grew in Manville Heights! This is not a home, it is a tourist attraction! ..................... . ................................... Laura Lovell Iowa City, IA ... ................... 2016-08-23 This is not a fit for a residential neighborhood. University Heights is overrun on game days with people who leave trash and use anything as a public bathroom. I do not want that in our neighborhood. The parking here _ neighborhood is already at a premium with people moving their cars here on game day (from nearby apartments). There is no way to accommodate another 100 cars. Aside from the parking issue, safety of pedestrians, especially children is at risk. This building is a mistake for any neighborhood with homes nearby. I don't understand how the city defines residential vs. commercial in looking at this proposal. Susan Robson Iowa City, IA 2016-08-23 We do not neediwant this type of structure in our neighborhoodl William Sivitz Iowa City, IA 2016-08-23 This is a inappropriate and ridiculous construction that will have many negative effects as indicated in the petition. darin Zapf Iowa City, IA ... .. ...... ... .. 2016-08-23 the proposed structure was clearly did not go through a proper vetting process. in no way, shape or form does a structure like this (definitely is not a home) belong in any neighborhood. it's intentions can be nothing other than commercial. Stephen Alessi Iowa City, IA 2016-08-24 1 oppose the construction of such a building in a residential family -oriented community. lorraine doriman Iowa City, IA ....... _........... _.... _.... 2016-08-24 1 think it is a dreadful idea and would cause all kinds of problems for the neighborhood and the city (traffic, sewer, taxes, and aesthetics). What an eyesore and nuisance it would be!] jennifer duffy Iowa City, IA 2016-08-25 1 live in the neighborhood and I think this proposed structure does not meet the criteria of a neighborhood home. Angie Geuder Cedar Rapids, IA 2016-08-26 1 would love to live in that neighborhoodl The building doesn't belong therell Shelagh JHayreh Iowa City, IA 2016-08-26 This "house" would be an anomaly in our quiet neighborhood, and probably a nuisance Sohan Hayreh Iowa City, IA 2016-08-26 This house will not be in the nature of our quiet neighborhood. Aesia Kardos Colorado Springs, CO 2016-08-26 It is a ridiculous location for such a venue. it will negatively impact the small, quiet, residential neighborhood. Paul Werger Iowa City, IA ................................... 2016-08-27 We do not need a party home in our area. Jim Rossen Iowa City, IA 2016-08-28 A large parry venue does not belong in a residential neighborhood. The .. ..... .......... .... . Proposed building is unsafe at this location. Timothy D Rossi Iowa City, IA 2016-08-29 This house does not support the neighborhood. Joni Kinsey Fields IA 52246, IA 2016.08-29 The proposed structure is completely inappropriate for the setting and should not be allowed to be built. It is clearly NOT a single family home (rows of bathroom urinals and stalls make that undeniable). If built will be a destabilizing force in the area and lead to a host of troubles. Name Location = Date Comment Thomas Scholz Iowa City, IA 2016-08-29 Bad idea for the neighborhood. Katharine Carlon Iowa City, IA 2016-09-02 1 drove through Manville Heights the other day and saw these signs in virtually every yard. Though I live on the west side, I know I would NOT enjoy a monstrosity like this in my neighborhood, with all of the accompanying noise and nuisance. It is kind of a wonder to me that the property owners would go through with this project given the obvious opposition of the entire neighborhood. This silly project, if it must go through, belongs far out of town on a large enough acreage of land so that neighbors are not disturbed of the peace they deserve. Judith knabe Iowa City, IA 2016-09-10 .................... _.......... . .. .. ..._ ...-... .. ... _... . We are very upset about the planned construction in Manville Heights of a venue building in this quiet residential neighborhood. The streets are narrow and parking spaces are limited. This Kinnick building may meet measurements required but it certainly does not fit into a neighborhood residential setting. Kerry Mallon Coralville, IA 2016-09-11 I'm signing this because this is a quiet residential area, outside of game time, with families who don't need this monstrosity on their doorstep. Barbara Taylor Iowa City, IA 2016-09-11 Would like to see our neighborhood remain safe and quiet. ................................ John Staley Iowa City, IA 2016-09-11 The proposed structure is clearly not a single family residence. It should never have been so classified and the misclassification of this property needs to be corrected. Anne Sadler Iowa City, IA 2016-09-11 .. .._.... _.................. ..................................... This proposed party venue is not a single family dwelling and threatens the safety of our neighborhood and of those who would choose to attend parties at it if allowed to be built. Michelle Mengeling Iowa City, IA 2016-09-11 Iowa City is not treating all citizens equally. Anne Sadler Lyons, OR 2016-09-12 ... ....... .... ... ..... . 1 used to live on Lusk Ave when 1 attended the university. To place a huge parry house in the middle of the quiet, family friendly neighborhood would be unfair to the residents of Manville Heights. change.org The Neighbors of Manville Heights Association Recipient: Iowa City Board of Adjustment and City of Iowa City Letter: Greetings, Rescind Building Permit for "Kinnick" Party Venue Name City State Postal Codi Country Signed On Kasey Befeler Iowa City Iowa United States 8/1/2016 Dennis Befeler Iowa City Iowa 52246 United States 8/1/2016 Karin Southard Iowa City Iowa 52246 United States 8/1/2016 Joel maxey Iowa City Iowa 52245 United States 8/2/2016 Dirk Keller Iowa City Iowa 52246 United States 8/2/2016 Lindsey Downes Tiffin Iowa 52340 United States 8/13/2016 Abigail Ravn Iowa City Iowa 52246 United States 8/13/2016 Barry Schreier Iowa City Iowa 52246 United States 8/14/2016 Joseph Henderson Iowa City Iowa 52240 United States 8/14/2016 Jan Ahlberg Iowa City Iowa 52246 United States 8/14/2016 Gay Allan Iowa City Iowa 52246 United States 8/14/2016 Elizabeth Boyd Iowa City Iowa 52246 United States 8/14/2016 Lu Ann Dvorak Iowa City Iowa 52246 United States 8/14/2016 Tom Birkenholz Iowa City Iowa 52246 United States 8/14/2016 Bruce Gantz Iowa City Iowa 52246 United States 8/14/2016 Sue Curry Iowa City Iowa 52246 United States 8/14/2016 Nora Leonard Roy Iowa City Iowa 52246 United States 8/14/2016 Tanya Kooi Iowa City Iowa 52246 United States 8/14/2016 Isabella Grumbach Iowa City Iowa 52246 United States 8/14/2016 Southard tom Iowa City Iowa 52246 United States 8/14/2016 Charles Nusser Iowa City Iowa 52240 United States 8/14/2016 William Nusser Iowa City Iowa 52246-243 United States 8/14/2016 Tom Hawkins Iowa City Iowa 52246 United States 8/14/2016 Theresa Biancheri Chicago Illinois 60615 United States 8/14/2016 David Dellsperger Kansas City Missouri 64156 United States 8/14/2016 Linda Wertz Iowa City Iowa 52245 United States 8/14/2016 Angela Wolf Coralville Iowa 52241 United States 8/14/2016 Garrick Priebe Iowa City Iowa 52246 United States 8/14/2016 Osnat Stramer Iowa City Iowa 52246 United States 8/14/2016 Koza John Iowa City Iowa 52246 United States 8/14/2016 NaftalyStramer Iowa City Iowa 52246 United States 8/14/2016 Rosanne Hopson Iowa City Iowa 52246 United States 8/14/2016 Louise Wolf -Novak Iowa City Iowa 52246 United States 8/14/2016 Mary Murphy Iowa City Iowa 52246 United States 8/14/2016 Lori Ziegenhorn Iowa City Iowa 52245 United States 8/14/2016 Katherine Reba] Iowa City Iowa 52240 United States 8/14/2016 kathyl Jogerst Coralville Iowa 52241 United States 8/14/2016 Patty Altmaier Iowa City Iowa 52246 United States 8/14/2016 Mary Jo Harken Coralville Iowa 52241 United States 8/14/2016 Kristen Rummelhart Iowa City Iowa 52240 United States 8/15/2016 Mary Cilek Iowa City Iowa 52246 United States 8/15/2016 Rachel Finger Iowa City Iowa 52240 United States 8/15/2016 Leslie Finger Iowa City Iowa 52245 United States 8/15/2016 Tom Cilek Iowa City Iowa 52246 United States 8/15/2016 Nancy Beyer Iowa City Iowa 52246 United States 8/15/2016 Sue Protheroe Iowa City Iowa 52246 United States 8/15/2016 Casey Shook Coralville Iowa 52241 United States 8/15/2016 Katherine Moyers Iowa City Iowa 52246 United States 8/15/2016 Mark Kimler Iowa City Iowa 52245 United States 8/15/2016 Clifford Curry Iowa City Iowa 52246 United States 8/15/2016 John Pienta Iowa City Iowa 52245 United States 8/15/2016 Stephan Arndt Iowa City Iowa 52246 United States 8/15/2016 Marra Pienta Iowa City Iowa 52245 United States 8/15/2016 Robert Hamilton Iowa City Iowa 52246 United States 8/15/2016 Kendall Atkinson Iowa City Iowa 52246 United States 8/15/2016 Alice Atkinson Iowa City Iowa 52246 United States 8/15/2016 Patricia McNichol Iowa City Iowa 52245 United States 8/15/2016 Jean Hogan Iowa City Iowa 52246-350 United States 8/15/2016 Dean Harken Coralville Iowa 52241 United States 8/15/2016 Michael D'Alessandro Iowa City Iowa 52246 United States 8/15/2016 Casey Mahon Iowa City Iowa 52245 United States 8/15/2016 Haley Boyd Iowa City Iowa 52240 United States 8/15/2016 Mary Goodman Iowa City Iowa 52240 United States 8/15/2016 Romy Bolton Iowa City Iowa 52246 United States 8/15/2016 Erin Arndt Iowa City Iowa 52246 United States 8/15/2016 Gail Zlatnik Iowa City Iowa 52246 United States 8/15/2016 Sue Rhomberg Iowa City Iowa 52246 United States 8/15/2016 Kay Prediger Iowa City Iowa 52245 United States 8/15/2016 Mary New Iowa City Iowa 52245 United States 8/15/2016 Siya Mali Iowa City Iowa 52240 United States 8/15/2016 Tundi Brady Iowa City Iowa 52240 United States 8/15/2016 Laura Kastens Iowa City Iowa 52246 United States 8/15/2016 Lewin Ellen Iowa City Iowa 52240 United States 8/15/2016 Allie Pearce Iowa City Iowa 52246 United States 8/15/2016 Robbie Kilbride Mediapolis Iowa 52637 United States 8/15/2016 Julia Moffitt Iowa City Iowa 52246 United States 8/15/2016 Willard Boyd Iowa City Iowa 52246 United States 8/15/2016 Susan Boyd Iowa City Iowa 52246 United States 8/15/2016 Mary Larew Bristol Connecticu 6010 United States 8/15/2016 Allison Gerstenberger Iowa City Iowa 52240 United States 8/15/2016 Robin Kopelman Iowa City Iowa 52245 United States 8/15/2016 Dixie Saylor Iowa City Iowa 52246 United States 8/15/2016 Tom Novak Iowa City Iowa 52246 United States 8/15/2016 Will Boyd Iowa City Iowa 52240 United States 9/15/2016 Todd McCafferty Iowa City Iowa 52240 United States 8/15/2016 Connie Funk Iowa City Iowa 52245 United States 8/15/2016 Cathy Solow Iowa City Iowa 52246 United States 8/15/2016 Bradley Erickson Iowa City Iowa 52246 United States 8/15/2016 Terry Kilbride Mediapolis Iowa 52637 United States 8/15/2016 Sonia Sugg Iowa City Iowa 52246 United States 8/15/2016 Lea Vander Velde Iowa City Iowa 52246 United States 8/15/2016 Harvey Diehl Iowa City Iowa 52246 United States 8/15/2016 Catherine Erickson Iowa City Iowa 52246 United States 8/15/2016 jackie blank Iowa City Iowa 52246 United States 8/15/2016 Patricia Rossmann Iowa City Iowa 52245 United States 8/15/2016 Nick Pearce Iowa City Iowa 52246 United States 8/15/2016 Ann Turek Iowa City Iowa 52246 United States 8/15/2016 Pamela Ballard Iowa City Iowa 52245 United States 8/15/2016 Marilyn Rosenquist Iowa City Iowa 52246 United States 8/15/2016 Ingrid Madsen Coralville Iowa 52241 United States 8/15/2016 Peter Douglas Iowa City Iowa 52246 United States 8/15/2016 Marnie Saeugling Iowa City Iowa 52246 United States 8/15/2016 Judy Atkins Iowa City Iowa 52245 United States 8/15/2016 Jennifer Britton Iowa City Iowa 52245-330, United States 8/15/2016 James Petran Iowa City Iowa 52246 United States 8/15/2016 Randy Kardon Iowa City Iowa 52246 United States 8/15/2016 Ellen Van Laere Iowa City Iowa 52240 United States 8/15/2016 Leonard Burkart Iowa City Iowa 52246 United States 8/15/2016 Connie Burkart Iowa City Iowa 52246 United States 8/15/2016 phyllisjones Iowa City Iowa 52246 United States 8/16/2016 Hutha Sayre Iowa City Iowa 52246 United States 8/16/2016 Maggie Conroy Iowa City Iowa 52245 United States 8/16/2016 Christopher Rossi Iowa City Iowa 52246 United States 8/16/2016 Susan Loomis Iowa City Iowa 52246 United States 8/16/2016 Michelle Allen Riverside Iowa 52327 United States 8/16/2016 Sally Staley Iowa City Iowa 52246 United States 8/16/2016 Candida Maurer Iowa City Iowa 52245 United States 8/16/2016 Michael Santangelo Iowa City Iowa 52245 United States 8/16/2016 Pat McArtor Iowa City Iowa 52245 United States 8/16/2016 Richard Haendel Iowa City Iowa 52246 United States 8/16/2016 Susan Drdna Woodbury Minnesota 55129 United States 8/16/2016 Joshua Koza Iowa City Iowa 52246 United States 8/16/2016 John Murry Iowa City Iowa .. _ 52246 United States 8/16/2016 Nancy Davin Iowa City Iowa 52240 United States 8/16/2016 Anna Stone Iowa City Iowa 52246 United States 8/16/2016 Gene Szymkowiak Iowa City Iowa 52246 United States 8/16/2016 Christopher Laubentha Iowa City Iowa 52246 United States 8/16/2016 Cecily Gabel Iowa City Iowa 52245 United States 8/16/2016 Richard Burke Iowa City Iowa 52245 United States 8/16/2016 Sarah Prineas Solon Iowa 52333 United States 8/16/2016 David Jones Iowa City Iowa 5.22E+08 United States 8/16/2016 Gail Masters New Hampton Iowa 50659 United States 8/16/2016 Carolyn Zaiser IOWA CITY Iowa 52246-433 United States 8/16/2016 Joanne Madsen Iowa City Iowa 52246 United States 8/16/2016 Susan Cook Iowa City Iowa 52246 United States 8/16/2016 Douglas Madsen Iowa City Iowa 52246 United States 8/16/2016 Mary Ervanian Iowa City Iowa 52245 United States 8/16/2016 Patricia Williams Iowa City Iowa 52246 United States 8/16/2016 Chris Nathan Iowa City Iowa 52246 United States 8/16/2016 Brian Codd Iowa City Iowa 52246 United States 8/16/2016 Marilyn Olson Iowa City Iowa 52246 United States 8/16/2016 Jennifer M North Liberty Iowa 52317 United States 8/16/2016 Anne Harding Iowa City Iowa 52246 United States 8/16/2016 Trinity Ray Iowa City Iowa 52245 United States 8/16/2016 Jill Kahn Iowa City Iowa 52245 United States 8/16/2016 Crystal Harrell Decorah Iowa 52101 United States 8/16/2016 Lauren Ringe Iowa City Iowa 52240 United States 8/16/2016 Donald Black Iowa City Iowa 52246 United States 8/16/2016 Rebecca Hildebrand Coralville Iowa 52241 United States 8/16/2016 Lori Clark Mechanicsville Iowa 52306 United States 8/16/2016 Darrel Arment Iowa City Iowa 52245 United States 9/17/2016 Dick & Phyl Braverman Iowa City Iowa 52246 United States 8/17/2016 Stephen McGowan Iowa City Iowa 52246 United States 8/17/2016 Annn Nevin Iowa City Iowa 52246 United States 8/17/2016 Sonia Ettinger Iowa City Iowa 52246 United States 8/17/2016 Rachel Rohret Coralville Iowa 52241 United States 8/17/2016 James O'Gorman Iowa City Iowa 52240 United States 8/17/2016 Rhonda Case Iowa City Iowa 52240 United States 8/17/2016 Mark Kline Iowa City Iowa 52240-670. United States 8/17/2016 marc abbott Iowa City Iowa 52246 United States 8/17/2016 Kathleen Kamerick Iowa City Iowa 52246 United States 8/17/2016 Joe Ritland North Liberty Iowa 52317 United States 8/17/2016 Christine Burr West Liberty Iowa 52776 United States 8/17/2016 Larry Blades Iowa City Iowa 52246 United States 8/17/2016 Jane Carlson Coralville Iowa 52241 United States 8/17/2016 Georgia Johnson Van Horne Iowa 52346 United States 8/17/2016 Carol deProsse Lone Tree Iowa 52755-979. United States 8/17/2016 caroline dieterle iowa city Iowa 52240 United States 8/19/2016 Laura Routh Iowa City Iowa 52240 United States 8/18/2016 David Peate Iowa City Iowa 52245 United States 8/18/2016 Cristi Johnson Iowa City Iowa 52246 United States 8/18/2016 Karen Michaeli Iowa City Iowa 52240 United States 8/18/2016 Wayne Johnson Iowa City Iowa 52246 United States 8/18/2016 Lois Hughes Iowa City Iowa 52240 United States 8/18/2016 Joan Johnson Iowa City Iowa 52245 United States 8/18/2016 Chris Campbell Iowa City Iowa 52240 United States 8/18/2016 Tara McKee Iowa City Iowa 52246 United States 8/18/2016 Dina Janzen Iowa City Iowa 52246 United States 8/18/2016 Cathy Putney Iowa City Iowa 52246 United States 8/18/2016 Abraham Kline Iowa City Iowa 52245 United States 8/19/2016 Catherine Woodman Iowa City Iowa 52240 United States 8/19/2016 Randi Levitz Iowa City Iowa 52240 United States 8/19/2016 Eli Perencevich Iowa City Iowa 52246 United States 8/19/2016 Jennifer Brown Iowa City Iowa 52246 United States 8/19/2016 Sara Kaiser Iowa City Iowa 52245 United States 8/19/2016 Susan Wall Solon Iowa 52333 United States 8/19/2016 Michael Wall Solon Iowa 52333 United States 8/19/2016 Eric Wall Solon Iowa 52333 United States 8/19/2016 Evelyn Weirich IOWA CITY Iowa 52246-242• United States 8/20/2016 Kathleen Donovan Iowa City Iowa 52246 United States 8/20/2016 Tyler Priest Iowa City Iowa 55446 United States 8/20/2016 Christopher Roy Iowa City Iowa 52246 United States 8/20/2016 Linda McCarter Iowa City Iowa 52246 United States 8/20/2016 Veron Hubbard Iowa City Iowa 52240 United States 8/20/2016 Teresa Mangum Iowa City Iowa 52240 United States 8/20/2016 Eric Gidal Iowa City Iowa 52245 United States 8/20/2016 John Chase Iowa City Iowa 52246 United States 8/20/2016 Jack! Rand Iowa city Iowa 52242 United States 8/20/2016 Patricia Winokur Iowa City Iowa 52246 United States 8/20/2016 Gregory Harris Iowa City Iowa 52246-351 United States 8/20/2016 Jenny Noyce Iowa City Iowa 52242 United States 8/20/2016 Susan Birrell Iowa City Iowa 52240 United States 8/21/2016 Ethan Canin Iowa City Iowa 52246 United States 8/21/2016 Ramon Lim Iowa City Iowa 52246 United States 8/21/2016 Lisa Hess Iowa City Iowa 52246 United States 8/21/2016 Victoria Lim Iowa City Iowa 52246 United States 8/21/2016 Lisa Heineman Iowa city 52245 United States Mi 8/21/2016 Landon Storrs Iowa City Iowa 52246 United States 8/21/2016 Rosemary Moore North Liberty Iowa 52317 United States 8/21/2016 Douglas Baynton Iowa City Iowa 52240 United States 8/21/2016 Gerard Rushton Iowa City Iowa 52246 United States 8/21/2016 Elizabeth Menninger V Iowa City Iowa 52246 United States 8/22/2016 Margaret Menninger Iowa City Iowa 52246 United States 8/22/2016 John Smick Iowa City Iowa 52245 United States 8/22/2016 Barbara wagoner Iowa City Iowa 52246 United States 8/22/2016 Cindy Kubu Iowa City Iowa 52245 United States 8/22/2016 Margaret Engelhardt Iowa City Iowa 52246 United States 8/22/2016 Lu Ann Frisch Coralville Iowa 52241 United States 9/22/2016 Alicia Brown-matthes Iowa City Iowa 52240 United States 8/22/2016 Sarah Delong Iowa City Iowa 52246 United States 9/22/2016 Jill Tomek Iowa City Iowa 52246 United States 8/22/2016 Margaret Wenk-Kuchlt Iowa City Iowa 52245 United States 8/22/2016 Carol Weingelst Hanover New Hamp 03755-221• United States 9/22/2016 Anne Wilson Bettendorf Iowa 52722 United States 8/22/2016 Chelsea Smith North Liberty Iowa 52317 United States 8/22/2016 Mary Merchant Iowa City Iowa 52246 United States 8/22/2016 Joel Bishop Iowa City Iowa 52245 United States 8/22/2016 Leah Jlrsa Iowa City Iowa 52246 United States 8/22/2016 charles buck Iowa City Iowa 52245 United States 8/22/2016 Michael Edmond Coralville Iowa 23221 United States 8/22/2016 Laura Lovell Iowa City Iowa 52246 United States 8/23/2016 Susan Robson Iowa City Iowa 52246 United States 8/23/2016 Karen Sivitz Iowa City Iowa 52246 United States 8/23/2016 Monica Rossi Iowa City Iowa 52246 United States 8/23/2016 david rosazza Iowa City Iowa 52240 United States 8/23/2016 William Sivitz Iowa City Iowa 52246 United States 8/23/2016 darin Zapf Iowa City Iowa 52240 United States 8/23/2016 Stephen Alessi Iowa City Iowa 52245 United States 8/24/2016 Hai Huynh Coralville Iowa 52241 United States 8/24/2016 lorraine dorfman Iowa City Iowa 52246 United States 8/24/2016 Jennifer Duffy Iowa City Iowa 52246 United States 8/25/2016 Wm Brown Iowa City Iowa 52246 United States 8/25/2016 Shelagh Hayreh Iowa City Iowa 52246 United States 8/26/2016 Sohan Hayreh Iowa City Iowa 52246 United States 8/26/2016 Uma Blanchard Iowa City Iowa 52246 United States 8/26/2016 Angie Geuder Cedar Rapids Iowa 52403 United States 8/26/2016 Veerasathpurush Allan Iowa City Iowa 52242 United States 8/26/2016 Galen Schneider Iowa City Iowa 52246 United States 8/26/2016 Aesia Kardos Iowa City Iowa 52240 United States 8/26/2016 Paul Werger Iowa City Iowa 52246 United States 8/27/2016 Catherine Stone Iowa City Iowa 52245 United States 8/27/2016 Jim Rossen Iowa City Iowa 52246 United States 8/28/2016 Mary Wilson Iowa City Iowa 52246 United States 8/28/2016 Nicholas Rossi Iowa City Iowa 52246 United States 8/28/2016 Timothy D Rossi Iowa City Iowa 52246 United States 8/29/2016 Joni Kinsey Fields IA 52246 Iowa The buildin United States 8/29/2016 Michael Anderson Bloomington Minnesota 55425 United States 9/1/2016 Roger Beermann Iowa City Iowa 52246-225. United States 9/1/2016 Kristina Brown Iowa City Iowa 52246 United States 9/2/2016 Katharine Carlon Iowa City Iowa 52246 United States 9/2/2016 Judith Pascoe Iowa City Iowa 52245 United States 9/2/2016 william Furlong Iowa City Iowa 52246 United States 9/3/2016 Troy Trafton Iowa City Iowa 52246 United States 9/4/2016 Peter Densen Iowa City Iowa 52246 United States 9/7/2016 Ellie Densen Iowa City Iowa 52246 United States 9/7/2016 Mary q US city Utah 11111 United States 9/7/2016 Martha Owens Iowa City Iowa 52246 United States 9/7/2016 Andy Litton Iowa City Iowa 52246 United States 9/7/2016 Judith knabe Iowa City Iowa 52246 United States 9/10/2016 Kerry Mallon Coralville Iowa 52241 United States 9/11/2016 Barbara Taylor Iowa City Iowa 52246 United States 9/11/2016 Cassio Hudson Iowa City Iowa 52246 United States 9/11/2016 Paige Wilson Iowa City Iowa 52246 United States 9/11/2016 John Staley Iowa City Iowa 52246 United States 9/11/2016 Anne Sadler Iowa City Iowa 52246 United States 9/11/2016 Michelle Mengeling Iowa City Iowa 52246 United States 9/11/2016 Rebecca Porter Iowa City Iowa 52246 United States 9/11/2016 Anne M Sadler Lyons Oregon 97358 United States 9/12/2016 Alexandra Ackerman Iowa City Iowa 52246 United States 9/12/2016 ADDellants' Exhibit Public Records Request - 7.8.2016 LAREW LAW OFFICE LarewLawOffice.com Phone:319.337.7079 Fax: 319.337.7082 504 E. Bloomington St. 210 Cedar St. 252 E. 3" Street Iowa City, Iowa 52245-2858 Muscatine, Iowa 52761-2504 Des Moines, Iowa 503094114 James C. Larew lames. Larew@LmwLawOffice.com VIA Email: eleanor-dilkesija,iowa-city.ore July 8, 2016 Eleanor Dilkes, Esq. City Attorney City of Iowa City City Hall 410 E. Washington St. Iowa City, Iowa 52240 Re: Public Records Request to the City of Iowa City Dear Eleanor: Claire M. Diallo Admitted only in NY and NJ Pursuant to Iowa Code chapter 22, please produce copies of the following described documents: 1. All emails or other written letters or communications to or from any employee of the City of Iowa City ("City"), or any agent of the City performing governmental functions of the City pertaining to the property located at 101 Lusk Avenue, Iowa City ("Property"), internal or external, created in the past three calendar years. For the purpose of this and all other requests, herein, employees of the City would include, but not be limited to, the following persons: Tim Hennes; Terry Goerdt; John Yapp; Sarah Walz; and Doug Boothroy. 2. All emails or other written letters or communications to or from any current or former member of the City Council of the City of Iowa City ("City"), LAREW LAW OFFICE Re: Public Records Request to the City of Iowa City Page 1 pertaining to the property located at 101 Lusk Avenue, Iowa City ("Property"), created in the past three calendar years. 3. All documents that would provide any evidence that any employee or agent of the City reviewed and approved, or did not approve, the proposed use of the Property by the present owners from the perspective of safety, including, but not limited to: access and egress from the property by firetrucks, ambulances or other emergency vehicles or personnel. 4. All documents that would provide any evidence that any employee or agent of the City reviewed and approved, or did not approve, the proposed use of the Property by the present owners from the perspective of storm water runoff, including, but not limited to, calculations of the volume of water that would be dispersed onto public property or onto the adjoining property owned by private persons or entities. 5. All documents that would provide any evidence that any employee or agent of the City reviewed and approved, or did not approve, for the proposed use of the Property by the present owners the required set -back from Lusk Avenue, including, but not limited to, calculations of the average set -back of other nearby properties. 6. All documents that would provide any evidence that any employee or agent of the City reviewed and approved, or did not approve, the Property's use by its present owners of existing sanitary sewer lines that are connected to the sanitary sewer lines of abutting and nearby properties. 7. All documents that would provide any evidence that any employee or agent of the City, with respect to the Property's proposed use by its present owners, calculated the cost of one or more of the following infrastructure improvements to that portion of Lusk Avenue that abuts the easterly property line of the Property: the lengthening of the paved surface of Lusk Avenue to the southerly end of the easterly property line; the installation of a storm water sewer on Lusk Avenue; the connection of any installed storm sewer on Lusk Avenue to the City's storm water sewer system; the widening of Lusk Avenue to a sufficient width and other modifications to Lusk Avenue and/or nearby streets to allow for the safe passage of emergency vehicles to attend to emergencies at 101 Lusk Avenue; the installation of a turn -about or similar structure of sufficient size to allow emergency vehicles to turn around at the end of Lusk Avenue. LAREW LAW OFFICE Re: Public Records Request to the City of Iowa City Page 2 8. Any documents that describe the dimensions of fire trucks owned by the City that would have sufficient capacity to reach all portions of the proposed building at 101 Lusk Avenue by its present owners, up to and including the third floor rooms in the southwesterly end of the so-called "press box" area of the structure. 9. Any documents that describe the turning radius of any fire trucks described in response to Request No. 8, above. 10.All documents that would provide any evidence that any employee or agent of the City reviewed and approved, or did not approve, the Property's use by its present owners of existing sanitary sewer lines that are connected to the sanitary sewer lines of abutting and nearby properties. I I.All documents that would provide any evidence that any employee or agent of the City reviewed and approved, or did not approve, with respect to the present owners' proposed structure at 101 Lusk Avenue, the provision of City services such as garbage removal, re -cycling removal, vegetation removal; and/or snow removal from the perspective of public safety, both as to City employees delivering those services and also from the perspective of other vehicles or pedestrians who might be occupying Lusk Avenue or its sidewalks during the time of the deliveries of such services. 12.All drawings or diagrams in the possession or custody of the City or any of its employees or agents performing governmental functions for the City that depict or portray any aspect of the Property, created in the past two calendar years. If the City has such drawings or diagrams in an electronic and/or high -resolution format, please produce them as -such. Of particular interest —although not necessarily exclusive interest —are various revisions of building plans created by the owners of the Property, from August 2014, to the present date. 13.All documents that would describe any issues related to and problems experienced by City employees or by citizens with respect to trash or recycling pick-up services provided by the City to residential locations on Lusk Avenue or on Rowland Court in the past five calendar years. 14.All documents that would describe any issues related to problems experienced by persons providing emergency services to locations on Lusk Avenue or on Rowland Court created in the past five calendar years. LAREW LAW OFFICE Re: Public Records Request to the City of Iowa City Page 3 15.All notes from any conversations or telephone calls generated by or involving any employee of the City or any agent of the City performing governmental functions for the City pertaining to the Property created in the past two calendar years. 16.All internal memoranda authored by any employee of the City regarding any aspect of the Property at 101 Lusk Avenue in the past two calendar years. 17. All documents issued to or from the City to or by any party, including, but not limited, to any agent or person retained by the present owners of 101 Lusk Avenue, in which requests were made to modify in any way proposed plans for the Property. 18.All documents issued by the City that instruct City employees, or agents hired by the City, and who are responsible for classifying structures (e.g., whether to classify a proposed building as "residential" or some other use); for approving or not approving Site Plans; and/or for approving or not approving Building Permits in instances in which property owners have demolished an existing residential structure and have proposed to replace the original demolished structure with something else. 19.All drawings, videos, inspection reports or related documents and emails related to the maintenance of the sanitary sewer at 101 Lusk Avenue during the past five years. 20.Copies of water and sewer bills issued by the City to any owner of 101 Lusk Avenue during the past two years. 21.Copies of any demolition, asbestos removal, dumping and/or any other related permits issued by the City or any other agency to any owner of 101 Lusk Avenue with respect to the demolition of the single family dwelling previously located at that site. Given that public policy interests are implicated in matters that are the subject of this request, we ask that the City waive any fees in producing the requested documents. We agree to pay any reasonable cost, if one is imposed. If the City anticipates that significant fees will be charged for producing requested documents, kindly provide me with an estimate of that cost before moving forward. It is possible that one or more requests are phrased in a manner that is not clear. In that instance, please let me know and I will be pleased to re -phrase the request. Thank you for the City's anticipated prompt response to this request for documents. LAREW LAW OFFICE Re: Public Records Request to the City of Iowa City Page 4 Best wishes. CC: Robert Hatala, Esq. rhatala@simmonsperrine.com LAREW LAW OFFICE Re: Public Records Request to the City of Iowa City Page 5 August 3, 2016 Mr. James C. Latew 504 Fs. Bloomington St. Iowa City, IA 52245-2858 In re: Public Records Request Dear Jim: SENT BY EMAIL ONLY -ram_ CITY OF IOWA CITY City Attorney's Office 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240-1826 (319) 356-5030 (319) 356-5008 TAX www.icgov.org Subject to the exceptions noted below, the City's responses to the numbered requests in your letter to me dated July 8, 2016 are set forth below. I note that many of your requests ask for documents "that would provide any evidence that any employee or agent of the City reviewed and approved, or did not approve" a certain matter relating to the owners' application for a building permit for 101 Lusk Ave. I have made no judgments as to what is or is not "evidence" and will leave that to you and Mr. Hatala. I have approached your requests as simply a request for records relating to the subject matter (e.g., fire safety, infrastructure, storm sewer, sanitary sewer re: 101 Lusk Ave.). 1. Copies will be provided. 2. Copies will be provided. 3. Copies will be provided. Additionally, documents are available on the City's website. The City has two software programs that are relevant to your request. One is "Tidemark" and the second is "L aserfiche" Tidemark is for permit processing and complaints. Laserfiche is our archive file for plans submitted through the review process for building permits. Any information that is available online is on one of these two sites and searchable by street addreag. In this letter, I use the term "NDS sites" when referencing these two sites. Permit search: hV://www.iowg:On.ore/tm bin/tmw cmd.pl?tmw cmd=StatasOuervForm&tmw quern=PublicCase ]aser&che: http://www.iowa-city.ore/weblink/Browse.aspx?dbid-0 4. Copies of any such documents will be provided. Note that staff does not calculate storm water runoff on infill lots. 5. See site plan documents found on the NDS sites. Note that there is no calculation for averaging on blocks of three lots or less pursuant to Section 14-2A4B3e of the City Code. The City Code is available on the City website. 6. See documents found on NDS sites. 7. There are no documents as no in&astructute improvements are required. 8. I can provide you with dimensions of fire trucks but the Fire Chief states that the key is not the size of the tuck but the length of the hoses. The ICFD has sufficient hose to reach all portions of the proposed building. 9. Copies will be provided. 10. Copies will be provided and see NDS sites. 11. There are no such documents as there previously was a single-family house on the lot that received City services. 12. See documents found on NDS sites. 13. No such documents were located. 14. No such documents were located. 15. See NDS sites. 16. Assuming by "internal" you mean among staff and not to the City Council, no such documents were located. Memorandums to City Council can be found on the City's wabsim. 17. Copies will be provided; see also NDS sites. 18. No documents except the City Code, which can be found on the City's website. 19. Copies will be provided; am also NDS sites. Additionally, thus is a video from a scope of the sewer line that I can email to you or provide it to you on a thumb -drive. 20. Copies will be provided. 21. See documents found on NDS sites. The following is a description of what documents are not included in this response: 1. E nails which are protected by the attomey/clientprivik ge or are work product. 2. Draft documents (Iowa Code Section 22.7(65)). 3. Documents available on the City of Iowa City website. 4. V&& the City's email archive has been searched and responsive documents provided the 1T Department has not completed its search of all the computer drives, which I have been told should be done by August 8. The foe is $110.70 (738 copies x $.15/page). Note that the City's public records policy allows a charge for the time involved in search and retrieval as wall as the City Attorney's time for review to assure no confidential documents are included in the response when the breadth of the request, as hem, recpt m such a review. Given the nature of this matter and the fact that some of this work would have been necessary in order to prepare staffs response to the neighbors' appeal, I will not charge you for any of this time. You can pick up copies upon payment of fees. Alternatively, I will scan and email them to you upon payment of the fee. Also, as I stated above there is a video from a scope of the Bawer lime that I can email to you or provide it to you on a thumb -drive. I look forward to beating from you. Si,n, IIy, Eleanor M. Dilkes City Attorney Copy to. Robert Hatala (via email only rhatalafrdsimmonspenrine corn} Mark Parmenter (via email only at mparmentg@lwclawvers.com} ADDellants' Exhibit 39 Site Plans — 3D and 2D lmaoriac r+` 0 W ADDellants' Exhibit Site Plans — University Heights 2014 2 5 IL J W J 2 Fl ADDellants' Exhibit 41 Site Plans — Iowa City 2016 0 N U 3 0 ADDellants' Exhibit 42 Letter — Re: Prejudicial Errors in City's Memorandum to Board of Adjustment w LAREW LAW OFFICE LarewLawOffice.com Phone: 319.337.7079 Fax: 319.337.7082 504 E. Bloomington St. 210 Cedar St. 252 E. 3rd Street Iowa City, Iowa 52245-2858 Muscatine, Iowa 52761-2504 Des Moines, Iowa 50309-4114 James C. Larew James. Larew@LarewLawO trice. com VIA: Email mparmenter@lwclawyers.com September 9, 2016 Mr. Mark Parmenter, Esq. Lederer, Weston, Craig, PLC 118 3rd Avenue SE, Suite 700 Cedar Rapids, IA 52401 Claire M. Diallo Admitted only in NY and NJ Re: Prejudicial Errors in City's Memorandum to Board of Adjustment Appeal to Iowa City Board ofAdjustment Appeal No. 16-0001 101 Lusk Ave, Iowa City Dear Mark: I write to you in your capacity as Legal Advisor to the Iowa City Board of Adjustment, appointed to represent that body independently with respect to the appeal made by our clients regarding actions taken and determinations made by City of Iowa City Building Official Doug Boothroy related to property owned by F. Reed and Sandra Carlson, at 101 Lusk Avenue, in Iowa City. Our clients are extremely concerned that materials published to the Iowa City Board of Adjustment were distributed to participating attorneys yesterday contained gratuitous and erroneous legal advice by a non -lawyer employee of the City to the Board's Members, thereby both disrupting the entire purpose of your appointment as independent Legal Advisor to the Board and also creating confusion about the issues presented by Appellants and the scope and power of the Board to resolve those issues. 1 At pages 3 and 4 of the more than 200 pages of documents package delivered yesterday there is a Memorandum dated September 14, 2016,2 I In the initial Agenda, appearing as the first page of the materials, the September 14 proceeding was errantly described as a "Special Exception Item." This was corrected later with a revised Agenda which correctly described the proceeding as an "Appeal Item." The second page is dated September 8, 2016. LAREW LAW OFFICE Appeal No. 16-0001 -Iowa City Board of Adjustment Page 1 issued on City of Iowa City letterhead from Sarah Walz, Associate Planner, addressed to the Board of Adjustment. The document purports to deliver legal advice to the Board of Adjustment concerning the articulation of the issues placed before it, as well as controlling law establishing the Members' decision -making parameters.3 Appellants object, in the strongest possible terms, both as to the process under which this Memorandum was issued to the Board of Adjustment Members and also as to the substance of the legal advice rendered by the City in the document to the Board. First, as a matter of process, Appellants were under the impression that the core purpose for appointing an independent Legal Advisor to the Board of Adjustment was to address conflict - of -interest issues that would otherwise occur by the fact that the City Attorney will be present at the hearing, representing and defending the interests of the Building Official whose decisions our clients are appealing. As such, we would have anticipated, as a matter of process, that any legal advice offered to Board of Adjustment members would have been through your office, as Legal 3 This is at least the third time known to Appellants in which the City, notwithstanding the fact that independent Legal Advisor has been appointed, has publicly offered gratuitous, and in Appellants' view, errant legal advice to the Board of Adjustment concerning this proceeding. First, on July 19, 2016, to a reporter, Ms. Walz set forth a legal standard that she alleged the Board of Adjustment Members must reach in order to uphold Appellants' appeal. She stated to the press that Board members would rule in the appellants' favor only if they can point to a specific error in the city's decision to approve the project and issue a building permit. "They would have to point to something in the zoning code or building code that was fault and that, as a result, shows the city's decision was arbitrary and capricious," Walz said. (emphasis added). "So it's a pretty high threshold," she opined. Andy Davis, "Board of Adjustment hearing on Kinnick home rescheduled," July 19, 2016, IOWA CITY PRESS CITIZEN. Appellants believe that the "arbitrary and capricious" standard is not applicable here, for reasons stated herein. Then, one month later, to the same reporter, in response to the fact that citizens in the Manville Heights neighborhood were circulating a petition to express their concerns about the City's approval of the Carlsons' Site Plan and Building Permit, Ms. Walz stated, ="...that the petition would not be considered as part of the board's decision."<-- (emphasis added). Andy Davis, "Neighbors continue to protest Kinnick-style home," IO WA CITY PRESS CITIZEN, August 15, 2016. Appellants believe that Iowa law related to board of adjustment proceedings —and, under the rules established by the Iowa City Board of Adjustment —any presentation of any document by any citizen at the hearing, if relevant to the issue considered by it, becomes a part of the record, and that the Board of Adjustment Members, in consultation with their Legal Advisor, are charged with making the determination as to what weight, if any, to give such documents. It is not for the City to direct the scope of the Members' deliberations. Appellants do not know, of course, whether Board of Adjustment Members read these articles, and, to that extent, do not know what remedy, if any, is appropriate. By contrast, Appellants must presume that the Board of Adjustment Members have read the two page document captioned Memorandum, placed on City of Iowa City letterhead, related to the September 14, 2016, hearing. To that end, Appellants believe that some type of immediate, corrective remediation must be taken, of sufficient strength to offset, to the extent possible, the sounds of the errant bell sounded on the eve of the hearing. LAREW LAW OFFICE Appeal No. 16-0001 -Iowa City Board of Adjustment Page 2 Advisor, and not from a City staff -person, and particularly not from a City staff -person who is not an attorney. Second, as a matter of substance, I believe that the Memorandum's statements throughout and accompanying legal advice are clearly erroneous on multiple fronts and, as such, are likely to confuse the Board of Adjustment members in ways that are wholly prejudicial to Appellants. The Memorandum's errors begin with the articulation of the issues to the extent that Iowa Code chapter 414 specifies that a Building Official, and not an entire department of city government, be the focus of our appeal. That is not how the first issue is presented in the Memorandum. Further, the first issue, as articulated in the Memorandum, makes it appear that Appellants are required to determine legal error on all of the issues described; whereas, in fact, these issues are presented in the alternative. The second issue is articulated as "whether the actions of NDS staff were patently arbitrary or capricious." (emphasis added). The "patently arbitrary or capricious" legal standard does not appear anywhere in Iowa Code chapter 414 or in the Iowa City Code with respect to Board of Adjustment appeals. It also does not appear in any Iowa Supreme Court case interpreting Board of Adjustment decisions that I am aware of. But the confusion created by the Memorandum does not end there. The standard cited by Ms. Walz, on behalf of the City, is ostensibly drawn from the texts of two Iowa Supreme Court cases, neither of which case has anything to do with the Board of Adjustment's powers when considering an Appeal, the burden of evidence that Appellants must carry to the Board of Adjustment, the legal tests to be applied by the Board of Adjustment to the evidence that is presented to it on Appeal, or the extent to which the Members of this Board of Adjustment, in this case, must show deference to the Building Official(s) whose actions are the subject of the Appeal itself. Rather, the cases cited by the City's Memorandum involve Iowa Supreme Court reviews of state administrative agency decisions and final agency actions in contested cases under Iowa Code Chapter 17A. More specifically, each of those cases involves an Iowa Supreme Court interpretation of Iowa Code §17A.19(8). However, Iowa Code Chapter 17A applies to state agencies, and not to municipal governments.° In contrast to the likely confusion created by the City's Memorandum, the clear legal standard for decision -making is that the Board of Adjustment must only find "error" has been committed by a Building Official. Moreover, Iowa Code chapter 414 could not be clearer to Appellants on one point: the Board of Adjustment has the same power and authority as the Building Official whose decision is the subject of appeal. As a matter of law, there is no deference to be afforded by any member of the Board of Adjustment to the Building Official whose action(s) are the subject of an appeal, as a matter of law. Here is the text from the Code of Iowa, as the applicable provisions appear in Iowa Code §§ 414.12 and 414.13 (emphasis added): 'A less compelling error concerning applicable legal standards appears on the same page of the Memorandum. There, the City describes an ostensible `requirement;" that is, that the Board of Adjustment must determine whether the Development Services ...... decision to approve the application was patently arbitrary and capricious." (emphasis added). In contrast to the first articulation of this inappropriately -heavy burden of proof, which places the decisional standards in the alternative, the City's second articulation of the errant burden is even heavier —it is described as conjunctive. LAREW LAW OFFICE Appeal No. 16-0001 -Iowa City Board of Adjustment Page 3 414.12 POWERS. The board of adjustment shall have the following powers: 1. To hear and decide appeals where it is alleged there is error in any order, requirement, decision, or determination made by an administrative official in the enforcement of this chapter or of any ordinance adopted pursuant thereto. 414.13 DECISION ON APPEAL. In exercising the above -mentioned powers such board may, in conformity with the provisions of this chapter, reverse or affirm, wholly or partly, or may modify the order, requirement, decision, or determination appealedfrom and may make such order requirement, decision, or determination as ought to be made, and to that end shall have all the powers of the officerfrom whom the appeal is taken. This is a wholly different set of powers than those described by the Iowa Supreme Court in its review of final state agency actions in contested cases under Iowa Code § I7A.19(8). At the close of the Memorandum, the City gets closer to stating the correct legal standard —that Board of Adjustment Members stand in the shoes of the Building Official whose decisions are challenged by Appellants, and will need not show any deference to that Building Official —but, even then, the statement is made in an utterly confused context, one completely irrelevant to the issues that Appellants have placed before the Board of Adjustment in this instance. That is, the Board of Adjustment Members are admonished: "...you will stand in the shoes of the staff and make such decision as ought to have been made based on the regulations with regards to the approval of an accessory structure." But, Appellants raise no issues related to any accessory structure, as none has been proposed of which they are aware. Rather, Appellants contend that the Carlsons' Site Plan for 101 Lusk Avenue fails to meet minimum City Code standards. Appellants aver that a non- residential building has been misclassified as a residential single family residential dwelling. They attest that a building —such as the one proposed by the Carlsons—without an independent sanitary sewer, as a matter of law, cannot be defined as a single family residential structure and cannot be approved for construction, as such. They argue that the Building Official's decisions in approving the Site Plan and Building Permit Application have ignored the City Code's most basic applicable fire code provisions. A wrongful bell has been rung loudly, and rung several times. In every instance, the errant chime has been sounded in a manner that is prejudicial to Appellants. Appellants look to the Board of Adjustment to provide a remedy sufficient in scope and magnitude to mitigate the harms caused by this unfortunate Memorandum issued after the deadline imposed on the parties to this action with respect to the submission of materials to the Members. As one possible LAREW LAW OFFICE Appeal No. 16-0001 -Iowa City Board of Adjustment Page 4 remedy, but, surely, not the only possible remedy, that Appellants propose is that this letter be published and read to the Board of Adjustment at or before the onset of the hearing on September 14. and that this letter be made a part of the formal record of that proceeding. Thank you for your anticipated consideration. Enc: City of Iowa City Memorandum to Board ofAdjustmeut, dated September 14, 2016 (sic) Cc: Megan R. Dimitt, MdimittQlwclawyers.com Eleanor Dilkes, Eleanor-Dilkes(q)iowa-eity.org Sue Dulek, Sue-Dulek(oliowa-city.org Bob Hatala, rhatala c sinunonspeiTine.com Mark A. Roberts, Mroberts�^a.;simnionsperrine.com Brian Fagan, bfaganri:simmonsperrine.com LAREW LAW OFFICE Appeal No. 3.6-0001 -Iowa City Board of Adjustment Page 5 City of Iowa City TO: Board of Adjustment FROM: Sarah Walz, Associate Planner DATE: September 14, 2016 RE: APPEAL OF A DECISION BY THE DEPARTMENT OF NEIGHBORHOOD AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES TO ISSUE A BUILDING PERMIT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE LOW DENSITY SINGLE-FAMILY (RS-5) ZONE AT 101 LUSK AVENUE The purpose of this memorandum is to set forth the rules that govern your consideration of the above -referenced appeal. In deciding the appeal you must first determine: Whether Neighborhood and Development Services (NOS) exercised its powers and followed the regulations established in the Zoning Code with regard to classification of the structure as a residential use; site plan approval requirements for sanitary sewer; compliance with fire safety regulations for street access and provision of water for firefighting; and 2. Whether the actions of NOS staff were patently arbitrary or capricious. You will receive a memo from NOS staff on the background of the appeal, the record produced by the staff, and the zoning code regulations that apply to the regulations cited in the appeal. Element No. 1 above requires you to determine whether NOS staff properly followed (used/relied on) the zoning regulations. Element No. 2 requires you to determine whether the Development Services decision to approve the application was patently arbitrary and capricious. A decision is "arbitrary" or "capricious" when it is made without regard to the law or the underlying facts of the case. Arora v. Iowa Board of Medical Examiners, 564 N.W. 2d 4, 7 (Iowa 1997). A decision is also "arbitrary" or "capricious" when it involves an "abuse of discretion". An "abuse of discretion" occurs when the action rests on grounds or reasons clearly untenable, unreasonable, or lacking rationality in light of the actors' authority. D Inc. v. Iowa Employment Appeal Bd., 576 N.W.2d 352, 355, (Iowa 1998). The above -stated "standard of review" is a narrow one. The Hoard is not entitled to simply substitute its own judgment for that of NOS staff. In other words, you may not reverse the decision merely because you disagree with it. Rather, if you find that the NOS staff exercised its powers and followed the guidelines established by law, and that its decision was not patently arbitrary or capricious then you must uphold the decision. If, however, you find that NOS staff did not exercise its powers and follow the regulations established by law, abused its discretion, or acted patently arbitrarily and capriciously you may, in conformity with the provisions of the Zoning Code, affirm (for a different reason), wholly or partly; reverse, wholly or partly; or, modify the decision of the NDS staff to grant the building permit. In other words, you will stand in the shoes of the staff and make such September 8, 2016 Page 2 decision as ought to have been made based on the regulations with regards to the approval of an accessory structure. The motion to decide the appeal will be in the form of a motion to affirm the appeal to overturn the decision of NDS staff. Again, in making your decision, you step into the shoes of and have all the powers of the NDS staff. The reasons for your decision must be clearly articulated based on the regulations in the zoning code. ADDellants' Exhibit 43 Letter — Re: APL 16-00001 (Parmenter to Members of the Board) James P. Craig UAC Mogen R. Dimitt Kent A. Gummert LEDERERWLSTONCRAIG rt.c Kimberly K Hardeman www.lwclawvers.com Gregory M. Lederer Mark J. Panneater Btcvda K. Wall ichs September 12, 2016 Benjamin M. Weston J. Michael Wesmn Writer's E-mail: mparmeuteroa wclauyers.com Board of Adjustment City of Iowa City City Hall 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 Re. APL 1 &00001 Dear Members of the Board: In your packets you received a Memorandum on City letterhead from Associate Planner, Sarah Walz, dated September 14, 2016. That Memorandum provided instructions to you regarding your consideration of the Appeal of the decision by the Department of Neighborhood and Development Services to issue a building permit for property located at 101 Lusk Avenue. The parties involved in the appeal have raised questions and objections to that Memorandum. For that reason, I am providing the enclosed Memorandum to clarify your role in this Appeal and the law as it applies. Please disregard the previous Memorandum dated September 14, 2016. To be clear, 1 have not and will not offer any opinions on whether the Appeal should or should not be granted. That decision shall be the collective decision of the Board. The purpose for my engagement by the City of Iowa City is to represent the Iowa City Board of Adjustment as it hears and makes a decision on the Appeal. My role as counsel for the Board is to ensure the Appeal process is equally fair to all parties and to ensure that the Board understands its role and the powers and authority it possesses as granted by both Iowa law and the Iowa City Code of Ordinances. Copies of the enclosed Memorandum and its attachments have been provided to all parties to this appeal. Thank you. I18 ntiid Avenue .SE, Suite 70U P.O. Box 1927 • Cedar Rapids. IA 52406 Phone: 319-365-1 IN4• Fa.e 319-369-1 f86 4401 Wwown Parkway, Suite 310 West Des Mottles. IA 50266 Phone: M 5-224-391 1 -Fax: 515-224-2698 pleave respond to Cedar Ropkis office September 12, 2016 Page 2 MJP/MRD Enclosures cc: James C. Larew, Esq. Counsel forAppellants Robert S. Hatala, Esq. Brian J. Fagan, Esq. Counsel far Reed & Sandy Carlson Eleanor Dilkes, Esq. Sue Dulek, Esq. Counsel for Iowa City Sarah Walz, Associate Planner MEMORANDUM TO: Iowa City Board of Adjustment FROM: Mark J. Pannenter DATE: September 12, 2016 RE: APL 16-00001 — Standard of Review Purpose The purpose of this Memorandum is to inform the Board of its role, its duties and obligations, and the law as it applies to the Board and the appeal process. All code sections cited herein are attached to this Memorandum for the Board's reference. The Issues Presented Appellants Neighbors of Manville Heights Association, Karin Southard, President, Anne Lahey, Craig Syrop & Anne Sadler, Bill & Karen Ackerman, and Bradley & Catherine Erickson have filed an Application for Appeal regarding the building permit issued by the Department of Neighborhood and Development Services ("NDS") to Reed and Sandy Carlson. The Appellants have identified the following issues for the Board's consideration: (1) The classification of the proposed structure as a single family residence; (2) The approval of the site plan for the proposed structure; and (3) The approval of a building pennit for the proposed structure. State and City Law Iowa Code Chapter 414, City Zoning, provides for the creation of a board of adjustment: The council shall provide for the appointment of a board of adjustment and in the regulations and restrictions adopted pursuant to the authority of this chapter shall provide that the said board of adjustment may in appropriate cases and subject to appropriate conditions and safeguards make special exceptions to the terms of the ordinances in harmony with its general purpose and intent and in accordance with general or specific rules therein contained and provide that any property owner aggrieved by the action of the council in the adoption of such regulations and restrictions may petition the said board of adjustment directly to modify regulations and restrictions as applied to such property owners. Iowa Code § 414.7 (2016). Iowa law also empowers a board of adjustment to hear appeals: Appeals to the board of adjustment may be taken by any person aggrieved or by any officer, department, board, or bureau of the municipality affected by any decision of the administrative officer. Such appeal shall be taken within a reasonable time as provided by the rules of the board by filing with the officer from whom the appeal is taken and with the board of adjustment a notice of appeal specifying the grounds thereof. The officer from whom the appeal is taken shall forthwith transmit to the board all papers constituting the record taken. Iowa Code § 414.10 (20 ] 6). upon which the action appealed from was In accordance with Iowa law, Iowa City has created a five member board of adjustment and set forth its powers: A. Board Established; Membership; Compensation: The board of adjustment shall consist of five (5) members appointed by the mayor with the consent of the city council for a term of five (5) years. Members shall be qualified electors of Iowa City. A majority of the members of the board shall be persons representing the public at large; a majority of the board shall not be involved in the business of purchasing or selling real estate. Board members shall serve without compensation. B. Purpose: The purpose of the board is to provide relief from the requirements of this title [Title 14, Zoning Code] when a variance is warranted, provide extra scrutiny in cases where special exceptions allowed by this title are requested, and provide an avenue for appeal of administrative decisions regarding the enforcement and implementation of this title. The decisions of the board should serve the public interest, meet the intent of the title, and be consistent with the comprehensive plan of the city, as amended. C. Powers: The board shall have the following powers: Appeals: To hear and decide appeals where it is alleged there is error in any order, requirement, decision or determination made by the city manager or designee in the enforcement of this title or of any ordinance adopted pursuant thereto. Iowa City Code of Ordinances, 14 — 7A — 2; see also Iowa Code § 414.12 (2016) ("The board of adjustment shall have the following powers: 1. To hear and decide appeals where it is alleged there is error in any order, requirement, decision, or determination made by an administrative official in the enforcement of this chapter or of any ordinances adopted pursuant thereto."). 2 The Iowa City Code of Ordinances ("City Code") also provides that the Board, when hearing appeals, "shall review all applicable evidence presented regarding the subject appeal." Iowa City Code of Ordinances, 14 — 8C — 3(B)(3). Further, the City Code states: the board of adjustment may, in conformity with the provisions of this title or ordinances adopted pursuant thereto, affirm, or upon finding error, reverse or modify, wholly or partly, the order, requirement, decision; or determination appealed from and may make such order, requirement, decision or determination as ought to be made, and to that end, shall have all the powers of the officer from whom the appeal is taken. Iowa City Code of Ordinances, 14 — 8C — 3(B)(4); see also Iowa Code § 414.13 (2016) ("In exercising the above -mentioned powers such board may, in conformity with the provisions of this chapter, reverse or affirm, wholly or partly, or may modify the order, requirement, decision, or determination appealed from and may make such order requirement, decision, or determination as ought to be made, and to that end shall have all the powers of the officer from whom the appeal is taken."). Analysis This section of the City Code, 14 -- 8C -- 3(B)(4), permits the Board to reverse or modify the decisions made by NDS only upon a finding of error. If the Board finds an error was made by NDS, it has the power to reverse or modify —in whole or in part —any of the following decisions: (1) The classification of the structure as a single family residence; (2) The issuance of the building permit. City Code 18 — 1 — 213 states that site plan review is not required for the development of "one single-family dwelling" or `one two-family dwelling or related accessory structures in any zoning district." Because of this provision, NDS did not approve or disapprove a site plan for the proposed structure, and therefore there is no decision by a city department or official for the Board to review. If the Board finds an error was made by NDS in any of its decisions, it may also make such orders, decisions, requirements or determinations as should be made in the opinion of the Board. If the Board finds error and takes action to reverse, modify, or make additional orders or requirements, the Board is empowered to act with owers as NDS. Iowa City Code of Ordinances, 14 — 8C — 3(B)(4); see also Iowa Co e § 414.1 16). ADDellants' Exhibit II, Permit to Make Sewer Connection 6j te i Ak R i�k. 30 1z, Vr. z CIA t. ADDellants' Exhibit Email — RE: 101 Lusk (Boothroy, Hennes, Yapp, Goerdt, Fruin) Sue ®ulek From: Doug Boothroy <Doug-Boothroy&owa-ciiy.org> $ent: Tuesday, June 14, 2016 4:26 PM To: Tim Hennes; John Yapp Cc: Terry Goerdt; Geoff Fruin Subject: RE: 101 Lusk The building permit should be put on hold (suspended) until a compliant site plan has been approved From: Tim Hennes Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2016 3:43 PM To: John Yapp; Doug Boothroy Cc: Terry Goerdt; Tim Hennes Subject: 101 Lusk Terry contacted the owner and the owner has not started and was already having MMS revise the site plan to have the site access on the north side of the lot. This would not require the street extension. Question, knowing the owner is revising the site plan as mentioned do you want me to put a stop work order on the project, revoke the permit or suspend the permit? Tim Hennes Senior Building Inspector City of Iowa City 319-356-5122 Tim -hen nest&Iowa-citv:ore AD-Dellants' Exhibit 46 Letter — Re: Prejudicial Errors in City's Memorandum to Board of Adjustment (Carew to Parmenter) — 901402016 LAREW LAW OFFICE LarewLawOffice.com Phone: 319.337.7079 Fax: 319.337.7082 504 E. Bloomington St. 210 Cedar St. 252 E. 3rd Street Iowa City, Iowa 52245-2858 Muscatine, Iowa 52761-2504 Des Moines, Iowa 50309-41 14 James C. Larew James.Larew@LarewLawOffice.com VIA: Email mparmenter@lwclawyers.com September 14, 2016 Mr. Mark Parmenter, Esq. Lederer, Weston, Craig, PLC 118 3`d Avenue SE, Suite 700 Cedar Rapids, IA 52401 Claire M. Diallo Admitted only in NY and NJ Re: Prejudicial Errors in City's Memorandum to Board of Adjustment Appeal to Iowa City Board of Adjustment Appeal No. 16-0001 101 Lusk Ave, Iowa City Dear Mark: I write to you in follow-up to my earlier letter, dated September 9, 2016, regarding prejudicial statements made by City of Iowa City employee Sarah Walz, in a Memorandum published to the Board of Adjustment members, but also, to the press, with respect to the appeal of our clients in response to determinations made by Building Official Doug Boothroy related to property owned by F. Reed and Sandra Carlson, at 101 Lusk Avenue, in Iowa City. In response to our earlier -expressed concern, you issued a private letter to Board of Adjustment members. The City of Iowa City took no action to correct the mis-statements of law included in the public record that its own employee had created. In today's Iowa City Press Citizen, in a story alerting citizens to the Board of Adjustment's hearing later this afternoon, the reporter, Stephen Gruber -Miller, has quoted the most egregious mis-statements of law contained in Ms. Walz's Memorandum. The article, appearing at page 2, includes the following: The Board of Adjustment could find that the city's decision to issue a permit for the home was "capricious" or "arbitrary," which would mean the decision was made without regard LAREW LAW OFFICE Appeal No. 16-0001 -Iowa City Board of Adjustment Page 1 to the law or underlying facts of the case, or if the decision was an abuse of the city's discretion, according to a memo from associate city planner Sarah Walz. "You may not reverse the decision merely because you disagree with it," Walz wrote in the memo. "Rather, if you find that the (Neighborhood Development Services) staff exercised its powers and followed the guidelines established by law, and that its decision was not patently arbitrary or capricious then you must uphold the decision." Now, in addition to the initial prejudicial problems created by this misinformation going to the Board of Adjustment, the press and the general public has also been badly misinformed. Those attending the proceeding, if they have read this article, will not correctly understated the law governing the Board of Adjustment's decision -making authority. Of concern, as well, those not affected by this proceeding; but, perhaps, objecting to decisions made by Iowa City Building Officials concerning other matters. may be discouraged by what could be viewed —in error —as an ominously heavy burden of proof when appearing before the Board of Adjustment in the context of an appeal. This matter needs additional, forceful, public correction at the meeting tonight and 1 am hopeful that the Board of Adjustment will assist in making this correction possible. Cc: Megan R. Di Eleanor Dilkes. Eleanor-Dilkes [uiowa-city.org Sue Dulek. Sue-Dulek,u Iowa-city.org Bob Hatala, rleatalafdisinemonsperrine.com Mark A. Roberts, J),4iobeitsq1sin1nionsperrine,com Brian Fagan, bfagan(ibsinunonsperrine.com LAREW LAW OFFICE Appeal No. 16-0001 -Iowa City Board of Adjustment Page 2 Marian Karr From: Sarah Walz Sent: Monday, September 19, 2016 2:14 PM To: Marian Karr Subject: handouts (message 2 of 3) Attachments: Attorneys for the Board.pdf Attached are items from the Attorneys representing the Board of Adjustment. Sarah Walz CITY OF IOWA CITY and METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION OF JOHNSON COUNTY 410 East Washington St. Iowa City, IA 52240 319-356-5239 James P. Craig Megan R. Dimid Kent A. Gummert LEDERERWESTONCRAIG PLC Kimberly K.Hardeman www.lwclawyas.com Gregory' M. Lede Mark J. Parmenta Brenda K. Wallrichs September 12, 2016 Benjamin M. Weston J. Michael Weston Writer's E-metl: mpmmenterr�twclawyas.com Board of Adjustment City of Iowa City City Hall 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 Re: APL 16-00001 Dear Members of the Board: in your packets you received a Memorandum on City letterhead from Associate Planner, Sarah Walz, dated September 14, 2016. That Memorandum provided instructions to you regarding your consideration of the Appeal of the decision by the Department of Neighborhood and Development Services to issue a building permit for property located at 101 Lusk Avenue. The parties involved in the appeal have raised questions and objections to that Memorandum. For that reason, I am providing the enclosed Memorandum to clarify your role in this Appeal and the law as it applies. Please disregard the previous Memorandum dated September 14, 2016. To be clear, I have not and will not offer any opinions on whether the Appeal should or should not be granted. That decision shall be the collective decision of the Board. The purpose for my engagement by the City of Iowa City is to represent the Iowa City Board of Adjustment as it hears and makes a decision on the Appeal. My role as counsel for the Board is to ensure the Appeal process is equally fair to all parties and to ensure that the Board understands its role and the powers and authority it possesses as granted by both Iowa law and the Iowa City Code of Ordinances. Copies of the enclosed Memorandum and its attachments have been provided to all parties to this appeal. Thank you. I I S niird Avenue SE. Suite 700 P.O. Box 1927 • Cedar Rapids. IA 52406 Phmo: 319-365-1184 • Fax: 319-365-1186 4401 Westown Parkway, Suite310 West Des Moines, IA 50266 Phone: 515-224-3911 • Fax: 515-224-2698 Please respond to Cedar Rapids o.&e September 12, 2016 Page 2 MJP/MRD Enclosures cc: James C. Larew, Esq. Counsel for Appellants Robert S. Hatala, Esq. Brian J. Fagan, Esq. Counsel for Reed & Sandy Carlson Eleanor Dilkes, Esq. Sue Dulek, Esq. Counsel for Iowa City Sarah Walz, Associate Planner IF 1}AEr%/!0RAND UiNI TO: Iowa City Board of Adjustment I' RvNi: Mark J. Parmenter DATE: September 12, 2010 Lc�.s: APL 16-00001 — Standard of Review Purpose The purpose of this Memorandum is to inform the Board of its role, its duties and obligations, and the law as it applies to the Board and the appeal process. All code sections cited herein are attached to this Memorandum for the Board's reference. The Issues Presented Appellants Neighbors of Manville Heights Association, Karin Southard, President, Anne Lahey, Craig Syrop & Anne Sadler, Bill & Karen Ackerman, and Bradley & Catherine Erickson have filed an Application for Appeal regarding the building permit issued by the Department of Neighborhood and Development Services ("NDS") to Reed and Sandy Carlson. The Appellants have identified the following issues for the Board's consideration: (1) The classification of the proposed structure as a single family residence; (2) The approval of the site plan for the proposed structure; and (3) The approval of a building permit for the proposed structure. State and City Law Iowa Code Chapter 414, City Zoning, provides for the creation of a board of adjustment: The council shall provide for the appointment of a board of adjustment and in the regulations and restrictions adopted pursuant to the authority of this chapter shall provide that the said board of adjustment may in appropriate cases and subject to appropriate conditions and safeguards make special exceptions to the terms of the ordinances in harmony with its general purpose and intent and in accordance with general or specific rules therein contained and provide that any property owner aggrieved by the action of the council in the adoption of such regulations and restrictions may petition the said board of adjustment directly to modify regulations and restrictions as applied to such property owners. Iowa Code § 414.7 (2016). Iowa law also empowers a board of adjustment to hear appeals: Appeals to the board of adjustment may be taken by any person aggrieved or by any officer, department, board, or bureau of the municipality affected by any decision of the administrative officer. Such appeal shall be taken within a reasonable time as provided by the rules of the board by filing with the officer from whom the appeal is taken and with the board of adjustment a notice of appeal specifying the grounds thereof. The officer from whom the appeal is taken shall forthwith transmit to the board all papers constituting the record upon which the action appealed from was taken. Iowa Code § 414.10 (2016). In accordance with Iowa law, Iowa City has created a five member board of adjustment and set forth its powers: A. Board Established; Membership; Compensation: The board of adjustment shall consist of five (5) members appointed by the mayor with the consent of the city council for a term of five (5) years. Members shall be qualified electors of Iowa City. A majority of the members of the board shall be persons representing the public at large; a majority of the board shall not be involved in the business ofpurchasing or selling real estate. Board members shall serve without compensation. B. Purpose: The purpose of the board is to provide relief from the requirements of this title [Title 14, Zoning Code] when a variance is warranted, provide extra scrutiny in cases where special exceptions allowed by this title are requested, and provide an avenue for appeal of administrative decisions regarding the enforcement and implementation of this title. The decisions of the board should serve the public interest, meet the intent of the title, and be consistent with the comprehensive plan of the city, as amended. C. Powers: The board shall have the following powers: Appeals: To hear and decide appeals where it is alleged there is error in any order, requirement, decision or determination made by the city manager or designee in the enforcement of this title or of any ordinance adopted pursuant thereto. Iowa City Code of Ordinances, 14 — 7A — 2; see also Iowa Code § 414.12 (2016) ("The board of adjustment shall have the following powers: 1. To hear and decide appeals where it is alleged there is error in any order, requirement, decision, or determination made by an administrative official in the enforcement of this chapter or of any ordinances adopted pursuant thereto."). 2 The Iowa City Code of Ordinances ("City Code") also provides that the Board, when hearing appeals, "shall review all applicable evidence presented regarding the subject appeal." Iowa City Code of Ordinances, 14 — 8C — 3(B)(3). Further, the City Code states: the board of adjustment may, in conformity with the provisions of this title or ordinances adopted pursuant thereto, affirm, or upon finding error, reverse or modify, wholly or partly, the order, requirement, decision, or determination appealed from and may make such order, requirement, decision or determination as ought to be made, and to that end, shall have all the powers of the officer from whom the appeal is taken. Iowa City Code of Ordinances, 14 — 8C — 3(B)(4); see also Iowa Code § 414.13 (2016) ("In exercising the above -mentioned powers such board may, in conformity with the provisions of this chapter, reverse or affirm, wholly or partly, or may modify the order, requirement, decision, or determination appealed from and may make such order requirement, decision, or determination as ought to be made, and to that end shall have all the powers of the officer from whom the appeal is taken."). Analysis This section of the City Code, 14 — 8C — 3(B)(4), permits the Board to reverse or modify the decisions made by NDS only upon a finding of error. If the Board finds an error was made by NDS, it has the power to reverse or modify —in whole or in part —any of the following decisions: (1) The classification of the structure as a single family residence; (2) The issuance of the building permit. City Code 18 — 1 — 2B states that site plan review is not required for the development of "one single-family dwelling" or "one two-family dwelling or related accessory structures in any zoning district." Because of this provision, NDS did not approve or disapprove a site plan for the proposed structure, and therefore there is no decision by a city department or official for the Board to review. If the Board finds an error was made by NDS in any of its decisions, it may also make such orders, decisions, requirements or determinations as should be made in the opinion of the Board. If the Board finds error and takes action to reverse, modify, or make additional orders or requirements, the Board is empowered to act with powers as NDS. Iowa City Code of Ordinances, 14 — 8C — 3(B)(4); see also Iowa CoOe § 414AP(2Q16). 414.7. Board of adjustment --review by council, IA ST § 414.7 Iowa Code Annotated Title IX. Local Government [Chs. 331-420] Subtitle 4. Cities [Chs. 362-420] (Refs &Annos) Chapter 414. City Zoning (Refs & Annos) I.C.A. § 414.7 414.7. Board of adjustment --review by council Currentness The council shall provide for the appointment of a board of adjustment and in the regulations and restrictions adopted pursuant to the authority of this chapter shall provide that the said board of adjustment may in appropriate cases and subject to appropriate conditions and safeguards make special exceptions to the terms of the ordinances in harmony with its general purpose and intent and in accordance with general or specific rules therein contained and provide that any property owner aggrieved by the action of the council in the adoption of such regulations and restrictions may petition the said board of adjustment direct to modify regulations and restrictions as applied to such property owners. The council may provide for its review of variances granted by the board of adjustment before their effective date. The council may remand a decision to grant a variance to the board of adjustment for further study, The effective date of the variance is delayed for thirty days from the date of the remand. Credits Amended by Acts 1986 (71 G.A.) ch. 1098, § 1. Notes of Decisions (40) I.C.A.§414.7,IAST§414.7 Current with legislation from the 2016 Reg.Sess. End of nocumcut a 2q16 Thomson R ewers. No chum to orieinal t iS. Govenumcnt Work.v. 414.10. Appeals, 1A ST § 414.10 Iowa Code Annotated Title IX. Local Government [Chs. 331-4201 Subtitle 4. Uties [Chs. 362-4201 CRefs &Annos) Chapter 414. City Zoning (Refs &Annos) I.C.A. § 414.10 414.10. Appeals Currentness Appeals to the board of adjustment may be taken by any person aggrieved or by any officer, department, board, or bureau of the municipality affected by any decision of the administrative officer. Such appeal shall be taken within a reasonable time as provided by the rules of the board by filing.with the officer from whom the appeal is taken and with the board of adjustment a notice of appeal specifying the grounds thereof. The officer from whom the appeal is taken shall forthwith transmit to the board all the papers constituting the record upon which the action appealed from was taken. Notes of Decisions (17) I. C. A. § 414.10, IA ST § 414.10 Current with legislation from the 2016 Reg.Sess. End 0 Document 1.'016 Thomson R<uten,. Na claim to erieinul U.S. Government Work;. 414.12. Mowers, IA ST § 414.12 M AnnotatedLocal Government [Chs. 331-4201 e 4. Cities [Chs. 362-4201(Refs & Annos) ter 414. City Zoning (Refs & Annos) I.C.A. § 414.12 414.12. Powers Currentness The board of adjustment shall have the following powers: 1. To hear and decide appeals where it is alleged there is error in any order, requirement, decision, or determination made by an administrative official in the enforcement of this chapter or of any ordinance adopted pursuant thereto. 2. To hear and decide special exceptions to the terms of the ordinance upon which such board is required to pass under such ordinance, 3. To authorize upon appeal in specific cases such variance from the terms of the ordinance as will not be contrary to the public interest, where owing to special conditions a literal enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance will result in unnecessary hardship, and so that the spirit of the ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done. Notes of Decisions (51) I.C.A.§414.12,IAST§414.12 Current with legislation from the 2016 Reg.Sess. Ltd of Dorumnenl 4t �OIG T6untson Reeicrs. 'Jc elais� In origian! l �S. Govarnmrnl \5'+ c rk,. 414.13, Decision on appeal, IA ST § 414.13 Iowa Code Annotated Title IX. Local Government [Chs. 331-420] Subtitle 4. Cities [Chs. 362-4201(Refs & Annos) Chapter 414. City Zoning (Refs & Annos) I.C.A. § 414.13 414.13. Decision on appeal Currentness In exercising the above -mentioned powers such board may, in conformity with the provisions of this chapter, reverse or affirm, wholly or partly, or may modify the order, requirement, decision, or determination appealed from and may make such order requirement, decision, or determination as ought to be made, and to that end shall have all the powers of the officer from whom the appeal is taken. Notes of Decisions (5) I.C.A.§414.13,IAST4414.13 Current with legislation from the 2016 Reg.Sess. End of Dacu,),nt - r�16 Thmn.on F.cum�x. Vo claim to original ILS. Ciovcromcat N4n'As. Sterling Codifiers, Inc. http://www.sterlingcodifiers.com/codebook/printnow.p ARTICLE A. BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS 14-7A-1: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: A. Commission Established; Membership; Compensation: The planning and zoning commission consists of seven (7) members who shall be appointed by the mayor, subject to the provisions of the code of Iowa, as amended, and the approval of the city council. All members of the commission shall be qualified electors of the city of Iowa City. Commission members shall serve without compensation. B. Purpose: In order to provide for the general welfare of the citizens of Iowa City, a planning and zoning commission is established to advise the city council on all matters pertaining to the physical development of Iowa City, including the comprehensive plan and any laws pertaining to land development necessary to implement the comprehensive plan. C. Powers: The planning and zoning commission shall have the following powers, in addition to any other conferred by law: Make such surveys, studies, maps, plans or plats of the whole or any portion of the city and of any land outside the city which, in the opinion of the commission, bears relation to the city's comprehensive plan. The commission shall submit such surveys, studies and plans to the city council along with its recommendations, and it may publish the same. 2. Make recommendations to the city council regarding planned developments and plats or replats of subdivisions in the city which show streets, alleys or other areas intended to be dedicated for public use. 3. Make recommendations for streets, parks, rights of way, boulevards, trafficways, or other public improvements or for the vacation thereof. 4. Carry on comprehensive studies of present conditions and future growth of the city in order to guide and achieve a coordinated and harmonious development of the city in accordance with the city's present and future needs to the end that the health, safety, order, convenience, prosperity and general welfare of the community may be best promoted. 5. Prepare a zoning ordinance regarding the height, number of stories and size of buildings and other structures, the percentage of ground that may be occupied, the size of yards, courts and other open spaces, the density of population, and the location, design, and use of buildings, structures and land for commercial, industrial, residential or other purposes. To this end, the commission shall prepare a preliminary report regarding any 1 of 5 9/12/201610:57 AM Sterling Codifiers, Inc. http://www.sterlingcodifiers.com/codebook/printnow.pl proposed amendments to the zoning ordinance and hold public meetings thereon. After such meetings have been held, the commission shall also submit a final report and recommendations to the city council. The commission shall hold public meetings on and make recommendations to city council regarding repealing amendments to this title. 6. Conduct public hearings on and adopt a comprehensive plan and recommend to the city council, from time to tima, as conditions require, amendments, supplements, changes or modifications to the comprehensive plan. 7. Do all things necessary or advisable in order to carry out the intent and purpose of this article and state law. D. Commission Bylaws: The commission shall adopt bylaws to establish the time and place of meetings, the procedure for selecting a chairperson and vice chairperson, who shall act as chairperson when the chairperson is absent or abstaining, and a secretary and such other bylaws as are necessary to implement the provisions of this article. Copies of all bylaws shall be kept on file in the department of planning and community development and in the office of the city clerk. (Ord. 05-4186, 12-15-2005) 'I4-,7A-«: BOARD OF ADJU$Y'i!l►lENT. A. Board Established; Membership; Compensation: The board of adjustment shall consist of five (5) members appointed by the mayor with the consent of the city council for a term of five (5) years. Members shall be qualified electors of Iowa City. A majority of the members of the board shall be persons representing the public at large; a majority of the board shall not be involved in the business of purchasing or selling real estate. Board members shall serve without compensation. B. Purpose: The purpose of the board is to provide relief from the requirements of this title when a variance is warranted, provide extra scrutiny in cases where special exceptions allowed by this title are requested, and provide an avenue for appeal of administrative decisions regarding the enforcement and implementation of this title. The decisions of the board should serve the public interest, meet the intent of this title, and be consistent with the comprehensive plan of the city, as amended. C. Powers: The board shall have the following powers: 1. Appeals: To hear and decide appeals where it is alleged there is error in any order, requirement, decision or determination made by the city manager or designee in the 2 of 5 9/12/201610:57 AM Sterling Codifiers, Inc. http://www.sterhngcodifien.com/codebook/printnow.p enforcement of this title or of any ordinance adopted pursuant thereto. 2. Special Exceptions: To hear and decide applications for special exceptions to the terms of this title in accordance with the general and specific approval criteria set forth in this title and specifically in chapter 4, article B, "Minor Modifications, Variances, Special Exceptions, And Provisional Uses", of this title. 3. Variances: To authorize upon appeal in specific cases such variances from the terms of this title as will not be contrary to the public interest, where, owing to special conditions, a literal enforcement of the provisions of this title will result in unnecessary hardship and so the spirit of this title shall be observed and substantial justice done. No variance to the strict application of any provision of this title shall be granted by the board unless the applicant demonstrates that all of the approval criteria for variances set forth in chapter 4, article B, "Minor Modifications, Variances, Special Exceptions, And Provisional Uses", of this title have been met. D. Procedural Rules: The board shall adopt rules to establish the time and place of meetings, the procedure for selecting a chairperson and vice chairperson, who shall act as chairperson when the chairperson is absent or abstaining, and such other procedural rules as are necessary to implement the provisions of this article. Copies of all rules shall be kept on file in the office of the board's secretary and in the office of the city clerk. The chairperson or, in the chairperson's absence, the acting chairperson may administer oaths or compel the attendance of witnesses. (Ord. 05-4186, 12-15-2006) '14 7A-3: 1-±F.SiTGRiC PRFZGERVAT-10tR' Ge)MM13SION: A. Commission Established; Membership: The historic preservation commission consists of at least seven (7) members who shall be appointed by the mayor for terms of three (3) years, subject to the provisions of the code of Iowa, as amended, and the approval of the city council. All members of the commission shall be qualified electors of the city of Iowa City. At least one resident of each designated historic district shall be appointed to the commission. Other members shall be chosen at large from any part of the city and shall have some expertise in history, urban planning, architecture, archaeology, law, sociology or other closely related field, or shall demonstrate interest in the area of historic preservation. At least four (4) of the members shall hold appointments at large. Should the number of officially designated historic districts exceed three (3) in number, a new member shall be added to the commission for each new district in excess of three (3) districts. The new member shall be appointed by the city council as soon as practicable after the official designation of the historic district triggering the operation of the preceding clause. 3 of 5 9/12/2016 10:57 AM Sterling Codifiers, Inc, http://www.sterlingeodifiers.conVeodebookiprintnow.1 ARTICLE C. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPROVAL PROCEDURES 14-813-1: PRC)CEpLIRE$ GENERALLY' The board of adjustment shall conduct public hearings and make decisions in accordance with the following requirements: A. Public Meetings: All meetings shall be open to the public. 3. Public Notice: Notice of the time and place of public hearings shall be published In a newspaper of general circulation not more than twenty (20) days nor less than seven (7) days prior to the hearing. It shall contain the street address or location of the property and a brief description of the nature of the appeal. C. Record Of Proceedings: The board shall keep minutes of its proceedings, showing the vote of each member upon each question, or if absent or failing to vote, indicating such fact, and shall keep records of its examinations and other official actions, all of which shall be immediately filed in the office of the secretary of the board and shall be a public record. D. Written Decisions: The board shall render written decisions, including findings of fact and conclusions of law, which shall be filed with the city clerk and recorded in the office of the Johnson County recorder. A copy of said decision shall be provided to the applicant. E. Orders; Lapse Of Approval: Unless otherwise determined by the board, all orders of the board shall expire six (6) months from the date the written decision is filed with the city clerk unless the applicant shall have taken action within the six (6) month period to establish the use or construct the building permitted under the terms of the board's decision, such as obtaining a building permit and proceeding to completion in accordance with the terms of the permit. Upon written request and for good cause shown, the board may extend the expiration date of any order without further public hearing on the merits of the original appeal or application. F. Petition For Writ Of Certiorari: Any person or persons, jointly or severally, aggrieved by any 1 of 5 9/12/2016 10:54 AM Stirling Codifiers, Inc. http://www.sterlingcodifiers.com/codebooktprintnow.p decision of the board of adjustment under the provisions of this title or any taxpayer or any officer, department or board of the city may present to a court of record a petition for writ of certiorari, duly verified, within thirty (30) days of the filing of the decision in the office of the city cleric, setting forth that such board decision is illegal, in whola or in part, and specifying 4he grounds of the illegality. (Ord. 05-4 188, 12-15-2005) 14-BC-2: SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS AND VARIANCES: A. Application Filing: 1. An application for a special exception or a variance must be filed with the city clerk on application forms provided by the city. 2. Supporting materials must be submitted as specified on the application form. 3. Monthly application deadlines for the board of adjustment are published in the department of planning and community development. The board of adjustment will review all complete applications received by the deadline at their regularly scheduled, monthly meeting. 4. The applicant bears the burden of proof and must support each of the approval criteria for the specific proposed exception or variance, as set forth in chapter 4, article B of this title, by a preponderance of the evidence. 3. Optional Preapplication Conference: Prior to application for a special exception or a variance, the applicant is encouraged to meet with the staff from the department of planning and community development to discuss basic intentions before investing time in detailed plans. The purpose of the preapplication conference is to review the applicable city standards and requirements and to ensure that the applicant is familiar with the review and approval procedures for a special exception. C. Approval Procedures: Once a complete application has been received, city staff shall review the application for compliance with the approval criteria applicable to the specific proposed exception or variance and issue a report and recommendation to the board of adjustment. 2. At a public hearing, the board shall review all applicable evidence presented regarding the proposed exception or variance. 3. The board of adjustment will approve, approve with conditions, or deny an application 2 of 5 9/12/201610:54 AM Stirling Codifiers, Inc. http://www.sterlingcodifiers.com/codebook/pzintnow.pi based on the facts presented in evidence. In order to approve a special exception or variance, the board must find that the specific proposed exception or variance meets the applicable approval criteria as set forth in chapter 4, article B of this title or as set forth elsewhere in this title. 4. In permitting a special exception or a variance, the board may impose appropriate conditions and safeguards, including, but not limited to, landscaping and screening, fencing, construction commencement and completion deadlines, lighting, operational controls, improved traffic circulation requirements, highway access restrictions, increased minimum setback requirements, parking requirements, limitations on the duration of a use or ownership or any other requirement which the board deems appropriate under the circumstances upon a finding that the conditions are necessary to fulfill the purpose and intent of this title. (Ord. 05-4186, 12-15-2005) a,-80 APPEALS: A. Initiation Of Appeal: 1. Where it is alleged there is error in any order, requirement, decision, or determination made by the city manager or designee in the enforcement of this title or of any ordinance adopted pursuant thereto, any person aggrieved by such order, requirement, decision, or determination may appeal same to the board of adjustment. 2. Where it is alleged there is an error in any order, requirement, decision, or determination made by the city manager or designee in the enforcement of this title or of any ordinance adopted pursuant thereto, any officer, department or board of the city aggrieved by such order, requirement, decision or determination may appeal same to the board of adjustment. B. Appeal Procedures: 1. The appellant must file a notice of appeal with the city clerk on forms provided by the city, specifying the grounds of the appeal. Such appeal must be submitted within a reasonable time from the date of the action appealed from as provided by the rules of the board. A duplicate copy of such notice shall be filed with the secretary of the board of adjustment. 2. The city manager or designee shall forthwith transmit to the board all the papers constituting the record upon which the action appealed from was taken. 3. At a public hearing, the board shall review all applicable evidence presented regarding the subject appeal. 3 of 5 9/12/2016 10:54 AM Sterling Codifiers, Inc. http://wwwsterfingoodifiers.com/codebook/printnow.: 4. In exercising the above mentioned powers, the board of adjustment may, in conformity with the provisions of this title or ordinances adopted pursuant thereto, affirm, or upon finding error, reverse or modify, wholly or partly, the order, requirement, decision or determination appealed from and may make such order, requirement, decision or determination as ought to be made, and to that end, shall have all the powers of the officer from whom the appeal is taken. C. Stay Of Proceedings: An appeal stays all proceedings in furtherance of the action appealed from, including, without limitation, the right of the permittee to proceed with development or other activities authorized under a building permit, tie Issuance of which is a subject of the appeal, unless the city manager or designee certifies to the board after the notice of appeal has been filed that, by reason of facts stated in the certificate, a stay would, in the city manager's or designee's opinion, cause imminent peril to life or property. In such case, proceedings or development shall not be stayed otherwise than by a restraining order, which may be granted by the board of adjustment or by a court of record and on notice to the city manager or designee for due cause shown. (Ord. 05-4186, 12-15-2005) o-�-SC-4: RELIGIOUS Ws-rITUT'ON .�i,PRI „ i--;O: A. Authority: The board of adjustment may consider a special exception to avoid or resolve any alleged violation of the freedom of religion based rights afforded to any person under federal or state law caused by the enforcement of any regulation or requirement of this title. B. Application And Submittal Requirements: 1. Any person or persons may submit an application to the board of adjustment for a special exception under the provisions of this section. 2, Such application must be submitted to the city clerk on application forms provided by the city for a special exception and must include the following additional information: a. A statement specifying the particular regulation or requirement of this title to which the requested exception relates; b. A description of the intended use of land or activity for which the exception is being sought; c. Documented evidence of how the specified regulation or requirement allegedly violates the person's freedom of religion based rights afforded under federal or state law; d. A description of how granting the exception would be in the public interest and not be 4 of 5 9/12/2016 10:54 AM Sterling Codifiers, Inc. http://www.steilingcodifiers.com/codebook/printnow., Chapter '1 INTENT AND APPLICABILITY 18-1-1: PURPOSE: It is the purpose of this title to establish a procedure which will enable the city to review certain Proposed improvements of property within the city in order to ensure the orderly and harmonious development of property in a manner that will: A. Promote the most beneficial relation between present and proposed uses of land. 3. Allow development of property commensurate with the present and foreseeable availability and capacity of city facilities and services. The following factors shall be considered in arriving at a conclusion concerning proposed development of property: 1. The projected population of the proposed development or the proposed intensity of use and the effect the proposal will have on the capacity of existing water and sanitary sewer lines to avoid overloading existing systems; 2. Zoning regulations at the time of the proposal; 3. The city's comprehensive plan, as amended, and other specific community plans; 4. The city's plans for future construction and provision for public facilities and services; and 5. The existing and planned city facilities and services for the area which will be affected by the proposed site use. C. Ensure compliance with this code, as amended, including applicable zoning regulations, approved subdivision plats, public works standards, and public safety standards. D. Encourage adequate provision of surface and subsurface storm water drainage in order to assure that future development and other properties in the city will not be adversely affected. E. Provide screening of parking, truck loading, solid waste disposal and outdoor storage areas I of 3 9/12/201610:53 AM Sterling Codifiers, Inc. http://www.sterlingcodifiers.com/codebook/printnow.1 from adjacent properties. F. Provide for orderly, safe, and efficient circulation of traffic in the development and throughout the city. G. Minimize adverse environmental impacts on the developing pmperty. (Ord. 05-4186, 12-15-2005) ,18-,i-:e: APPLIGABUTY. A. Site Plan Review Required: 1. The standards in this title are in addition to those required by the building code, as amended, and apply to commercial, industrial, and multi -unit residential development. 2. Site plans must be submitted, reviewed, and approved by the city according to the provisions of this title prior to the issuance of a building permit for any development on any "lot", "tract" or "parcel of land" as those terms are defined in title 14, "Zoning Code", of this code, except as exempted in subsection B of this section. B. Exemptions: Site plan review is not required for the development of one single-family dwelling or one two-family dwelling or related accessory structures in any zoning district. However, such uses and structures are not exempt from other applicable provisions of this code, including requirements of the building code, as amended. C. Major Site Plans: Major site plans are required for all of the following types of development: 1. Construction of over twelve (12) units residential development and any additions or alterations to existing development containing over twelve (12) units residential; or 2. Over ten thousand (10,000) square feet of nonresidential floor area. D. Minor Site Plans: Minor site plans are required for all development that does not require a major site plan, except as exempted in subsection B, "Exemptions", of this section. 2 of 3 9/12/201610:53 AM Sterling Codifiers, Inc. http://www.sterhngcodifien-com/codebook/printnow Sensitive Areas Development Plan: A sensitive areas development plan may be required for properties containing environmentally sensitive features as set forth in title 14, chapter 5. article I, "Sensitive Lands And Features", of this code. The requirements and exemptions for regulated sensitive features are set forth in title 14, chapter 5, article I, "Sensitive Lands And Features", of this code. Level I sensitive areas review shall be in accordance with the all procedures and approval processes set forth in chapter 2 of This title, except for section 18-2-2, "Submittal Requirements". Submitial requirements for level I sensitive areas review are set forth in title 14, chapter 5, article I of this code, based on the type of regulated feature(s) that eAst on the subject property. (Ord. 05-4186, 12-15-2005) 3 of 3 9/12/201610:53 AM Marian Karr From: Sarah Walz Sent: Monday, September 19, 2016 2:18 PM To: Marian Karr Subject: Handouts and Powerpoints (3 of 3) Attachments: City Staff.pdf; City Staff PowerPoint.pdf; Carlson Sheet Al -2436- 06.23.16.PDF; Carlson Sheet A2 -2436- 06.23.16.PDF; Carlson Sheet A3 -24x36- 06.23.16.PDF Here are the items provided by staff at the meeting on 9.14.2016. These include handouts from various deparments ("City Staff"), the powerpoint presented by staff, and floor plans and elevations of the proposed building. Sarah Sarah Walz CITY OF IOWA CITY and METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION OF JOHNSON COUNTY 410 East Washington St. Iowa City, IA 52240 319-356-5239 r ,___.®a, CITY OF IOWA CITY �'��� MEMORANDUM Date: September 14, 2016 To: Board of Adjustment From: Eleanor Dilkes, City Attome Re: 101 Lusk Ave. Appeal As you know, Mark Parmenter has been retained as counsel for the BOA. Assistant City Attorney Sue Dulek will be present at the hearing only to represent the Building Official. I find it necessary to respond, on the record, to a number of statements made by the appellants in their pre -hearing submission to the Board that allege or insinuate impropriety in the City Attorney's handling of this matter. I will quote from the appellants' statement and then provide my response. 1. Section II(1)(0): "In the course of the City of University Heights consideration of the Carlson building proposal, the City of Iowa City received notice of the controversy. For example, a letter signed by 56 University Heights residents, objecting to the project, and depicting it as a commercial entertainment venue and not a residence, was copied to the Iowa City Attorney." Response: The May 2, 2015letter, which is included as part of Appellants' Exhibit 7 and signed by residents of University Heights, was dated May 2, 2015 (almost a year before the Carlsons' riled an application for a building permit with the City of Iowa City on April 6, 2016). It shows a copy to me and Assistant City Attorney Sue Dulek. Both she and I have a vague recollection of receiving a hard copy of this document from our secretary who said it had been dropped off by Dottie Maher. It was not clear to either of us why we were receiving a letter regarding a site plan in University Heights. Neither of us was ever contacted directly by Ms. Maher or others about the matter. The letter from Ms. Maher was filed in a generic City Attorney file entitled "Site Plan review" and not reviewed or contemplated by my office until it was necessary to do so in order to respond to appellants' allegation that the receipt of this letter had some bearing on the Iowa City Building Official's decision that has been appealed to the BOA. 2. Footnote 3 on page 7: "Appellants are also deeply troubled that the Carlsons' attorney, Matthew J. Hektoen and Assistant City Attorney Sara Hektoen were not arranged to assure that no bias or conflict -or even the appearance of bias of conflict -would arise. In their respective roles in processes involving the fate of the Carlsons' proposed project (Mr. Hektoen, as legal representative of the Carlsons' in their unsuccessful negotiations and litigation against the City of University Heights on zoning issues related to the Kinnick proposal; Ms. Hektoen, as legal representative for the City of Iowa City, ostensibly charged with representing the interests of the City and the public in negotiations related to what appears to have been (thus far) the Carlsons' successful efforts to obtain controversial and contested zoning and building code enforcement approvals." (emphasis in original) Response: The Simmons Perrin law firm did not represent the Carlsons in this matter until after the neighbors filed their appeal on June 29, 2016. Either the Carlsons or their builder Mr. Zahasky communicated with NDS staff. In gathering records to respond to appellants' public records request no documents were located that reflected correspondence between city staff and the Simmons Perrin law firm or Matt Hektoen. Moreover, the decision to issue the permit was made by the Building Official, not the City Attomey's office. The Affidavit of Use was drafted by NDS in August 3, 2016 Mr. James C. Larew 504 E. Bloomington St. Iowa City, IA 52245-2858 In re: Public Records Request Dear Jim: SENT BY EMAIL ONLY r It CITY OF IOWA CITY City Attorney's Office 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240-1926 (319) 356-5030 (319) 356-5008 FAX www.icgov.org Subject to the exceptions noted below, the City's responses to the numbered requests in your letter to me dated July 8, 2016 are set forth below. I note that many of your requests ask for documents "that would provide any evidence that any employee or agent of the City reviewed and approved, or did not approve" a certain matter relating to the owners' application for a building permit for 101 Lusk Ave. I have made no judgments as to what is or is not "evidence" and will leave that to you and Mr. Hatala. I have approached your requests as simply a request for records relating to the subject matter (e.g., fire safety, infrastructure, storm sewer, sanitary sewer re: 101 Lusk Ave.). 1. Copies will be provided. 2. Copies will be provided. 3. Copies will be provided . Additionally, documents are available on the City's website. The City has two software programs that are relevant to your request. One is "Tidemark" and the second is 'Imerfiche" Tidemark is for permit processing and complaints. Laserfiche is our archive file for plans submitted through the review process for building permits. Any information that is available online is on one of these two sites and searchable by street address. In this letter, I use the term "NDS sites" when referencing these two sites. Permit search: http://www.iowa-city-org/tm bin/tmw cmd nl?tmw cmd=Status0ueryForm&tmw auerv-PublicCase Laserfiche: hU://www.iOwa-ci!Y.Org/webHnk/Browse.aVx?dbid--o 4. Copies of any such documents will be provided. Note that staff does not calculate storm water runoff on infill lots. 5. See site plan documents found on the NDS sites. Note that there is no calculation for averaging on blocks of three lots or less pursuant to Section 14-2A-4B3e of the City Code. The City Code is available on the City website. such a review. Given the nature of this matter and the fact that some of this work would have been necessary in order to prepare stafrs response to the neighbors' appeal, I will not charge you for any of this time. You can pick up copies upon payment of fees. Alternatively, I will scan and email them to you upon payment of the fee. Also, as I stated above there is a video from a scope of the sewer line that I can email to you or provide it to you on a thumb -drive. I look forward to hearing from you. Sly inc, W� Eleanor M. Dilkes City Attorney Copy to: Robert Hatala (via email only rhatalaAsimmonmemine coml Mark Parmenter (via email only at mparmenterCa Iwclawvers coml THE LAW OFFICES OF LEFF LAW FIRM, L.L.P. RANDALL B. WILLMAN 222 SOUTH LINN STREET STEVEN E. BALLARD IOWA CITY, IOWA MARK C. DANIELSON 52240-I601 TIMOTHY S. GRADY TELEPHONE: (319) 338-7551 THOMAS E. MAXWELL FACSIMILE: (319) 338-6902 PATRICK J. FORD ABIGAIL L. BROWN www.lefflaw.com September 14, 2016 Ms. Sue Dulek Assistant City Attorney CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240 (via email only - sue-dulek@iowa-city.org) ARTHUR O. LEFF (1906-1989) PHILIP A. LEFF (Of Counsel) R. BRUCE HAUPERT (Of Counsel) CHARLES T. TRAW (Of Counsel) Writer's email: balladMef0aw.com Re: City of University Heights - Consideration of Carlson development proposal Dear Sue: I am writing as City Attorney for University Heights, Iowa, in response to your request about the City's consideration of a development proposal by Reed and Sandy Carlson. The Carlsons' discussions with the City of University Heights concerning development of a lot they own in the City spanned some three years, starting in 2012 and ending in 2015. On September 17, 2014, I sent Reed Carlson an email that expressed the conclusion that a structure depicted on drawings submitted by the Carlsons' builder appeared to show a commercial recreational use, which was not permitted in the City's R-1 Zone. As noted in that email, this conclusion was based upon drawings as submitted; no building permit application or other materials had been filed by the Carlsons or their builder. In 2015, the Carlsons submitted a building permit application, a site plan, and revised drawings. The University Heights City Council held a Special Meeting August 18, 2015, to consider two items related to their submission: UNIVERSITY HEIGHTS, IOWA August 18, 2015 1004 Melrose Ave. Proceedings of the City Council of University Heights, Iowa, held at St. Andrew Presbyterian Church,1300 Melrose Avenue, subject to approval by the Council at a subsequent meeting. ALL VOTES ARE UNANIMOUS UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED. REGULAR MEETING Mayor From called the August 2015 special meeting of the University Heights City Council to order at 7:02 p.m. Present: Mayor From. Council Members: Carla Aldrich, Mike Haverkamp, Jim Lane, Virginia Miller and Silvia Quezada. Staff present: Attorney Ballard, City Clerk Anderson and Engineer Bilskemper, Also present were: Carol Adamson, Pat Bauer, Brian Belk, Ellen Buchanan, John Buchanan, Reed Carlson, Sandy Carlson, Dave Collins, Vicky Dingman, Andy Dudier, Ann Dudler, Ed Fischer, Joshua Galin, Steplimy Galin, Barb Gienapp, Rick Gienapp, Terry Goerdt, Renee Goethe, Cindy Hamver, Alice Haugen, Jeff Henrickson, Susan Hill, Carol Howard, Audrey Knox, Jeff Knox, Dotti Maher, John McLurA Glen Messner, Sheree Murphy, George De La Pena, Ann Permo, Harold Plate, Nancy Plate, Doug Rasmussen, Jaclde Omahen Rasmussen, Jean Reed, Dale Roberts, Patty Roberts, Howard Samek, Karen Smock, Kris Schooley, Steve Schooley, Scott Smith, Bob Vogel, Andrew Walker, Elizabeth Walker, Carolyn Wells, John Wells, Ken Yeggy and Pat Yeggy. MOTION by Lane, seconded by Miller, to approve Resolution No. 1664, accepting Shamrock Construction's Learner Court repair work and authorizing final payment and releasing retaining for that work. Carried. Aldrich - Aye Miller - Aye Haverkamp - Aye Quezada - Aye Lane — Aye Lot 115 Development Proposal (Carlson Properly): Council member Lane recused himself from discussion and voting on the development proposal due to a business relationship with members of the development team Reed Carlson, owner of Lot 115 in University Heights addressed the council regarding his development proposal and outlined his history with the city. Glen Meisner, with MMS Consultants, presented a PowerPoint presentation showing various drawings of the proposed development. Messner addressed questions concerning sensitive slopes, drainage and storm sewer access. Attorney Ballard, Engineer Bilskemper and Building Inspector Goerdt address the council with their respective reports. Public Comments: The following addressed the council with their concerns: Jeff Hendrickson —Lytham Condominium developer Dotti Maher— 60 Marietta Avenue Stepheny Galin —62 Highland Drive Kris McLure (letter read) - 415 Koser Avenue Carolyn Wells — 322 Highland Drive Harold Plate — 50 Highland Drive Alice Haugen-1483 Grand Avenue Reed Carboni — Int 11 s Brian Belk — 509 S. Gilbert Street John Buchanan— 52 Marietta Avenue Josh Galin — 62 Highland Drive John McLure —415 Koser Avenue Dave Collins —103 Highland Drive Cindy Harover — 111 Highland Drive Sandy Carlson - Lot 115 Samantha and Mary Miller (letter read) - 254 Highland Drive MOTION by Haverkamp, seconded by Miller, to approve Resolution No. 15-65, approving a Sensitive Areas Site Plan, Development Plan, and Grading plan for Lot 115, University Heights I at Addition, pursuant to Ordinance No. 128. Not Carried. Aldrich - No Miller - No Haverkamp-No Quezada-No Lane—Recused MOTION by Haverkamp, seconded by Aldrich, to approve Resolution No. 1566, approving a request to develop protected slopes far Lot 115, University Heights 1' Addition, pursuant to Ordinance No. 128. Not Carried. Aldrich - No Miller - No Haverkamp - No Quezada - No Lane — Recused r �;_.--..®�r CITY OF IOWA CITY . RIM, t%71 � MEMORANDUM DATE: September 14, 2016 TO: Doug Boothroy, Neighborhood and Development Services Director FROM: Jason Havel, City Engineer RE: 101 Lusk Avenue With the proposed single-family development at 101 Lusk Avenue, there have been concerns raised by some opposed to the project. In an effort to address some of these concerns, please note the following information: Sewer Service Based on available information, it is our understanding the house previously at 101 Lusk Avenue was serviced by a 4" sanitary sewer service line. This line tied into a 6" private sanitary sewer main that runs behind the houses at 111 and 117 Lusk Avenue, before tying into the 8" public sanitary sewer at a manhole located at the intersection of Bayard Street and Lexington Avenue. Records show a permit was approved for the sanitary service to this property in 1927. It is my opinion the capacity of the system is sufficient based on the proposed users and the size of the existing sanitary service and mains. When the previously demolished house was located on the lot, the existing sanitary service was a permitted and operational service that provided direct access from the house to the public sanitary sewer system, as required by Code. In my opinion, the existing sanitary service can be reused by the proposed new single-family home because it is an existing permitted sanitary sewer service that ties into the public sanitary sewer system, and the proposed use is replacing the previous similar use. However, the property owner will be responsible for maintenance and repair (including possible replacement) of the 4" sanitary service line as necessary to maintain it in working order. In addition, the property owner at 101 Lusk Avenue will share similar responsibilities for the 6" private sanitary sewer main that is shared with the property owners at 111 and 117 Lusk Avenue. These responsibilities are consistent with those of owners of existing sanitary sewer services and shared private sewer mains within Iowa City. A requirement of installing new public sanitary sewer along Lusk Avenue has also been discussed in relation to the proposed project at 101 Lusk Avenue. This was a requirement for a proposed project from the previous property owner (Prestige Properties, LLC). The difference between the proposals from the current and previous property owners is that the proposal from the previous owner included a subdivision of the existing lot into two separate lots with new homes, while the existing owner has proposed a new single-family home on the existing lot. Site Drainaae The property at 101 Lusk Avenue generally slopes such that drainage from the site will travel to the south and east, into existing City and/or railroad right-of-way. Based on Iowa drainage law, the City of Iowa City allows overland drainage from properties to occur in situations where the drainage is reasonably following the existing terrain and does not create additional damage to neighboring properties or right-of-way. The City allows properties to be graded such that runoff enters the right-of-way from adjacent private property with the condition that the runoff is not concentrated such that it causes erosion or other damage where it is entering the right-of-way. Any additional runoff from development at 101 Lusk Avenue will be required to be managed as Iowa City Fire 410 E. Iowa City, IA 52240 319-356-5260 X To: Doug Boothroy- Director, Neighborhood & Development Services From: Brian Greer- Fire Marshal Date: September 13, 2016 Re: 101 Lusk Avenue Appeal Doug, Below are fire department responses to the questions you had concerning fire codes and Iowa City Fire Department operations. Looking at the 2015 International Fire Code (IFC) related to fire flow, the 2,250 gallons per minute (gpm) appears to be the correct fire -flow as is stated in IFC Table B105.1. The fire - flow calculation used by the IFC considers the total floor area of all floor levels within the exterior walls and the type of construction. Other variables to consider include: the location of the fire, the contents of the building, response time and the capabilities of the fire department. Determining the necessary water supply is not an exact science. The hydrant nearest the property in question was flow tested and is shown to provide 1,564 gpm at 20 psi residual pressure. While this hydrant does not meet the minimum required fire -flow for the building, it is a very strong hydrant. Our fire engines have pumps that can provide 1,500 gpm of flow which is slightly less than the flow from this one hydrant. Should the worst case scenario of the proposed building being fully involved with fire actually occur, we would need to provide additional water from a second fire engine connected to another hydrant to fully extinguish the fire. The next nearest hydrant is at Bayard and Lexington. A residential building fire in Iowa City will provide three engines, a ladder truck, and a chief officer. Ourfire engines are loaded with 1,000 feet of 5 inch large diameter hose (LDH) to connect the fire hydrant to the pumping engine. The LDH acts as an aboveground water main. The fire department's travel time to this neighborhood is approximately 4 minutes which is within the response time goals set forth by the department and our accreditation model. This means that the department can get to the area and start firefighting operations rather quickly, resulting in smaller fires that require less water to extinguish. Looking back, the Iowa City Fire Department responded to 56 building fires in 2015. Seventy-one percent of those fires were contained to the room of origin with an additional 9% confined to the floor of origin. Significantly smaller amounts of water were needed to extinguish those fires. Fire does grow quickly during the initial stages and the amount of water necessary increases as the fire grows. The larger the fire, the larger the water supply that is necessary. Iowa City Board of Adjustment September 14, 2016 Appeal 16-00001 101 Lusk Ave, Iowa City Appeal 16-00001 1. Introduction 2. Chronology of approval process 3. Building Official Determinations 4. Iowa City Zoning Code Review 5. International Residential Code Review 6. Response to Appeal 7. Conclusion Introduction -Current Situation • Building permit issued for a two story single family detached dwelling • Location: 101 Lusk Ave., an existing lot of record on an existing public street • Intended use: single household residence — Building permit application states 'two story home' Email from property owner states 'single family dwelling on the site as a second home' Property owners signed an affidavit of use stating the use of the property is as a single family dwelling • Property owner has acknowledged the definition of tailgating, an allowed informal social gathering, in the affidavit of use • Appeal application received and Stop Work Order issued June 29, 2016 I I I Introduction —Chronology Building Permit Application: Applicant Uploaded Plans: Permit was Issued: Permit was Suspended: Revised Plans Submitted: Revise Plans Approved: Appeal Received: April 6, 2016 April 11, 2016 May 25, 2016 - No rush to judgment — 6.5 week review (initial site plan showed the drive access on the south side of the lot) June 14, 2016 (Permit suspended due to driveway location) June 28, 2016 June 28, 2106 (driveway changed to north side of the lot. Main level bathroom plans revised) June 29, 2016 • Stop Work Order Issued: June 29, 2016 Introduction Mr. Larew asserts: "... Flaws so numerous and so fundamental that to allow its construction would likely pose adverse effects upon the health, welfare and safety of others ..." (Page 1 Appellants' Submission to Board of Adjustment) will demonstrate that Mr. Larew's identified flaws are not fatal flaws, but are a misunderstanding / misrepresentation of the Code requirements cited: 1. Building misclassification 2. Site Plan Approval (not a zoning code determination) - Board's attorney ruled that this is not applicable - Single Family and Two Family dwellings are exempt (Section 18-1-2B) - Minor Site Plan exemption (Section 18-1-21D) Introduction 3. Sanitary Sewer Service (Uniform Plumbing Code) - "... Every building shall have an independent connection with a public or private sewer" - The private sewer main was approved in 1927 to allow three service connections to the three homes on the west side of Lusk Ave (including 101 Lusk Ave.) - The City Engineer will address this in more detail 4. Fire Department Access - The Fire Department has determined adequate access is provided by the existing 20-foot wide public street (Lusk Ave.) — Fire Department staff will address in more detail. See September 13 memorandum from the Fire Marshall. Introduction 5. Fire protection waterflow - The Fire Department has determined there is adequate waterflow existing (Hydrants exist on Lusk Ave., near Bayard / Lexington intersection, and if needed near Woolf Ave.) - It is Fire Department practice to pull water from multiple hydrants when necessary. The Fire Engine Pump can pull only 1,500 gallons per minute from one hydrant — the Lusk Ave. hydrant exceeds 1,500 GPM. - In other parts of Iowa City, including new development areas, waterflow requirements for fire fighting operations are based on multiple hydrants City Determinations • The City did not misclassify the use. — The structure is appropriately classified as a single family dwelling, as it contains facilities for living, sleeping, cooking and eating meals which are intended to be used by one household • The City did not approve the site plan in error. — Construction of a single family structure is exempt from the requirements of Title 18, Site Plan Review. The dwelling meets all the dimensional standards in the Low Density Single Family (RS-5) Zone. • The City did not issue the building permit in error — The dwelling was reviewed according to the International Residential Code (IRC), and is in compliance with Zoning Code and IRC standards • Private accessory uses are permitted in residential zones • The Zoning Code does not regulate architectural style in standard residential zones for single family dwellings N City of Iowa City W I: � s 101 Lusk Avenue 0 Prepared 8y: 0.005 0.01 0-02 MOes Marti Wolf Date Prepared: June 2016 40 �..�... w« . ■ ■ ■r..rr r■■f.■...■..■. ��r N tY W 1: � f s 101 Lusk Avenue ❑ 0.0175 0,035 OA7 Miles Prepared By: Marti Wolf Date Prepared: July 2016 a� Imp ... 1 r y MMMUDE 1YIT & {jj&ERFST. KW* Vn POW, szm Nll4M1#�lo uuu• 4 M G ST. PW SAM D �RPPM lOY'Y Mb10F Rl91MW70P R.ly IMLbr SITE PLAN 101 Lusk Avenue Manvllla Addition JQMSDN QOL* {q kAM4 Nib COFG� O D 101 Lusk Ave. Building Plans Dining Room Kitchen Bedroom MM LEVEL PLAN Mechanical 101 Lusk Ave. Building Plans -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- �iiii 66 i 'e courtyard above 9 6 tl ----- ----- -------- - ---.-..-..---- ------......---- ---- ---- - ------------------- --- -- --- lllllll`III �I��' ihl�� C1 ■� h"� Yi �.............----........--............. as.11 - -� I4I Theater Room Sport Court 12 TALL PWRED;VALLS Zoning Code Review Factors 1. DETERMINE ZONING CLASSIFICATION — Conclusion: The property at 101 Lusk Ave. is in the Low Density Single Family (RS-5) Zone 2. CHECK OVERLAY ZONES — Conclusion: The property at 101 Lusk Ave. is not affected by any overlay zones (such as a historic district) that would affect the design of the structure Zoning Code Review Factors 3. DETERMINE USES ALLOWED - Conclusion: Single Family Dwellings are a permitted use in the Low Density Single Family (RS-5) Zone USE CATEGORIES I SUBGROUPS I RR-1 Residential Uses Household living uses Detached single- P family dwellings Detached zero lot PR line dwellings _ I Attached single- family dwellings Two-family uses (duplexes) Group PR households RS-5 i RS-8 I RS-12 I RNS-12 P I I I PR PR PR PR rR_7R PR` PI R P__FP_ R I PR Zoning Code Review Factors 4. USE CLASSIFICATION To determine the use classification, staff referred both to Use Classification Chapter (Section 14-4) and the Definitions Chapter (14-9) of City Code: DWELLING UNIT: Any habitable room or group of adjoining habitable rooms located within a dwelling and forming a single unit with facilities used or intended to be used by one household for living, sleeping, cooking and eating meals. (Section 14-9A-1 Definitions) DWELLING, DETACHED SINGLE-FAMILY: A single-family use that is not attached to any other dwelling unit. (See "single-family use", as defined in chapter 4, article A, "Use Categories", of this title.) (Section 14-9A-1 Definitions) Zoning Code Review Factors • USE CLASSIFICATION (continued) Characteristics: The residential occupancy of a dwelling unit by a single household or group household. Each dwelling unit contains its own facilities for living, sleeping, cooking and eating meals. Tenancy is arranged on a month to month basis, or for a longer period (Section 14-4A-3A) Single -Family Uses: A "single-family use" is a household living use where there is no more than one principal dwelling unit per lot (Section 14-4A-3A) Accessory Uses: Private recreational uses (are permitted) (Section 14-4A-3A) Zoning Code Review Factors • USE CLASSIFICATION (continued) — The dwelling has facilities for living, sleeping, cooking and eating meals — The dwelling consists of a group of adjoining rooms forming a single unit — Private recreational uses, such as the sport court and theater room, are permitted — The Zoning Code provides no limitations on number of bedrooms, bathrooms or square footage of a residential structure outside of the dimensional requirements in the zone Conclusion: The dwelling is designed and intended to be used as a single family dwelling O D 101 Lusk Ave. Building Plans Dining Room Kitchen Bedroom MM LEVEL PLAN Mechanical 101 Lusk Ave. Building Plans -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- �iiii 66 i 'e courtyard above 9 6 tl ----- ----- -------- - ---.-..-..---- ------......---- ---- ---- - ------------------- --- -- --- lllllll`III �I��' ihl�� C1 ■� h"� Yi �.............----........--............. as.11 - -� I4I Theater Room Sport Court 12 TALL PWRED;VALLS Zoning Code Review Factors 5. AFFIDAVIT OF USE — The building permit application stated the permit is for construction of a "two story home" — The applicant submitted an email statement that the property was purchased "to build a single family dwelling" — The property owners signed an affidavit of use (that is recorded with the property at the County Recorder Office) that they agree that `the use of the property is a single family dwelling and that the single family use must be maintained as such' — Tailgating (defined in Section 14-9A-1) is an allowable informal social gathering per City Code; Tailgating does not require a temporary use permit (Section 14-4D-3) Tim Hennes From •euildingDox Sent WldrMday, Apnl UF4 Z01612-59 PM To' Terry Gnardt; David [ampbeN; rm Henw IXlnt 9liven Su bJ*ct Building AppllcMion Submittal Hoild61g Applicaf an submitted from the Iowa Ciiywebsite„- Appiketm3td8 OLD201604MI25926 j8ite Addreai 10i LualcAre w �abdi�n t jeetrro�. Val ^... 750444 _--..--�_...---- PcrmitYalue ka �8z>h Ibex atoty]►ome. 1500 fl2 8rlabad on upper teveI, 3455 firmed ea main level land 2500 5uishcdin bacommmt. Ntnae � end Sandy Carlsma ForOwnerfraumk erfrmlimtAddreee 01202P16amantAv 4MYatr(reaamt 00180trMp IA 521 D) `LL �reniat Finail cod erfFenan, Phone 1 .563 3MS238 cell - eFYI'erlFrltnm2 f ,iL'mttreraur Name mky['nmm� cm outrmctor Addreim ,R548 Amax Ih $E flmiraceAr JSrip teRa City IA 52240 ctor Email .Coln - T "dlw Phone 1 919 331-0631 cell omtractor Phone 2 Plumber Name Bills Plumbing ��� . - Elee ticion Name pomewood Elemlo 11 echaoii.IM N;mg` o ktg aed Cooling eaerJ9Vakr Name Ft" Sprimklerinerdler Tim Hennes From: Tim Hennes Sent: Friday, July OL 2016 3A PM To' Tim Hennes Subject, Fyn 101 Lusk Avenue Property From: Reed rArAspn [marino:reze�geo-nrcrnm) Sent: F+daYr Aprll 22, 2015 9:30 AN To: Tim Nennes; Terry Cnerdt Cc: zshesky,wn5buctlonognVpAm SuhJRM 101 Lusk Avenue property Dc4irlbfr. Hennes, luty wifcand I purchased the pmpetty at 101 Lusk Avenue to Mild a single family dwelling on the site as a Fstteo»d humc and maybe es a permanent midonce at a later dale. W c have one of our four rJaildren and his family living iu Iowa City. Ha has three children (otff grandehiidten) nmgiagin age 9mn 1 'fi to 4 years old and we woedd litre to spend more limp with them_ We do not plan to rent any purtion of our residence out on a perranent or temporary basis. r sincemly hope that this explanation is SDIT MI for the building pc nit pmoffo, Sinowdyt Frederic Reed Cmison Gcothermod Eco Opdoria, Inc. 363-382-MOD (Office) 3 WIIBIi I®IMMI M11011 WMnedID: 0 moo7mml Typ1: WN NaCtftlid: 0!/!t/461a K 3a: SA.� Mr Fw MC: LT.OG PRp� S 0! 1 Jehnaee Iew Kl+rrNi++^^,�r c��e��ul1n��eY uppeo.drr wr °.ffiY103��1t�� lie[x� [btr � Frreyl.t [Yq�tea[vy, old A'� 9y41uwCIp�SwA 5Ma3[93ltSW0 .LFI+'LDAVFC 017 USE. I.at 1, Nett II 7hrr date®"ft w"PWryi! I011a* AYtem b[mmdomdm"ON CIr Re—in� m1rrae= afm CD&*tprdimm, 1. re d bxeby+eLetMkr}er dw eeppt-Emt of dw Fop" b Ksa. a �w� ie.madrka.ffi**X rk4adW"C'Zmftarfto j,�m �P* k a W& wil, dwdbW ma a!! Ua &Mb rb tw ar[ M `h,6h" w wrfi CMMW Ll m wbm Wdlda IMalr orwwiel aphid*, M 4 pq!!rq are no PN*4i. rauwft m tM p owty not tidfhw is dtjo� at WP% f wYd i S. tow. e4 &MbW On& — m4k - -TAU"Tm JL b" N=bLWri terlY p�wk�tlW tiaa�tam.erklandwyM•11ld!rµ�am Oftmu twrrrldlMelrp.rsaJ T.... =t! — ws- 3- lie mbrdaaad+gt4a14td ds mpI rtPtWoy9rmptm&i7dd ii•i.w [ 1 nd ata Sti ..nMad ¢r or t mn*zm or arm 0] dbrtimbmj M'0, A MWdwN venpr a dam how *waft mm trdeMm bq tq gwi +. 71sp mace dW 6e popwry,'f net oaetw ac W01% m 0* be I& a rained Kam oMrohO a aa71dmd4 phfmh fmm to thr UfLm MY and m a* berea►fd Wtmmlbmmmherk Wh a S. 7bh tamed Vm dM, W IM ptpptrtp b Ww pled emd ewer obww f Ord! kftuw rtoW FW11* heat m n am 3 brdr nta hd prinked b Fw wbe 'by da D.,, a ear m aFKCd [d dryt d. 7ma x*kvb � dh FOWded WM ftm 7abam GMZ Baud¢, and t mpy af the mvdd dnornm =tp®d wih me UIY&Iqup My DcpuMm EfRmftd 50%WM 'fbh dwb-06 a stir be W= cmisbau z W to W. 1 ni dw Ka qw wprftmm",, a Fla FMWN vldr aodmk=A md&mn bo bia ftm and W UM w1b to Ulk m 83c pka K*. r..aL,.:_., hTI!! . . M A.r IrAIE OF IOW'A a-md Z 4'oi L:fc ol b Wd elWne 3h mmmdr7�—Z;;. t WOMY Pkb& b d b Wd ptey r a wed :s ed aba CU=o r wft d 4ovig;m d dad m Zoning Code Review Factors 6. Single Family Plan Review Minimum requirement 101 Lusk Ave. Meets requirement? Front setback 15 feet min. 15 feet Yes Side (south) setback 5 feet min. 5 feet Yes Side (north) setback 5 feet min. 22.5 feet Yes Rear setback 20 feet min. 41 feet Yes Minimum lot size 8,000 SF min. 16,650 SF Yes Lot frontage" 45 feet min. Frontage along Lusk Ave Yes right of way is approx. 123 feet The Lusk Ave pavement extends approx. 40 feet adjacent to the lot Height" 35 feet max. 25'6" Yes Building coverage 45% of lot max. 36% without courtyard' Yes 44% with courtyard Off-street parking 1 space 3 spaces Yes 3 stacking spaces Mmmmw IA" PUMMM Un AN MF;r 1YIT S. {jj&ERFST. KW* Vn POW, szm NII4M1#�n uuu• 4 M G 9T. 91YSJRE D �R%PM1OYn Mb10F R191 MI-Mm R.ly IMLbr SITE PLAN 101 Lusk Avenue Manvllla Addition JQMSDN QOL* {q kAM4 Nib COFG� The dashed line is the 'buildable area' of the lot given required setbacks Zoning Code Review Factors • Single Family Plan Review (continued) *FRONTAGE is defined as: The distance as measured along a right of way line from one intersecting street to another, from one intersecting street to the end of a dead end street or from one intersecting street to the end of a cul-de-sac (Section 14- 9A-1) **BUILDING HEIGHT is typically measured to the mid -point between the roof peak and roof eaves (Roofline definition Section 14-9A-1). The 25'6" building height listed is to the peak. ***A Courtyard is considered a `yard' (Yard/Courtyard definition Section 14-9A-1) and is not included in the building coverage measurement. Even if it is included, the structure is below the 45% maximum building coverage. Zoning Code Review Factors • Single Family Plan Review (continued) - Single family dwellings are exempt from Title 18 (Site Plan Review) (Section 18-1-213) - A plot plan (commonly referred to as a site plan) is reviewed to ensure conformance with the dimensional requirements in the zone Conclusion: The lot and proposed structure meet the dimensional requirements of the Low Density Single Family (IRS-5) Zone. Zoning Code Review Factors 7. The lot and use are not nonconforming - A single family dwelling is a conforming use in the Low Density Single Family (RS-5) Zone - The dwelling meets the dimensional requirements of the Zone - The lot, 16,650 SF in size, more than meets the minimum lot size of 8,000 SF - The Lusk Ave. right of way extends the entire frontage of the lot, approximately 123 feet Zoning Code Review Factors • The lot and use are not nonconforming (continued) - The zoning code allows a conforming use (single-family home) to be established on a nonconforming lot provided that the minimum lot area for the use is met, and provided the use or structure meets all other requirements of this title (See Code Section 14-4E-7A) - The lot satisfies the minimum lot area requirement for a single- family use and that the single-family use and the proposed structure meets all other requirements of the zoning code Conclusion: A single family use is a conforming use, and the lot is a conforming lot Other Factors (not Zoning related) 8. Lusk Avenue - Lusk Avenue is an existing 20-foot wide public street that provides access to the lot at 101 Lusk Ave - There are other single family dwellings on 20-foot wide streets (including dead-end streets) in Iowa City, including in the Manville Heights neighborhood Conclusion: Lusk Ave. is an existing public street serving an existing lot. Staff has no authority to deny a building permit for an existing lot accessed by an existing public street Other Factors (not Zoning related) • 9. Sanitary Sewer — The City granted permission for the shared private sewer for the three houses on the west side of this block of Lusk Ave. in 1927. This sewer has served these lots since that time. — The private sewer flows into an 8" public sewer main near the Bayard and Lexington intersection — Based on the number of plumbing fixtures in the proposed dwelling, the private sewer has more than adequate capacity to continue to serve the lots on the west side of Lusk Ave. Conclusion: Staff confirmed the private sewer is permitted, and the sewer has adequate capacity to serve the number of proposed plumbing fixtures 0 Peffnit to Make Sewef Connec"'On. Iowa pity, 140ation — ---------------- P ......... Plmber Claft of Rafl4lug -- — ..............No. of Fiztarea:—Water Clo".fa ..... . ... Urinah—_.. Waah Bath Tube_......_ Sinks..__._. Waah Tabs ...... . HOPPen __.......Greece Trapa ...... —.CeUar DratnL_ Other • Laftmea. Of main 6GWar_._..Lr'4__M size of MR" Point of Genneetion with pester of Manhole at Intersection of.�."' .......... and &rA of dzwa e� X lftee._t 3 houses on west side of Lusk — permit #2756 =3/17/27 Sewers go into private Joint 6" line that goes into MH on Bayard & Lexington W Responses to Appeal Use Classification • The building use classification was based on the fact that the structure meets the definition of a detached single family dwelling: DWELLING, DETACHED SINGLE-FAMILY: A single-family use that is not attached to any other dwelling unit. (See "single-family use", as defined in chapter 4, article A, "Use Categories", of this title.) (Section 14-9A-1 Definitions) DWELLING UNIT: Any habitable room or group of adjoining habitable rooms located within a dwelling and forming a single unit with facilities used or intended to be used by one household for living, sleeping, cooking and eating meals. (Section 14-9A-1 Definitions) Responses to Appeal Use Classification (continued Characteristics: The residential occupancy of a dwelling unit by a single household or group household. Each dwelling unit contains its own facilities for living, sleeping, cooking and eating meals. Tenancy is arranged on a month to month basis, or for a longer period (Section 14-4A-3A) Single -Family Uses: A "single-family use" is a household living use where there is no more than one principal dwelling unit per lot (Section 14-4A-3A) Accessory Uses: Private recreational uses (are permitted) (Section 14-4A-3A) Responses to Appeal Tailgating • Tailgating is an allowed informal social activity in the Iowa City Zoning Code. Tailgating and tailgate parking held on home Iowa football game days do not require a temporary use permit (Section 14-4D-3) • Tailgating Definition: "A home football game day informal social gathering that is noncommercial and may include eating and drinking beverages (alcoholic or nonalcoholic) as part of the activities. Temporary parking on unimproved surfaces located on private property is allowed during tailgate events. No alcohol is sold at a tailgate, nor is any admission fee charged, goods sold or given away, nor services provided for a fee." (Section 14-9A-1) Responses to Appeal Number of People — not Zonin related • The number of people in a residential structure for a social gathering is not regulated by the Zoning Code • The International Residential Code (IRC) does not regulate the number of occupants living in a single family dwelling • A household is permitted to live in a single family dwelling. A household is defined as "Two (2) or more persons related by blood, marriage, adoption or placement by a governmental or social service agency plus up to one unrelated person, occupying a dwelling unit as a single housekeeping organization" (Section 14-9A-1) Responses to Appeal Commercial Grade Kitchen Fixtures — not Zoning related • The type of appliances in a kitchen are not regulated by the Zoning Code, and are not something the Board of Adjustment can review • The type of appliances are not specified on building permit drawings • Appliance installation is inspected to confirm installation is per the manufacture's installation requirements. • Cooking appliances shall be listed and labeled for domestic use Responses to Appeal Number of Plumbing Fixtures — not Zoning related • The number of plumbing fixtures are not regulated by the Zoning Code, and are not something the Board of Adjustment can review • A 4" service line will accommodate 216 fixture units and the 6" shared sewer line will accommodate 720 fixture units • A'fixture unit' is defined as a "quantity in terms of which the load producing effects on the plumbing system of different kinds of plumbing fixtures are expressed" • For example, a bathtub counts as 2 drainage fixture units • The number of fixtures shown on the plans for 101 Lusk Ave. would be 50 fixture units, well under sewer capacity Responses to Appeal Basketball Court • Basketball / sport courts are not prohibited in the Zoning Code, and several existing in other single family dwellings in Iowa City • Private recreational uses are permitted in residential zones (14-4A- 3A(3)). Responses to Appeal Use of the Property • The Zoning Code defines Use as a "purpose or activity for which land, structures, or a portion thereof, are designed, occupied and maintained" (Section 14-9A-1) • Until a building is constructed and occupied the use must be determined by the design of the structure and the information provided by the owner. • The owner identified the use as a `second home' and a `single family dwelling' • The design conforms with the City Code definition of a single family dwelling, in that it contains "facilities used or intended to be used by one household for living, sleeping, cooking and eating meals" (Section 14-9A-1) Responses to Appeal Site Plan — not Zoning related • The Code Section cited by the appellant, Title 18 (Site Plan Review) is not applicable to construction of a single family dwelling, and is not a part of the Zoning Code. • Again, however, Single Family Dwellings are specifically exempted from Title 18 Site Plan Review: 18-1-2: APPLICABILITY: A. Site Plan Review Required: B. Exemptions: Site plan review is not required for the development of one single-family dwelling (underline added) or one two-family dwelling or related accessory structures in any zoning district. However, such uses and structures are not exempt from other applicable provisions of this code, including requirements of the building code, as amended. D. Minor Site Plans: Minor site plans are required for all development that does not require a major site plan, except as exempted in subsection B, "Exemptions", of this section. Responses to Appeal Fire Safety- not Zoning related • Fire Department standards are not a part of the Zoning Code • Fire Department standards are regulated by the 2015 International Fire Code • Lusk Ave. meets the minimum standard for a Fire Department access, which is 20 feet in width. Lusk Ave. is an existing 20-foot wide public street, of which there are several in Iowa City including Rowland Court, just to the east of Lusk Ave. • Fire Department staff will address this in more detail. See September 13 memorandum from Fire Marshall. Responses to Appeal Erosion and Sediment Control — not Zoning related • The erosion and sediment control provisions noted by the appellant are not applicable as they are not a part of the Zoning Code, and single family dwellings are exempt from Title 18 Site Plan Review • Construction site erosion will be monitored for erosion / illicit discharge per City Code Section 16-3G STORM WATER COLLECTION, DISCHARGE AND RUNOFF • Any mud / tracking on the street can be enforced through the Nuisance Chapter (Title 6 Chapter 1) through which the City has the authority to enforce "Depositing Mud, Dirt And Debris On Public Ways" (Section 6-1- 2N) Responses to Appeal Vehicle and pedestrian circulation — not Zoning related • The appellant notes vehicle and pedestrian circulation standards from Title 18 which is not a part of the Zoning Code. Single Family Dwellings are exempt from Title 18 Site Plan Review. Staff has no authority to deny a building permit on an existing lot based on neighborhood sidewalk connectivity Front yard setback • The minimum front yard setback is 15 feet, and the proposed dwelling meets this standard. The 'setback averaging' provision noted by the applicant is specifically exempted for frontages that contain three (3) or fewer lots (Section 14-2A-4,B,3,e(1)) Responses to Appeal State and Federal Regulations — not Zoning related • The regulation noted by the appellant through the link to the iowadot.gov website is related to transportation infrastructure projects using state or federal funds, and does not apply to private projects on private property Building Permit • The appellants cite the `Purpose Statement' of the Zoning Code. The purpose statement is aspirational, not regulatory, and therefore cannot be the basis either to grant or deny a building permit. • Building permits are analyzed to ensure regulatory code provisions are met, and it has been demonstrated the 101 Lusk Ave. project meets Code provisions Responses to Appeal Conformity of Use • The property is zoned Low Density Single Family (RS-5), and single family dwellings are a conforming use in this zone. An old house was demolished, and the proposed new house is a conforming single family dwelling. Conformity of Lot • The lot is conforming in terms of lot size and frontage. The lot is an existing lot of record. Even if the lot were found to be non- conforming, City non -conforming standards dictate that a single family dwelling may be established (Section 14-4E-7A and 14-4E-7C) Responses to Appeal Sewer Service — not Zoning related • As noted, the City permitted the shared sanitary sewer for three houses on the west side of Lusk Ave — Permit #2756 dated 3/17/27 • The size of a sewer service line is determined by the number of plumbing fixtures. A four inch line will accommodate 216 fixture units, and a six inch line will accommodate 720 fixture units. The existing 6" shared private sewer is more than adequate to serve the proposed dwelling • City Engineer will address in more detail. See September 14 memorandum from City Engineer Responses to Appeal Storm Water — not Zoning related The appellant cites City Code Section 16-30-7 (regarding storm water discharge to storm sewers) which is not a part of the Zoning Code. Furthermore, Section 16-3G-3 identifies the scope and provisions for this code title which states: "Excluding the central business district and the area designated as the new south side neighborhood, this article shall apply to development which results in an aggregate gross area of three (3) acres or more of drainage from or to a single drainage area. (underline added) The gross aggregate drainage area shall include streets and other dedicated lands." Responses to Appeal Drainage — not Zoning related • The drainage standards noted by the appellant are not a part of the Zoning Code, and are not applicable because single family structures are exempt from Title 18 Site Plan Review • Surface drainage is reviewed and inspected to the standards of the International Residential Code Responses to Appeal Height • The plans show a two-story, structure above grade / ground level (approximately 75% of the structure is one story). Neither the Zoning Code nor the International Residential Code prohibit three- story residential structures in low -density residential neighborhoods. • The proposed structure is a two story building and the east elevation shows the building height dimensioned at 25'-6". This is well below the 37.5 feet stated by the appellant. The cellar level (below grade) should not be included in the total building height. The building height is measured from the grade of ground, not from the cellar (basement) level. Response to Mr. Larew Submission Larew Item 1A: "The very same project proposed by the Carlsons... " Response: It is not the same project. The University Heights project was three stories, had four bedrooms, and a full room entitled `Bar Area' Larew Item 1A: Excerpts from an email from University Heights' City Attorney Steve Ballard are quoted. Response: The excerpts from the Ballard email are taken out of context. If the full 2014 email is read, Ballard states "I want to stress the above list is preliminary and responds only to the drawings as submitted. No building permit application has been submitted. . Response to Mr. Larew Submission Larew Item 1D: "The Manville Heights neighborhood, including the area where 101 Lusk Avenue is located is zoned as RS-5. Entertainment venues (commercial or otherwise) are not one of the types of structures that are listed in the Code as permitted in RS-5 Zones" Response: City staff agrees. The dwelling at 101 Lusk Ave. was permitted as a single family dwelling Larew Item E-L: These points describe an evaluative process for determining a use category Response: The City Section 14-4A-2 states that the list of factors noted by the appellant to be considered when classifying a use are for uses "not listed as examples" (Section 14-4A-2A). The Single Family Dwelling Use already is listed as a residential use in Section 14-4A-3A Response to Mr. Larew Submission Larew Item 1U: This item states "The Building Official was required to invoke, objectively, but did not, in fact, utilize the City's classification decision -making process, the analytical methodology set forth in City Code 14-4A-2..." Response: This statement is not true. The Building Official did review the Use Classification Section and determined the use is a Single Family Dwelling per Section 14-4A-3A: Residential Use Categories Larew Item 1W: This item states "Nowhere in the City Code is it contemplated that, when classifying the use of a building for zoning purposes, a Building Official will rely solely upon self-serving affidavits. Response: Classifying the use was not based upon the affidavit. It was based on the permit application, the design of the structure, the fact that the structure is designed for one household, that is has facilities for living, sleeping, cooking and eating, etc. The affidavit serves as a record of the use of the structure for future owners of the property. Response to Mr. Larew Submission Larew Item 2: This section references `UNLAWFUL SITE PLAN APPROVAL' Response: It has been demonstrated, and confirmed by the Board's Attorney, that the Title 18 Site Plan Review is not part of the Zoning Code and is not appealable to the Board of Adjustment. Larew Item 2G: This item states "if the courtyard is included, the size of the proposed structure increases to nearly 9,000 square feet" Response: Courtyards are defined as Yards per Section 14-9A-1, and are not included in calculation of structure size. Response to Mr. Larew Submission Larew Item 21: " ... It is estimated that very little rain water will be captured and retained by the property, and virtually all of it will be dispensed down the structure's driveway, to Lusk Ave, from which, because there are no storm sewers, the water will be dumped onto adjoining properties owned by the City" Response: Based on Iowa drainage law, Iowa City allows overland flow from properties to occur where the drainage is reasonably following the existing terrain. See September 14 memorandum from the City Engineer. Larew Item 2L: "The City ... Required the Carlsons to submit another Site Plan document showing that the driveway would now be placed on the north side of the lot" Response: Yes, this is true. The driveway location is consistent with the driveway for the previous dwelling on the 101 Lusk Ave. lot, which was on the north side of the lot Response to Mr. Larew Submission Larew Item 3F: "The City, with respect to the prior owner of 101 Lusk Avenue (Prestige Property), insisted that the owner either install a new sewer line to Lusk Avenue, or show proof that there existed a written Easement Agreement between 101 Lusk Avenue and neighbors to the north" Response: Because it was a proposed subdivision this is true. The prior owner was interested in pursuing a subdivision of the property which would have added an additional dwelling to the private sewer. Larew Item 4A: "The structure has no egress from the lower level" Response: This is not true. The dwelling has three paths of egress from the basement (two stairways and one egress window). Every bedroom and the basement have required egress (emergency escape and rescue openings) windows per the International Residential Code (I RC). Response to Mr. Larew Submission Larew Item 4C-D: "The Iowa City Code of Ordinances adopts certain internationally -recognized standards to assure fire safety... Amongst those standards is the requirement that for dead-end paved streets longer than 150 feet, such as Lusk Ave, there must be turn -around areas... " Reponse: See September 13, 2016 memorandum from the Fire Marshall. Response to Mr. Larew Submission Larew Item 51-1: "The City of Iowa City performed flow testing on August 22, 2015, after the Carlsons' Site Plan and Building Permit Application had been approved" Response: The hydrant testing was done at HBK's request. Results of the test are given only for one hydrant in the HBK report — the HBK report acknowledges there are two hydrants within 400 feet of the 101 Lusk Ave. property. It is Fire Department practice to pull from multiple hydrants to achieve desired water flow — in fact even in new development water flow is based on multiple hydrants, not single hydrants. Fire Engine Pumps can only pull 1,500 gallons per minute (GPM) from one hydrant — The Lusk Avenue hydrant produces 1,584 GPM per the HBK report. See September 13 memorandum from Fire Marshall. ara APPQ+&x 6 ale � >Ay L - -- S CAST 6CAU 8A$Lp�S7' ffL9Np c rant n m m J*ani AYfRIO�MRm0"WM7RW71d11'IN� LlOfINliMMVM � [PMM ICi MEllbM N e HHN Sic Km 024 8ffiIhll 1 02F r..wm,. Response to Mr. Larew Submission Larew Item 20: "The proposed driveway, now located on the north side of Lusk Avenue, runs right over and conflicts with the existing fire hyd ra nt." Response: If the hydrant conflicts with the driveway, the hydrant will be required to be moved to the south. This, as well as the water service into the dwelling, would be evaluated with a Water Tap Permit. This is not a part of Building Permit review. Larew Item 313: "... Every building shall have an independent connection with a public or private sewer" (Uniform Plumbing Code reference) Response: 101 Lusk Ave. does have an independent connection to a private sewer. Conclusion 1. The City did not misclassify the use. Staff determined the proposed structure is classified as a Single Family Dwelling, as it contains facilities `living, sleeping, cooking and eating meals' and it consists of a group of adjoining rooms forming a single unit with facilities used or intended to be used by one household. 2. Site plan. Construction of a single family structure is exempt from requirements in Title 18 Site Plan Review. 3. The City did not approve the building permit in error. The proposed dwelling was reviewed according to the International Residential Code (IRC), and staff is obligated to issue a building permit upon satisfaction of Zoning Code and IRC compliance. The structure meets Zoning Code dimensional standards and meets International Residential Code (IRC) standards. Conclusion 4. Staff has no authority to deny a building permit based on the architectural design of a structure for a property that is not part of a historic district or other overlay zone. 5. The structure contains private recreational uses (sport court, theater room) — private recreational uses are permitted accessory uses in residential zones. 6. The property owner has affirmed in three documents (the building permit application, an email, and in an Affidavit of Use) that the intent is to use the structure as a single family home. Tailgating is specifically defined as an informal social gathering and allowed in City Code without a permit. 7. Building size is regulated by lot size, setbacks, building coverage and building height. The Zoning Code does not regulate architectural style for single family homes (in standard residential zones) outside of dimensional standards in the Zoning Code. The proposed structure at 101 Lusk Ave. meets the required dimensional standards. 7'-10" T-4" T-4„ 20'-6" 4'-0" 4'-0" 20'-6" 7'-4" T-4" T-10" R.O. 2'-8" x S-0'/" R.O. 24' x 5'-0%" R.O. 2'-8" x 5'-0%" R.O. 24' x 5'-0%" R.O. 24' x 5'-0%" R.O. 2'-8" x 5'-0%" R.O. 24' x 5'-0%" R.O. 2'-8" x 5'-D%" R.O. 24' x 5'-0%" CX15 CX15 CX15 CX15 CX15 CX15 CX15 CX15 CX15 5'-4" SAFETY 6'-10Y" SOUTH WINDOWS AT K-6" HEADER HEIGHT SOUTH WINDOWS AT 8'-6" HEADER HEIGHT SAFETY GLAZING SOUTH WINDOW T �A ER HEIGH SAFETY N 12' 4'-6Y° a12,0„Shower GLAZING a IGLAZING 6,n Uni[ x Et O M m M DOWN G, � as" smk Base MASTER RADONPIPE 11 p BATHROOM w THROUGH w U' S.D. z w S.D. i m ® w 10'-2Y" w 4 O z R s D_ S.D. OTT ;n A LLLIc QUEEN srzE 96 Slnk Base 2 10/, BUILT-IN TWIN SIZE 4'-1 /" 24" Cn = af O o m TV BUNK BEDS WITH - - �' � ° 12 5 CENTER LAUNDRY m x 1-7 �� STAIRS BEDROOM a BEDROOM �I a'-6" ONE o x `° F36X80 TWO 11 m KID'S `as N -a BUNK o MASTER J ROOM as BEDROOM 36X80 36X80 36X80 - -L- - - 72 x 84 _ n MASTER as _ ° CLOSET M o S.D. S.D. 12'-6" CARBBON n CAR ON MONOXIDE MONOXIDE SAFETY GLAZING NORTH WINDOWS AT 9'-6" HEADER HEIGHT n m 1`6050 1`6050 1`6050 1`6050 R.O. 6-0%" x 5'-MO R.O. 6-0%" x 5'-MO R.O. 6-0%" x 5'-MO R.O. 6-0%" x 5'-MO 21'-6" I. 17'40" I. 17'40" I. 17'40" I. 21'-6" UPPER LEVEL PLAN WEST ELEVATION FINISHED SQ.FT. INFO 1,504 UPPER LEVEL 3,455 MAIN LEVEL 0 aC W z w— �a C7 E- UZ, ' 0 UU Nw LD< 0 oNo— �zono¢� ZWQV�zO Pmo Zow of Z K w H a E-= O Z ��Np Q C/) E- w Z K W w d Wl ou)oE-=w 5E-w E-z N U) Apo w< w ozDoUI >- W o 0 Q of of LL m'If z U]2�wo aOw > � ww Q U U E- Q ZUJ U) o DE J H w ZR:N a w E—W x Ow= zWOa0 }, W OZ 0a nE- xzQin W JZ a5— w m Z m O Q LO 3o 2CQ O WJ<a:D w W a Q U w N wKwU�UI �Z =o XO0a00 E- W w Jzwzu NORTH SCALE- 1/4"=1'-0" UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE DO NOT SCALE DRAWING call: 641-220-2626 PROJECT: 14057N 07/11/14 REVISIONS 08/01/14 01/25/16 09/24/14 02/10/16 11/03/14 03/07/16 03/05/15 03/10/16 10/15/15 03/26/16 11/11/15 04/04/16 11/17/15 05/02/16 11/27/15 06/23/16 12/05/15 12/07/15 O V J i L Co 0 U E C: 0 0 O co 2U� U 0 W co ^W ryNW � M t0 � � M M Nm� a M DRAWINGS AVAILABLE IN ELECTRONIC FORMAT BY E-MAILING REQUEST TO nidwesidesign0l @ouilook. coi CO m .n N �J CID (0 WM CD tu O M QD N W N N 6. VF UN� 'n N N V N A z ,,Q° c -o E m 3 m a U c E Lo cc Q Co 3 SHEET 1 OF 3 SOUTH ELEVATION 0 0 0 v Sias 0 M 0 0 0 N N 1 3'-6" 18'-0" 3'-6" 18'-0" 3'-6" 18'-0" 3'-6" 1 8'-0" 3'-6" 1 8'-0" 3'-6" x 8'-0" S-6" i 8'-0" S-6" i 8'-0" S-6" i 8'-0" I 7'-10" 1, 6'-6" 1, 6'-6" 1, 19'-8" 1. 6'-6" 1. 6'-6" 1. 19'-8" 1. 6'-6" 1. 6'-6" 1. 7'-10" MAIN LEVEL PLAN 0 Z aOzw)° w F-cn�aa CIO Now azoaoa� z WQU' .6 QaZLLZwUN K w H¢~ S Z Z U p Q n Q w>H W HZN(n p Z j w K C S } W Do � E D ❑¢O w�Z}W W O U V U Q Z N = J H W Q Z Q U r U W Be Q— U W zwaaU<LLF- wozo¢aEf�zm < —<womz u�mowcn�SO —0 Z} U p Z-j Z~ ¢mzpUaO=) - W WC) J U LL, — N u w Q a U W KaUF- W w u) Z EEoxcomoO NORTH SCALE- 1/4"=1'-0" UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE DO NOT SCALE DRAWING call: 641-220-2626 PROJECT: 14057N START DATE 07/11/14 REVISIONS 08/01/14 01/25/16 09/24/14 02/10/16 11/03/14 03/07/16 03/05/15 03/10/16 10/15/15 03/26/16 11/11/15 04/04/16 11/17/15 05/02/16 11/27/15 06/23/16 12/05/15 12/07/15 0 V / i Co 0U a) E C: o co _C,10 �: -a a) m Z�o a) a) ry r � M N C L S � r amp r M %% . o DRAWINGS AVAILABLE IN ELECTRONIC FORMAT BY E-MAILING REQUEST TO midwe ,design0l a(lou,lookco T U2 •n N V 4' (6 W° WoED� N � N N Vf UNEj 9 'n N z°m qE Do m Cn SHEET 2 OF 3 A21 F NOT LESS THAN 36" IN HEIGHT WITH PATTERN / SPACING SUCH THAT A SPHERE 4" IN DIA. CANNOTPASSTHROUGH 1 ALL HANDRAILS SHALL BE CONTINUOUS THE FULL LENGTH OF THE STAIRS. HANDGRIP PORTION OF ALL HANDRAILS SHALL NOT BE LESS THAN 1-1/4" NOR MORE THAN 2" IN CROSS SECTIONAL DIMENSION, OR THE SHAPE SHALL PROVIDE AN EQUIVALENT GRIPPING SURFACE 94'-0" 0 zm of c0 z m 0 w �W(DDaa rUjZ ujO wz= ago¢ zwaO.szw QQ Z¢ LL Zo� O K w ¢ LL S z Z O imp <WE,Q F-CIZ �w O- m J O w 0 --S w �QUw Qmw yIf KOF- F-¢�LL C¢OwZYY0f w0 G) L) zw ❑ SJF-EDU¢� LLI w2Q UE C --wfafZ Of QLLS woz0¢UE-Y K�ZzCIE JZ Z m w w Z J m O Y U p J 2 ¢mZOU¢OL) a w w U V a of SO w W Q¢ U w w w G'LLUF-LU Z -- U- W� Z m z UU y NORTH SCALE- 1/4"=V-0.. UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE DO NOT SCALE DRAWING call: 641-220-2626 PROJECT:14057N 07/11 /14 REVISIONS 08/01/14 01/25/16 09/24/14 02/10/16 11/03/14 03/07/16 03/05/15 03/10/16 10/15/15 03/26/16 11/11/15 04/04/16 11/17/15 05/02/16 11/27/15 06/23/16 12/05/15 12/07/15 L. 0 LL a) E 0 2 W Z ^W) ry r � M N Q L r S � amp r M DRAWINGS AVAILABLE IN ELECTRONIC FORMAT BY E-MAILING REQUEST TO Z� 'tt N V `n N WoW N y � N � 'tt N Z � � a 0 1� u- U c m E 3 Q LO 3 SHEET 3 OF 3 w 12' TALL POURED WALLS