HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-02-07 Bd Comm minutesNovember 17, 2016
Page 1
MINUTES
IOWA CITY AIRPORT COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 17, 2016 — 6:00 P.M.
AIRPORT TERMINAL BUILDING
Members Present:
Members Absent:
Staff Present:
Others Present:
None.
FINAL
Julie Bockenstedt, Minnetta Gardinier, A. Jacob Odgaard, Chris Ogren
Robert Libby
Michael Tharp, Sue Dulek
Matt Wolford, Todd Allyn
DETERMINE QUORUM:
The meeting was called to order at 6:03 P.M. by Chairperson Odgaard.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
The minutes from the October 20 meeting were reviewed. Ogren moved to accept the
minutes of the October 20, 2016, meeting as presented. Gardinier seconded the motion.
The motion carried 4-0, Libby absent.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION:
None.
02�7'f'l�
4b(l)
a. Airport Master Plan — Odgaard noted that earlier in the week Tharp, along with
the Airport Commission, gave an update to the City Council on the Master Plan.
Tharp stated that he is asking the Commission to defer accepting the Master
Plan until next month's meeting. He will then be able to complete all of the
documentation required by the FAA.
I. Consider a resolution accepting work as complete — Ogren moved to
defer acceptance of the Master Plan until the December meeting.
Bockenstedt seconded the motion. The motion carried 4-0, Libby
absent.
b. FAA/IDOT Projects: AECOM / David Hughes -
i. Obstruction Mitigation — Tharp noted that Todd Allyn is present this
evening from AECOM. Tharp continued, stating that they are moving
November 17, 2016
Page z
forward with the paperwork to get the environmental assessment
underway. He is not sure if they will have something for the next meeting
or not on this. Tharp then responded to Member questions regarding this
process.
ii. South Taxiway Extension — Tharp stated that they are in the process of
getting a final survey crew out to the Airport so that they can get the
bidding process going. They hope to be ready for construction in the
spring.
iii. North T -Hanger Restroom — Tharp stated that they have spoken with
the City building inspectors, as well as architects, and they believe that
now they have a better idea on the variance issue. He anticipates having
news on this at next month's meeting.
iv. FY2018 FAA AIP Pre -Application — Tharp noted that the package was
sent to the FAA for comments and that they have responded. Basically
the EA can be done this fiscal year, which shifts everything forward a
year. Tharp stated that if the Commission is in agreement, the
Chairperson can then go ahead and sign the individual project sheets that
are part of this application.
C. Airport "Operations"
L Strategic Plan -Implementation —
1. Aircraft Traffic Count Collection - Tharp spoke to this item,
noting that the topic of aircraft traffic count that they discussed last
month led to a meeting between Jet Air and himself to see what
information is being collected. The only way to catch all of the
traffic would be visually, according to Tharp. He noted that doing
something with cameras would probably be the best way to go
about this. Ogren asked for some clarification on what an
'acoustical system' is. Tharp responded, noting that it looks like a
giant bucket, where sounds are directed into a meter. Members
briefly discussed this issue, with Tharp giving further explanation
as to which tracking system would be best for them. Tharp
suggested a subcommittee, consisting of himself and Odgaard
and anyone else interested, so that they can move forward on the
best method for them to collect this information.
2. 2018 — 100 -year anniversary committee — Tharp then spoke to
the 100 -year anniversary planning and the need for a
subcommittee to do this. He added that after meeting with the
City Manager on this item, the budgeted amount was cut from
$10,000 to $5,000. He noted that there will be the opportunity to
raise money through sponsorships and that type of thing, in order
to have enough money for this celebration. Odgaard agreed that
they should move forward with this planning. Gardinier stated that
she would be happy to work on this, as did Ogren. The discussion
then turned to the possibility of naming the Airport and how that
might take place.
ii. Budget —
1 . FY2018 Budget Submittal — Tharp stated that he and Odgaard
met with both the City Manager and the Finance Director at the
beginning of November. They reviewed the budget at that time
and Tharp added that he felt the meeting went well. Tharp stated
November 17, 2016
Page 3
that the Airport will still be receiving the grant matching allocation,
as they have in the past.
iii. Management — None.
d. FBO / Flight Training Reports —
i. Jet Air — Matt Wolford with Jet Air shared the monthly maintenance
reports with Members. He stated that he was reading earlier today about
the history of the Iowa City Airport and that the name was Smith Field in
1920. Smith was an air mail pilot who crashed his plane and died.
Reviewing the monthly reports, Wolford stated that they were able to get
some painting done in the terminal building and that he has had good
feedback regarding this. Other maintenance items were light bulb
replacement, trash pickup, and mowing. Gardinier then spoke to Wolford
regarding paving and patch work, suggesting that they lay down some
pavement to help with the ruts that are happening. Continuing, Wolford
noted that the switch on the UNICOM radio had to be repaired recently.
Speaking to Jet Air's business, Wolford stated that they just got their
building permit today for the new hangar. Trenches and footings should
be done next week, according to Wolford. He then stated that since the
last meeting, Jet Air attended the NBAA, the National Business Aviation
Association's convention, where they were able to have a booth. Wolford
stated that the recent Michigan game against the University of Iowa
brought a lot of air traffic to the Airport.
e. Commission Members' Reports — Odgaard asked if there was any information
that Todd Allyn with AECOM would like to share with the Commission. Allyn
spoke briefly to the restroom facility and what the inspectors are looking for.
Ogren stated that she thought the City Council meeting was interesting.
Gardinier stated that the opener on her hangar door is much quieter now and she
asked what was done to it. Tharp stated that some things were tightened on it,
but other than that he is not sure. He will check into this further. She then asked
about the tree that was cut down, and Tharp noted that the tree was indeed
dead. Ogren then suggested that when attendance is done for the meeting
minutes that Tharp distinguish between excused and unexcused absences.
Staff report — Tharp stated that he will be taking vacation time between
Christmas and New Year's.
SET NEXT REGULAR MEETING FOR:
The next regular meeting of the Airport Commission will be held on Thursday, December 15,
2016, at 6:00 P.M. in the Airport Terminal Building.
ADJOURN:
Gardinier moved to adjourn the meeting at 7:02 P.M. Ogren seconded the motion. The
motion carried 4-0, Libby absent.
November 17, 2016
Page a
CHAIRPERSON
DATE
November 17, 2016
Page 5
Airport Commission
ATTENDANCE RECORD
2016
Key:
X = Present
X/E = Present for Part of Meeting
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
NM = Not a Member at this time
TERM
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NAME
EXP.
-`
!;
m
m
cn
w
cn
o
Q)
Of
Q)
CD
01
01
Ot
Oi
01
W
01
Q1
W
Minnetta
03101/
X
X
X
X
X
X
0/
X
X
X
X
X
x
Gardinier
19
E
Jose
03/01/
X
O/E
X
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Assouline
16
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
Chris Ogren
03101/
X
X
X
X
X
0/
X
X
X
0/
X
X
X
18
E
E
A.Jacob
031011
X
X
X
X
X
0/
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Odgaard
18
E
Julie
03101/
X
X
X
X
0/
X
X
X
0/
X
0/
X
X
Bockenstedt
17
E
E
E
Robert Libby
03/211
N
NM
NM
N
X
X
X
X
0/
X
X
0
0
20
M
M
E
Key:
X = Present
X/E = Present for Part of Meeting
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
NM = Not a Member at this time
Board of Adjustment 9-14-16
MTrdT-iT
APPED4b(2)
MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
SEPTEMBER 14, 2016 5:15 p.m. to 11:30 p.m.
EMMA HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL
IOWA CITY. IOWA
Members present: Larry Baker, Gene Chrischilles, Connie
Goeb, Becky Soglin, Tim Weitzel
Members absent:
Staff present: Doug Boothroy, Susan Dulek, Brian
Greer, Jason Havel, Tim Hennes, Sarah
Walz, John Yapp
Others present: Mark Parmenter, James Larew, Brian
Boelk, Dennis Befeler, Jiyun Park,
Bill Ackerman, Chris Rossi, Craig
Syrop
The following is a transcript of the meeting held
at the above date, time, and place and was transcribed
from the digital audio recording made at such time.
Julie M. Kluber, CSR, RMR
3515 Lochwood Drive NE
Cedar Rapids, IA 52402
319-286-1717
866-412-4766
Page 1 to 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CHAIRMAN BAKER: I'd like to call this me
September the 14th to order, please. First orde
business is roll call.
MS. WALZ: Chrischllles.
MR. CHRISCHILLES: Here,
MS. WALZ: Soglin.
MS. SOGLIN: Here.
MS. WALZ: Baker.
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Here.
MS. WALZ: Weitzel.
MR. WEITZEL: Here.
MS. WALZ: Goeb.
MS. GOEB: Here.
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Next order of the age
consideration of the minutes of August the 10th.
MS. WALZ: I just have — there are a few mi
typos. I could just hand those to you. Other tha
that —
MR. WEITZEL: I have a question for Gene.
3, line 2, is that your question? Because I don't
believe it was mine.
MR. CHRISCHILLES: Page 3, line 2. Yes,
it was.
MR. WEITZEL:
21 affirma
22 Th
I believe 23 somet
24 know.
25 and zo
3
MS. WALZ: Do you have a motion to approve?
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Motion to approve?
MR. WEITZEL: So moved.
MS. SOGLIN: Second.
MS. WALZ: Moved by Weitzel, second by Soglin.
CHAIRMAN BAKER: All those in favor say "aye:'
(A vote was taken and the motion passed.)
CHAIRMAN BAKER: The minutes are adopted. Now,
before we proceed to the first item on the agenda, I'm
going to make a statement about the role of the Board of
Adjustment. The Board of Adjustment is a quasi-judicial
body created by the City of Iowa City according to state
statutes. The board's purpose is to decide on
applications for variances from the zoning ordinance,
appeals of decisions of city officials, and applications
for special exceptions requested under the zoning
ordinance.
As one of Iowa City's boards and commissions, we
welcome all testimony. We base our decisions on facts
and evidence allowed by city code presented In open
meeting. Concise and truthful testimony helps us a
great deal in our decision-making.
As this hearing becomes lengthy, we may ask that
testimony be focused on new facts or on information not
already presented. We ask that If you wish to speak
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
4
u come to the podium, print your name and address
sign -in sheet, and speak clearly Into the
hone so your testimony can be heard by all present
our minute taker, as all testimony becomes part
public record. We ask that the proceedings be
and that when you are testifying, you address
marks to the board.
e Board of Adjustment is an independent volunteer
made up of citizens and is not part of the city
stratlon. We are assisted in our work by the city
y's office and planning department staff. The
of proceedings for each application will be an
port by staff summarizing the issues of the case
ffs recommendation and that opportunity for the
ant to speak, an opportunity for any other
ted parties to speak for or against the
tion, an opportunity for final statements and
ants by the application staff. The board will
the issues and evidence, state its findings, and
a motion. Motions are always made In the
live.
at is the required statement, but let me put
hing else out that I think many of you already
Unlike the city council and unlike the planning
ning commission, the Board of Adjustment has no
5
planning or prep meeting before this meeting. This Is
the first time we are going to talk about this. We did
not talk to each other privately. We have not talked to
the staff privately. Everything that affects our
decision will be presented and discussed at this meeting
tonight. So I just wanted to let you know because of
that, we tend to ask a lot of questions to gather as
much Information as possible because this is the only
opportunity we have. So with that, let me Introduce the
first item on the agenda.
MS. GOER: Mr. Chairperson?
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Yes, ma'am.
MS. GOER: I would — I need to be recused from
this item. I have already expressed my opinion on this
Issue in a letter to the city council in June back when
it first came up, so I need to be recused.
CHAIRMAN BAKER: All right. Thank you very much,
Connie. I understand.
Now, the appeal item: Appeal 167-00001, discussion
of an appeal by decision of the 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
Page 2 to 5
Board of Adjustment 9.14-16
2
1 that yo
eling of 2 on the
r of 3 microp
4 and by
5 of the
6 orderly
7 yourfe
8 Th
9 board
30 admini
11 attome
12 order
13 oral re
14 and sto
nda is the 15 applic
16 interes
nor 17 applica
n 18 argum
19 discuss
On page 20 vote on
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
errors. Now, before we start, I'd like to have the
attorney introduce himself.
MR. PARMENTER: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mark Parmenter. I've been engaged to represent
Board of Adjustment, and as our chair has said, t
Board of Adjustment is an independent body of t
of Iowa City, so I'm not here on behalf of the City
Iowa City. I'm not here on behalf of the proponen
I'm not here on behalf of the opponents. I'm here
solely to represent the Board of Adjustment. I've
offered any opinions in this matter, and I will not
offering any opinions in this matter: My role is to
ensure that these proceedings are fair to all, both
proponents and opponents, and that the Board of
Adjustment understands what authority and what
that it has to ad in this matter, and with that, than
you, Chair.
CHAIRMAN BAKER: And with that, before w
staff report, let me ask a couple questions on beh
the board. Understand we have very narrow para
which to base a decision, but those don't restrict
from asking any question that we want regarding
issue. We can range as far as we want to.
MR. PARMENTER: That's right, Mr. Chair. I
vou're here to hear all of the facts, all of the
evidence that's going to be presented by all of the
parties. The Iowa City Code does restrict what th
Board of Adjustment can and cannot dc, and I'm
from the code here: Permits the board to reverse
modify the decisions made by the NDS only upon
of error. If the board finds an error was made by
NDS, it has the power to reverse or modify in who
In part any of the issues that are presented here f
the board to decide.
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Okay. We got some g
originally with this report that were superseded by
other guidelines. Can you explain the difference i
those two sets of guidelines?
MR. PARMENTER: Yeah, the other guideline
were presented really don't apply for the purposes
your role in this decision on an appeal. I've given
you In letter, which I believe you all received both
letter and a memorandum from me, what the appli
code section and law is or authority both under to
and the Iowa City Code for you to reference and u
making your decision in this matter.
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Okay. And one last qu
before we start. Throughout the staff report, there
a position taken on several of the Issues that the,
then they'll name the issue, is not regulated by th
Board or Adjustment 9-14-16
6
1 zoning
2 appeal
My name is 3 issues
the 4 positio
he 5 not in t
he City 6 M
of 7
is. 8 Code
9 end of
not 10 error.
be 11 C
12 fact or
City 13 M
14 both, b
power 15 There'
k 16 presen
17 planni
e get the 18 meetin
alf of 19 and so
meters in 20 that m
us 21 should
this 22 decisio
23 C
n fact, 24 think u
25 M
7
1 Boothr
e 2 Depa
reading 3 Before
or 4 which
a finding 5 not. S
the 6 first on
le or 7 refers t
or 8 let's Be
9 Th
uidelines 10 Brian
11 think it'
n 12 letter
13 issue
s that 14 flow, at
of 15 fire dep
to 16 Let
a 17 memor
cable 18 service
we law 19 he will
se in 20 some o
21 I'll let y
estion 22 this stu
Is 23 M
and 24 M
e 25 that?
8
code, and therefore not something that can be
ed to the Board of Adjustment, which narrows the
down. Is that, In your opinion, a valid
n? And we are restricted by the fad that its
he zoning code.
R. PARMENTER: You are. You're restricted by what
powers
and authority you've been given under the Iowa
as well as the city code for Iowa City, and at the
the day, you first must find that there's an
HAIRMAN BAKER: Okay. And this is an error of
judgment?
R. PARMENTER: Well, it's an error of perhaps
ut you are here to listen to all of the facts.
s going to be probably some facts that are
ted to you tonight, like there is In a lot of
ng and zoning meetings, Board of Adjustment
gs, even city council meetings, that are relevant
me things that may not be as relevant, some things
ay not be relevant at all. But you as a board
listen to everything before you make your
n.
HAIRMAN BAKER: Great, thank you. With that, I
p first is the staff report.
R. BOOTHROY: Good evening. My name is Doug
9
oy, for the record. I'm the director of the
rtmant of Neighborhood and Development Services.
I start tonight, we have some memorandum, some of
will be testified to tonight, some of which will
So
I have copies, I think, for everybody. The
e is a memorandum from Eleanor Dilkes that
o improprieties possibly in her office, and
e here. There we ga. Hold this straight.
e second memorandum is from the fire marshal,
Greer, that essentially he'll testify to later. I
s front to back here, so — Essentially the
onfirms that the property in question Is not an
W
ith regard to fire protection, either access or
least in the opinion, expert opinion, of the
artment.
's see, what have we got here now. The next
andum is from the city engineer regarding sewer
site drainage, and storm water management, and
testify to the adequacy of sewer service and
f the other issues that were brought up. I think
yo
(inaudible). All right. I need to get
ff organized. I've got a lot of paper here.
R. CHRISCHILLES: I have a question.
R. BOOTHROY: The next — I'm sorry, who said
Page 6 to 9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
is
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. CHRISCHILLES: I did.
MR. BOOTHROY: Oh, I'm sorry.
MR. CHRISCHILLES: I'm just wondering, is t
considered adequate time to digest this material?
mean we're given three pieces of pertinent inform
MR. BOOTHROY: Well, some of this informa
came to us in — this is about expert information in
terms of defining what is fact and what is fiction, a
I think it's relevant to your review. If you need mor
time, you know, that's up to you in terms of how yo
make your decision, whether It's tonight or later.
MR. CHRISCHILLES: Yeah.
MR. BOOTHROY: My experience has been in
with the board in the past that sometimes it gets
deferred if there's a lot of information handed out.
CHAIRMAN BAKER: How much time has the
had to digest this information?
MR. BOOTHROY: Well, some of this I just go
afternoon.
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Okay. So they haven't
chance to review it either.
MR. BOOTHROY: They have not had a chan
relied on people to give me the information, so it to
awhile to get it. I just this afternoon, about an hour
aao, oot a memorandum from the citv attorney in
University Heights to clarify some of the
misunderstanding or misinformation presented by t
appellants concerning the denial of the application
University Heights.
Let me gel started by introducing the City staff
that were involved with the review of this building
permit application. Tonight I have with me from th
Department of Neighborhood and Development Se
Hennes, who is a senior building inspector. He ca
speak to any questions about the International
Residential Code. John Yapp, who is a developme
services coordinator, certainly can talk about zonin
there's some questions about that. Other staff that
here tonight are Roger Jensen, assistant fire chief;
Brian Greer, fire marshal, which is what the
correspondence is from. Jason Havel, who's the ci
engineer, is here. Sue Dulek, first assistant city
attorney, is here.
I introduce these individuals because they all h
extensive training and experience In dealing with so
of the issues that are discussed, some of which are
zoning issues. Some are more public Improvement
Issues, and they have that expertise that I think is
important for the board to hear. We have — You
we spent approximately six and a half weeks lookin
Board of Adjustment 9-14-16
10
1 all the
2 in any
his 3 permits
I 4 averag
ation. 5 they're
tion only 6 of whic
7 up tod
an 8 So
e 9 permit
u 30 two-sto
11 residen
12 intentio
working 13 helped
14 whethe
15 or whet
appellant 16 Interna
17 our du
t this 18 at eve
19 controv
had a 20 particul
21 Be
ce. But 1 22 of com
ok 23 an aIle
24 building
25 memor
11
1 difficult.
he 2 What I
in 3 anybod
4 1 can to
5 building
6 City of 1
e 7 determi
rvices Tim 8 a plan r
n 9 of the p
10 are met
nt 11 or anyb
g if 12 permit,
are 13 1 thi
14 obvious
15 another
ty 16 Walz, a
17 any con
18 with this
ave 19 thattyp
me 20 discuss(
not 21 been a
type 22 part of t
23 Just
know, 24 Mr. Ball
g at 25 like to g
12
various issues. This was not a rush to judgment
stretch of the imagination. Single-family type
of this nature are issued three to four days on
e, sometimes shorter periods of time because
not complicated. They don't have issues, much
h — some of the issues which are being brought
ay.
in arriving at my decision with regard to the
and the use as a detached single-family,
ry unit that is designed to function as a
Val use designed to live in and based on the
ns expressed by the applicant, these Individuals
me work through all the sections of the code,
r it be zoning code or whether it be public works
her it be other — the fire code or the
tional Residential Code, to make sure that we did
e diligence; make sure that, you know, we looked
rything because we knew that there was concern and
ersy related to the architectural design of this
ar building.
fore I get started, I also want to make mention
ments made by the appellants' attcmey concerning
gad conflict of interest on the part of one of my
inspectors. I think that the Ballard
andum will clarify that for you, but it's
13
At this point you can't pull that back.
can tell you Is that — and you're welcome to ask
y here tonight that's part of the City team. What
tel
you is that Terry's job description is not a
official. I'm the building official for the
owa City. Terry's job is not to make
nations on use classification. Terry's job is as
eviewer. He only reviews the technical details
Ian and the site plan, and once those details
and the use classification is confirmed, then he
ody else in my office can Issue the building
and that's what happened.
nk the other thing that was — may not be
to the public is there was some comments about
staff member of mine that's here tonight, Sarah
nd I will tell you that Sarah and I have not had
versation about anything that's been going on
meeting. We basically have avoided having
e of interaction. She was not involved with any
on on the use classification, nor would it have
ppropriate for her since she doesn't work in that
he division.
so -- Let me also, I think, read briefly from
ard's memorandum, because I think — I think I'd
at that into the record because he's not here
Page 10 to 13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Board of Adjustment 944-18
14 1
to do it himself. On page 2 just — he says the
decision — This is about the denial of the permit for
the structure. "The decision was not based on the
character of the proposed structure or compliance" --
MS. WALZ: I'm sorry, can you just -- which
document are you on?
MR. BOOTHROY: This is Mr. Ballard's document from
the city attorney.
MS. WALZ: Okay, that says -- okay, thank you.
MR. BOOTHROY: Second page. Down in the -- I'd
call it the second paragraph, the second sentence.
Again,'The decision was not based upon the character of
the proposed structure or the compliance with the zoning
code." He goes on at the end of the paragraph to say,
"The University Heights" — city council is what he's
referring to — "in a 2015 decision was not based on the
conclusion," and this is important, "that the proposed
structure appeared to show a commercial recreational use
that was prohibited in the R-1 zone, Rather, the
decision was based only upon the failure to show
compliance with site plan restrictions, specifically
sensitive slopes," and he's attached the minutes to his
memorandum.
I think I -- it's important to note that because
throughout the appellants' brief, they imply that the
15
city attorney made some ruling on whether or not this
was a proposed commercial recreational use, and I think
he clarifies for the record that that was never pursued.
It all came down to a sensitive areas issue, and that's
how it was denied. In this situation, of course, we
don't have a sensitive areas Issue that's pending on
this particular development.
So I'd like to get Into the presentation now. As
you noted, Mr. Chairman, in the staffs report, I
clearly tried to identify areas that were zoning and
areas that were not zoning. As you probably know, I
felt that was Important because not everybody
understands the distinction and the role, and zoning
code as drafted paraphrases or pretty much quotes the
state code In terms of what the board's power — powers
are, and we elaborated a little bit more when we drafted
that language, and it was intended to provide the
clearest direction with regard to your review authority,
and that is with the zoning code.
However, that being said — and you noticed that I
addressed a lot of the other issues in my report. That
being said, there was information provided In the
appellants' brief that needs clarification that is
misinterpreted or misrepresented, and unfortunately,
when that happens and its circulated amongst the
16
1 public, there's maybe — may believe that there are
2 violations or problems where none exist, and so I want
3 to make sure that with the testimony of our staff as
4 well as what 1 say tonight that we clarity some of those
5 issues. Being left-handed, I have to find the mouse
6 here for a minute.
7 So similar to the staff report that you received,
8 I'm going to follow this outline of the chronology, some
9 of the determinations, the zoning code review, and the
10 response to the appeal. Now, I'm going to go through
11 this in detail, because this is going to get litigated.
12 This is just, in my opinion, the first step in a long
13 process, and so I think its important that we clearly
14 understand what the definitions are, clearly understand
15 what some of these zoning code requirements are so that
16 you have the benefit of asking me any questions as I go
17 through some of the information that I provided in the
18 staff report. So I know that it may feel tedious, but 1
19 think we have to establish, and I do want to establish,
20 a record upon which whatever decision you make can be
21 defended.
22 So let's talk about the current situation so that
23 we know where we are to date. A building permit was
24 Issued for a two-story, single-family, detached dwelling
25 to be located on a vacant existing lot at the address of
17
1 101 Lusk Avenue on an existing public street. Existing
2 lot of record and existing public street are important
3 things to keep In mind because we have infill lots all
4 over this community and older parts of the community,
5 and some of the situations that we're talking about here
6 also apply in those areas, and historically we have
7 always issued and recognized existing lots of record and
8 we'll talk about that. This would be a significant
9 change in the way the ordinances have been applied, at
10 least in my 41 years with the City.
11 The intended use is a single-family residence. The
12 building permit applications — application was for a
13 two-story home, and we have information from the
14 property owners that state their intent as a second
15 home. And to follow up on that, and this was not part
16 of the use classification process, I requested that they
17 sign an affidavit of use for the purpose of putting
18 future property owners on notice in case there's any
19 misunderstanding that this property can be used as a
20 commercial use.
21 What's Interesting about this discussion tonight Is
22 that we don't disagree with the neighbors on this.
23 We — The zoning code does not allow a commercial venue
24 at this location. It is not debatable, it is not
25 listed, it cannot happen. We are debating whether or
Page 14 to 17
Board of Adjustment 9-14-16
18 1
1 not the house is attractive for someone to possibly use
2 it that way, but the house -- the building permit was
3 issued for a single-family structure, and it clearly
4 through the records indicates that it cannot be used —
5 cannot ever be used as a commercial operation. That's
6 important for a couple reasons.
7 Number one Is I want a good record so that If this
8 comes up as an issue at some point in the future, when
9 we go to court to litigate this, we will have good
10 documentation about the City's processes, and of course
11 with the board's meeting tonight, we have even further
12 documentation tonight that's going to be given by the
13 owner that they have no other intention to use this
14 except as a dwelling for their family and for
15 recreational uses that are permitted in every zone. We
16 do not tell people that they cannot have informal social
17 gatherings and, in fact, we allow tailgating as an
18 informal social gathering in every neighborhood and
19 specifically as a noncommercial event, and I'll talk
20 more about that since I have a long history in dealing
21 with that particular Issue and -- and drafting that
22 definition.
23 The appeal came in and we issued a stop work order
24 on June 29th, 2016, and finally we're at the hearing to
25 consider it. A little bit about the chronology. I
19
1 just — I won't go through it in detail because anybody
2 can read this, but I think it's important. I always
3 want to reinforce that -- that we have an electronic
4 system, and so when the application comes in, we can't
5 upload the plans until they pay, so on April 11th,
6 that's when we received the plans and as you notice,
7 about six and a half weeks later, we finished our
8 exhaustive review and it wasn't, as I said, me and just
9 me. It included everybody In terms of talking about
10 some of the issues that we're going to talk about
11 tonight.
12 Mr. Larew in his most recent document asserts, and
13 1 quote, "flaws so numerous and so fundamental that to
14 allow its construction," and we're talking about this
15 house, "would likely pose adverse effects upon the
16 health, welfare, and safety of others." I'm going to
17 demonstrate tonight in the things that I talk about and
18 the testimony from the fire department and the city
19 engineer's staff that these are a misunderstanding or a
20 misrepresentation of what the code actually says or how
21 it's applied.
22 Number one, this is a zoning issue, and we do need
23 to focus on that because that's clearly where your
24 authority Is, and if I made an error, this Is the time
25 to find it. Number two, the site plan approval through
20
1 the chapter -- or Section 18 is not applicable. This
2 deafly says that single-family and two-family dwellings
3 are exempt, and then if you read the minor site plan
4 exemption, that's also exempt. I wrote that language to
5 make sure that -- at the direction of planning and
6 zoning and the city council some 20 years ago that
7 single-family and two-family dwellings would never go
8 through the site plan review process because of the
9 costs that it would impose and the onerousness of the
10 process. There is no doubt of the intent of that
11 particular part of the regulation, and I am the author
12 of it and I'm here to testify if you have any questions
13 about that.
14 MR. CHRISCHILLES: I have a question.
15 MR. BOOTHROY: Okay.
16 MR. CHRISCHILLES: So the site plan review Is an
17 Iowa City creation, and it doesn't — it didn't apply in
18 University Heights In order to —
19 MR. BOOTHROY: I don't -
20 MR. CHRISCHILLES: -- use it and Iowa City does
21 not?
22 MR. BOOTHROY: Well, I can give you the whole
23 history. It took me a year to work with planning and
24 zoning and the city council on it, but basically what --
25 we had a large-scale nonresidential/residential
21
1 development review process some 20 years ago, and this
2 was getting at large developments and so in order to
3 streamline the process, I rewrote the -- eliminated
4 those two chapters — sections out of the code and
5 replaced it with a site plan review process which is
6 unique to Iowa City.
7 MR. CHRISCHILLES: Thus, making it not required for
8 single-family homes.
9 MR. BOOTHROY: And thus making it not required for
10 single-family homes.
11 MR. CHRISCHILLES: But it is required in University
12 Heights.
13 MR. BOOTHROY: I don't know. I wrote this 20 years
14 ago. I have no idea what they require today so —
15 MR. CHRISCHILLES: Okay.
16 MR. BOOTHROY: Talk about the Uniform Plumbing
17 Code. It does talk about independent connection with
18 public or private sewer. We will show that the City
19 approved the six-inch private sewer main which the three
20 houses have service lines attached to in 1927. We have
21 the sewer permit. This is not unusual in the community.
22 We have other places—just a half a block north on
23 Jefferson Street, we have several rooming houses,
24 multifamily buildings on a private sewer much like this
25 one, so we don't — we do recognize these permissions,
Page 18 to 21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Board of Adjustment 9-14-16
22 1
and Jason will get more in detail on that.
The fire department access, the 20 -foot -wide street
will be in discussion. The fire department will talk
more about that later. 1 would just say that this fall
with the Prairie Hills development, at the city council
the co -housing development received rave reviews on the
design of its infrastructure. Thirty-five housing units
and a social gathering hall on a 20 -foot -wide street
much longer and with much higher density of housing. So
we're still allowing this kind of access, and it passed
the fire department's review at that time and It passes
the fire department review at this time. There are many
more streets like this in the Peninsula. There are some
that have been allowed as well and even narrower than 20
feet.
Fire protection water Flow. The fire department
will testify tonight that there is adequate water flow
from the existing hydrants and will talk more about
that. The fire department's practice is to pull water
from multiple hydrants. The fire apparatus can only
pull about 1500 gallons per minute. The hydrant was
actually higher than that at 1565. So when we create
our new developments or existing developments, you'll
notice that there are five hydrants that are supposed to
be spaced every 400 feet.
23
Recently when we annexed area north of St. Pat's
and we approved subdivisions of 183 lots, some with
multifamily units on it, none of those fire hydrants
made the 1500 gmp and, in fact, they were around 870 to
900 per unit, so we designed that with the — with the
understanding that adequate fire protection Is provided
through this system of networked fire hydrants. That's
our common practice. It's common in other areas of the
community, and even the street next to Lusk Avenue would
not have fire flows meeting the standards suggested by
the applicant. Basically, it's not an issue.
So this Is what we have determined and this is what
I'm going to show as I go through this. First, we
didn't misclassity the use. We believe it's
appropriately classified as a single-family dwelling,
and we believe -- and we'll talk about that. It has --
It's designed to be lived in. It's got five bedrooms.
It's got a kitchen. It's got a family room. It's got a
living room. It's got recreational areas in it. It
meets the definition of dwelling. It is reviewed under
the International Residential Code, so it complies with
that code, it complies with the definition of being a
habitable structure. It's difficult to argue that it
can't be used for occupancy.
We did not approve the site plan in error because
24
1 Title 18 doesn't apply. We did not issue the building
2 permit in error. It does comply with the -- with what 1
3 just talked about. In the zoning code, we do list the
4 category private accessory uses are permitted.
5 Actually, I should say private recreational uses are
6 permitted, and —whoops, went too far — the zoning
7 code, and it's important to remember this particular
8 neighborhood does not regulate architectural style in
9 this particular zone. We don't regulate size, we don't
10 regulate style, we don't regulate number of bedrooms, we
11 don't regulate whether or not you want a home theater, a
12 wet bar, a wine -- a wine area or the type of appliances
13 you put in your house. Those are things that if you can
14 afford them, you can, provide them.
15 So let's look at where we're at. As you see on the
16 map, it's located — the lot in question is located at
17 the end of Lusk Avenue. There was in this picture an
18 existing house that has now since been removed, and
19 the — to the south you'll see the railroad tracks.
20 Farther across the highway is the VA Hospital. To the
21 north is another 20 -foot -wide street with five or six
22 houses on it called Rowland Court, and Bayard intersects
23 with Lexington and Woolf at some point. Here's a —
24 here's a -- I pulled back a little bit and you can see
25 kind of how it fits with Woolf Avenue, Bayard,
25
1 Lexington, Hutchinson, so forth. This just shows you
2 that the building is basically a square building and how
3 it fits on the lot, and it — it meets the setback
4 requirements. The dotted or dashed line is the minimum
5 setback requirement, so its — on the north to the top
6 of the picture is a five foot, to the south is five
7 foot, back is 20, and the front yard Is 15.
8 1 wanted to walk you through this a little bit just
9 so that we all get a chance to see. You're probably
10 going to see this more than once tonight, so my pictures
11 probably aren't going to be as nice as some of the
12 others. What I want to start with is the elevations.
13 This is really -- Let's take a look at this. Let's see
14 if I can point to this with a -- this particular one
15 right here, this drawing here, this is what its going
16 to look like from the street. The lot is relatively
17 level. It slopes to the southeast The east, north,
18 and west side of the building will be primarily below
19 grade so when you're looking at -- for some reason my
20 mouse isn't running here.
21 If you're looking at this, this will be -- a lot of
22 this will be below grade. This is where the garages
23 are, this is where the driveway is going to be, this
24 will be below grade. And so it will appear to be a -- a
25 one-story house with a two-story portion at the -- at
Page 22 to 25
Board of Adjustment
9-14-16
28
years -- quite a few years ago now to require every
basement that is — or cellar that's built to have an
egress window because we were finding that people were
remodeling their basements and didn't have exiting, and
so we put that in as an additional requirement, and I
think that's still a local amendment, if I'm not
correct. Tim, I'm sure if you correct me.
So let's take a look at the zoning review factors
now and — and walk through this. When we look at
something that comes in, and I can again go through this
fairly quickly, you know, they're asking to build a
two-story home and is it in the proper zone, and we
checked -- and we checked that off and the answer is
yes, it's in an RS -5 zone. Are there any overlay zones
that are gcing to impact? Is there any historic zones?
Are there any floodplain zones?
Those are the type of things that come into play
frequently, and no, there aren't. Is it a listed,
permitted use, and you go to this table that shows that
detached single-family dwellings are, in fact, a listed
use. And then we look at the residential use section in
the use classification section. There's a section that
you go to the zoning code that says residential
description or residential use, and under that they get
into -- am I in the wrong part? I think maybe I am.
29
This isn't the definition section, I'm sorry. I
should be reading what I've got here. So we looked at
the definition section, and the definition of dwelling
unit is any habitable room or group of adjoining
habitable rooms used or intended to be used by one
household for living, sleeping, cooking, and eating of
meals. And it's important to look at the definitions
because when you do zoning enforcement, you always have
to check definitions because in the zoning code, terms
of art are used, and so what may be common to the
general public may be further defined or qualified by
definition In the zoning code.
Give you an example. Most people are thinking the
lower level's a basement but under the zoning code, It's
actually a cellar because it's completely below grade,
and so you get into those kinds of nuances that make it
confusing, so we have to look at these definitions so
that we make sure it — it fits and meets those
definitions as we go through looking at the use of the
property. And it is a detached single-family structure
in the sense that it's not attached to any other
dwelling.
Its this section that I thought I was dealing
with, which is there's also a description of what
residential use is in a different section of the code,
Page 26 to 29
26
1
the south end, so it's basically a two-story house with
1
2
the bulk of It, about 75 percent of the perimeter, being
2
3
one story.
3
4
What you'll notice on the second level, and this is
4
5
the second level right here that I've got my -- is the
5
6
bedroom area, and there are four bedrooms up there.
6
7
Pretty typical, with a laundry facility. Down on the
7
8
first floor, let me just take you through this. The
8
9
front door is where my cursor is in this area. It comes
9
10
into kind of an aidock area that's not very wide, and
10
11
one of the things that I'm sure draws attention to most
11
12
people is these bathrooms that — that you encounter
12
13
when you first walk through the door.
13
14
To the — If you're coming in to the right is a
14
15
family room, which has patio -type doors. I guess
15
16
they'll open Into the open courtyard. To the left is a
16
17
living area. In this area you have dining, you have a
17
18
kitchen with a countertop with some stools, with
18
19
other — you know, microwave, stuff like that in this
19
20
area. And over here you have another bedroom with a
20
21
bathroom an suite In this particular area just off -- in
21
22
the back of the house.
22
23
At the back of the house, then, is the three -car
23
24
garage and then there's also an exercise room. As 1
24
25
note here, this Is not floor space on this level. This
25
9-14-16
28
years -- quite a few years ago now to require every
basement that is — or cellar that's built to have an
egress window because we were finding that people were
remodeling their basements and didn't have exiting, and
so we put that in as an additional requirement, and I
think that's still a local amendment, if I'm not
correct. Tim, I'm sure if you correct me.
So let's take a look at the zoning review factors
now and — and walk through this. When we look at
something that comes in, and I can again go through this
fairly quickly, you know, they're asking to build a
two-story home and is it in the proper zone, and we
checked -- and we checked that off and the answer is
yes, it's in an RS -5 zone. Are there any overlay zones
that are gcing to impact? Is there any historic zones?
Are there any floodplain zones?
Those are the type of things that come into play
frequently, and no, there aren't. Is it a listed,
permitted use, and you go to this table that shows that
detached single-family dwellings are, in fact, a listed
use. And then we look at the residential use section in
the use classification section. There's a section that
you go to the zoning code that says residential
description or residential use, and under that they get
into -- am I in the wrong part? I think maybe I am.
29
This isn't the definition section, I'm sorry. I
should be reading what I've got here. So we looked at
the definition section, and the definition of dwelling
unit is any habitable room or group of adjoining
habitable rooms used or intended to be used by one
household for living, sleeping, cooking, and eating of
meals. And it's important to look at the definitions
because when you do zoning enforcement, you always have
to check definitions because in the zoning code, terms
of art are used, and so what may be common to the
general public may be further defined or qualified by
definition In the zoning code.
Give you an example. Most people are thinking the
lower level's a basement but under the zoning code, It's
actually a cellar because it's completely below grade,
and so you get into those kinds of nuances that make it
confusing, so we have to look at these definitions so
that we make sure it — it fits and meets those
definitions as we go through looking at the use of the
property. And it is a detached single-family structure
in the sense that it's not attached to any other
dwelling.
Its this section that I thought I was dealing
with, which is there's also a description of what
residential use is in a different section of the code,
Page 26 to 29
27
1
goes down to the basementicellar area. It's below
1
2
grade, and so in the family room you've got either glass
2
3
or a wall that you can observe what's happening below in
3
4
the court. This area also opens up, expands to allow —
4
5
there's an overhang here, and there are some appear to
5
6
be picnic like tables — they're not code required
6
7
things so we don't have detail an that — for outside
7
8
entertaining In this particular area.
8
9
1 also in the basement or cellar area, the -- the
9
10
area that is usable goes around an area that's filled
10
11
in, so this area right here, as you'll see, there are no
11
12
doors or anything that access it or this area. This
12
13
area is all backfilled and this is where upstairs the
13
14
court is. The courtyard is located here, a
14
15
slab -on -grade type of courtyard. This is where the
15
16
garage and the exercise room area is, and again, ifs
16
17
not accessible, its all filled in. And so in the
17
18
lowest level of the house, you've got a large storage
18
19
area, narrow but large storage area. You've got an exit
19
20
here. You've got a mechanical room here. Here you've
20
21
got a home theater, and over here we have a -- what
21
22
appears to be a basketball court.
22
23
And then we have another exit and then down here at
23
24
the bottom, we have another exit which would be a
24
25
window. We amended the -- our codes in Iowa City a few
25
9-14-16
28
years -- quite a few years ago now to require every
basement that is — or cellar that's built to have an
egress window because we were finding that people were
remodeling their basements and didn't have exiting, and
so we put that in as an additional requirement, and I
think that's still a local amendment, if I'm not
correct. Tim, I'm sure if you correct me.
So let's take a look at the zoning review factors
now and — and walk through this. When we look at
something that comes in, and I can again go through this
fairly quickly, you know, they're asking to build a
two-story home and is it in the proper zone, and we
checked -- and we checked that off and the answer is
yes, it's in an RS -5 zone. Are there any overlay zones
that are gcing to impact? Is there any historic zones?
Are there any floodplain zones?
Those are the type of things that come into play
frequently, and no, there aren't. Is it a listed,
permitted use, and you go to this table that shows that
detached single-family dwellings are, in fact, a listed
use. And then we look at the residential use section in
the use classification section. There's a section that
you go to the zoning code that says residential
description or residential use, and under that they get
into -- am I in the wrong part? I think maybe I am.
29
This isn't the definition section, I'm sorry. I
should be reading what I've got here. So we looked at
the definition section, and the definition of dwelling
unit is any habitable room or group of adjoining
habitable rooms used or intended to be used by one
household for living, sleeping, cooking, and eating of
meals. And it's important to look at the definitions
because when you do zoning enforcement, you always have
to check definitions because in the zoning code, terms
of art are used, and so what may be common to the
general public may be further defined or qualified by
definition In the zoning code.
Give you an example. Most people are thinking the
lower level's a basement but under the zoning code, It's
actually a cellar because it's completely below grade,
and so you get into those kinds of nuances that make it
confusing, so we have to look at these definitions so
that we make sure it — it fits and meets those
definitions as we go through looking at the use of the
property. And it is a detached single-family structure
in the sense that it's not attached to any other
dwelling.
Its this section that I thought I was dealing
with, which is there's also a description of what
residential use is in a different section of the code,
Page 26 to 29
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Board of Adjustment 9-14-16
30 1
and in this section it says that it's a residential
occupancy of a dwelling unit, which we just talked
about, by a single household. We're not talking about a
group household here, and it has its own definition.
Each dwelling unit then -- in this case, one dwelling
unit -- contains Its own facilities for living,
sleeping, cooking, and eating of meals, and you did see
that, in fact, it has all of those factors designed into
the building.
And with regard to single-family use, what makes it
a single-family use is two things: Number one, it's
occupied by a household; and number two, there's no more
than one principal dwelling unit on the lot. So this Is
a household. We use household in lieu of the definition
of family, so that's a little confusing as well. And
then under accessory uses, private recreational uses are
permitted and that's a separate category, and basically
that's in the code to allow and clear up any ambiguity
about things that we're talking about tonight in terms
of, you know, bars or theater rooms or things of that
nature.
So we concluded that the dwelling Is designed and
intended to be used for a single-family dwelling because
It has living, sleeping, cooking, eating facilities. It
does — It is open. It has a group of adjoining rooms.
31
We'll go back to that Floor plan In a minute, but
there's no way that you can divide off that — its not
designed to be divided up into a duplex or anything
else. It's designed to function as a unit, and thafs
important to remember. There are some private
recreational uses in here. The sport court, the theater
room. They are permitted as private accessory uses. We
have allowed those In other situations. This is not the
first home in Iowa City with a basketball court or sport
court, and we have not reclassified those houses as
something other than single-family because they have a
sport court, a wet bar, and/or a theater room.
And finally, the zoning code provides no limitation
on the number of bedrooms, baths — bathrooms, or square
footage outside of the dimensional requirements in the
zone. So as we go back to -- I wanted to point out
this is very open. This all opens up here. This opens,
it's got circulation throughout the area. It's not
divided with a party wall. It's going to function as
one unit.
So let's talk about the affidavit of use. First,
let me read through these points. The application
stated it was for a two-story home. The -- the
applicant submitted information indicating that he is —
it -- he wants to build a single-family dwelling, and we
32
1 knew that this particular architecture was
2 controversial. Been referred to as the Kinnick house.
3 We knew that it had been denied In University Heights
4 for — for sensitive areas and controversial there, and
5 so we wanted to make sure that we got it right, that we
6 left no code provision unturned, whether it be zoning or
7 whether it be fire code or any other code.
8 And once we came to the conclusion that we felt
9 that we had it correct, tailgating in this community
10 tends to be -- can become a nuisance and kind of can --
11 can and does get abused, and so I asked that the
12 applicant also -- and he had indicated an interest in
13 using this as a tallgating facility — that they file an
14 affidavit of use so that he was under clear
15 understanding that tailgating is permitted as an
16 Informal social activity, but you cannot use it as a
17 commercial activity.
18 And I crafted that definition years ago, about five
19 or six years ago, when I was working with Gene Walker in
20 the Melrose Court area for that neighborhood because of
21 the abuse of tailgating as a commercial activity by some
22 as well as — probably the most notable one was the
23 Magic Bus. This definition clarified that activities
24 like the Magic Bus would not be permitted in residential
25 zones as a commercial activity, and then we went further
33
1 in the code, in the temporary use section, to allow as a
2 temporary use along Melrose Avenue on game day some
3 limited vending as long as it occurred only on the
4 street frontage.
5 My point here is that this was -- this was
6 specifically defined to allow — to clarify the issue
7 about tailgating because it was getting blurred In this
8 part of the community as well as the north side and
9 other areas and that we were trying to make a
10 distinction between commercial and noncommercial, and it
11 was our intent to allow tailgating of any size as long
12 as it doesn't become a nuisance and as long as it's not
13 used as a commercial activity.
14 Tailgating is not a use in terms of permitted or
15 accessory. It's defined as an informal social
16 gathering, and so It is not regulated as an accessory
17 use. In fact, I point out here it's not even — 1
18 specifically put in the code that you do not have to
19 have a temporary use permit for this type of activity.
20 Contrary to vending on Melrose Avenue. It's worked
21 quite well. The Magic Bus, of course, Is no longer In
22 operation.
23 The building permit— And I should go back to
24 that for just a moment because the affidavit of use is
25 about putting future property owners on notice. I
Page 30 to 33
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
developed this form ten or 15 years ago as an
administrative form when I got Into situations w
was concerned that there could be abuse, but n
with the current property owner but with future p
owners from misunderstanding. I've been in this
enforcement business, as I said earlier, for 41 y
I've seen everything that you can imagine in ter
how people try to circumvent the code and how
how to make arguments, and this has been extr
effective in winning rases in court. It takes awa
doubt as far as what is permitted and what is no
permitted.
The property owner at 101 Lusk Avenue, if t
build this property building under this building pe
will not ever have a commercial recreational use
play, and if they choose to disobey the law, if th
choose to break the law, then we will litigate that
situation and we will do what we have to do in of
that we've done in other areas of the community
across —just up the street on the vacant lot own
somebody, they rented it out to a fraternity hous
couple games ago. That was a commercial recr
use. We contacted the property owner. It's my
understanding they ceased operation.
We deal with that in the Melrose area, we've
35
Board or Adjustment 9-14-16
34
1 M
here 1 2 right -o
otso much 3 M
roperty 4 exempt
code 5 window
ears. 6 M
ms of 7 M
they— 8 But the
emely 9 mecha
y all 10 side y
t 11 So
12 section
hey 13 right -o
rmit, 14 street
in 15 right -o
the 16 the ed
17 how el
her— 18 owns,
. Just 19 right -of -
ed by 20 No
e a 21 midpoi
eational 22 around
23 expos
24 it — it's
dealt 25 below t
with it In the — in the north side area. Property
owners choose from time to time to disobey the law. It
happens. We have to put into place documentation and a
record so that when we go to court, and when we litigate
this, we win. And we win about a hundred percent of our
cases. I'm totally confident that if this ever is
abused as a commercial recreational use, we will shut it
down. At least that's my experience.
So this is the building permit. This is the email
that we received, and you've got a copy of that.
Basically, It not only talks about their intentions but
also that they don't plan to rent out the residence,
which Is, you know, sometimes an issue in some
neighborhoods with Airbnb and things like that. This is
the affidavit of use that's been recorded.
So let's — Looking at not the use, but the plan,
does it meet all of the requirements, the setbacks,
front, side, rear, minimal lot size, frontage, and the
answer to all that is yes. It does meet the frontage
requirement because it has 123 feet of — of
right-of-way along the frontage, and it does have --
does not exceed the building coverage, even if you add
in the courtyard, which technically because it's a yard
doesn't get added in, but in this case we added it in
and they're still below the 45 percent.
36
R. CHRISCHILLES: I have a quick question. Is
f -way included in the side setback measurements?
R. BOOTHROY: No. No, that's excepted. It's an
ion. Either are roof overhangs or chimneys or bay
s or some of -- or even stoops.
R. CHRISCHILLES: Thank you.
R. BOOTHROY: I think I may have forgot a couple.
Vs generally are all allowed. Air conditioners,
nical devices like that are allowed in the required
and by — by reference.
the frontage, you know, and I've cited the
, it's the -- it's measured along the
f -way line. I should mention that. Its not the
paving, it's the right-of-way line. The
f -way line is not the edge of the pavement, its
ge of the easement for the street. I don't know
se to describe that imaginary line that the City
and so they have a hundred -and -some feet of
way line.
w, the building height is measured to the
nt of the roof. It's based on the average grade
the building. If this is essentially only
ed maybe on — on a limited basis on two comers,
projected to be at 25 112 feet. That's well
he 35 -feet limitation in the code. It's really
37
1 not an issue.
2 We talked about the courtyard. We mentioned that
3 it's exempted from the site plan review process. I did
4 put a note here that, you know, we refer to the -- all
5 plans that we get as site plan. It's a little sloppy
6 because under the code, site plans are specifically
7 regulated by Chapter 18 — Title 18, excuse me, and it
8 confuses the public. It probably should be referred to
9 as a plot plan.
10 The lot and uses are not nonconforming, as I just
11 mentioned. The lot is 16,650 square feet in size, well
12 above the minimum of 8,000, and of course it has an
13 extensive frontage of 123 feet, not all of which is
14 paved. But it's not all required to be paved. The lot
15 and the use are not nonconforming. The zoning code
16 allows conforming use to be established on a
17 nonconforming lot of record, provided that the minimum
18 lot area for the use Is met and provided that the use or
19 structure meets all the requirements. The lot satisfies
20 the minimal lot area and meets all of these
21 requirements. The condusion is that the single-family
22 use is a conforming use and it is a conforming lot.
23 Lusk Avenue is a 20 -foot -wide street, existing
24 street. We have other 20 -foot -wide streets even in this
25 neighborhood. Rowland Court, which is a much longer
Page 34 to 37
Board of Adjustment 9.14.16
Page 38 to 41
38
40
1
street, but we -- as I mentioned eadler, we continue to
1
There's a bit of -- bit of a confusion about the
2
approve new developments with streets 20 foot wide with
2
fact that there's — there's a report out about
3
higher density and including even recreational areas for
3
replacing it, and that came about as a result of a
4
social gatherings that would far exceed anything
4
subdivision, and I think whatwe need to paint out to
5
considered at 101 Lusk Avenue. And even the Peninsula
5
the public and to the board is that the previous owner
6
development has five houses on a 16 -foot -wide street.
6
wanted to subdivide this property, wanted to create an
7
Conclusion: Lusk Avenue is an existing public street
7
additional lot, divide this in two, put two houses on
8
serving an existing lot. Staff has no authority to deny
8
here.
9
a building permit on an existing lot accessed by an
9
And under the subdivision procedure, we have the
10
existing street, assuming it meets all of the zoning
30
authority to require some additional improvements like
11
code and the building code requirements.
11
we did at the end of Woolf Avenue to the north, and like
12
Sanitary sewer. As I mentioned earlier, it was
12
a turnaround, like extension of — of public sewer.
13
permitted by the City in 1927. That practice was more
13
That subdivision did not go through. This Is not a
14
common then than today. That really doesn't have
14
subdivision. This is an existing lot of record with an
15
anything to do with capacity. That has everything to do
15
existing sewer line in place on an existing street.
16
with access and, you know, we — we — today our
16
This gets Into the appellants' appeal. I think
17
standard is that if you are on a separate lot, you
17
we've covered some of this in terms of the definition,
18
should have a separate connection, and on new
18
and I won't go back into it, the characteristics of it
19
developments that is the case; but we do respect
19
being combined living, sleeping, cooking area. There is
20
existing private sewer mains that have been installed
20
no more than one principal dwelling on the lot. Private
21
unless they fail at some point In the future. Then they
21
recreational uses are allowed. This isn't actually the
22
have to relook at how that's handled. But as 1
22
definition. I kind of paraphrased it earlier.
23
mentioned In the staff report, the reason for the
23
Tailgating isn't allowed in formal social activity, and
24
separation on individual lots Is as much about
24
you see the definition there, and I — you know, alcohol
25
maintenance and less about capacity.
25
was the other issue with the Magic Bus. They were
39
41
1
We — If you go into the Peninsula -- I like to
1
trying to claim that they were a nonprofit doing public
2
use that as an example — all the townhouse developments
2
good but were also dispensing alcohol.
3
in the Peninsula share a four -Inch line, and so my point
3
The number of people is not a zoning -related item.
4
is — is that — is that it's about how people can
4
We use — we don't use the building code, we use the
5
maintain the sewer and how they can come to an agreement
5
International Residential Code, and Tim can address that
6
in terms of fixing it more than it is about — and how
6
If there's any questions. It does not have any of those
7
they use it more than it is about whether it's adequate
7
square footage or occupancy requirements, so it's not
8
or has capacity. So in the Peninsula, those townhouse
8
germane to this particular use.
9
units have a homeowners association where they have
9
Commercial -grade kitchen fixtures. Number one,
10
built into it mechanisms for how they make decisions
10
it's not plumbing related. Number two, most house plans
11
about when that sewer plugs, and hopefully that will
11
we see don't — don't specify the type of fixtures or
12
work.
12
appliances there — being put In there. We —
13
And based on the number of fixtures In the house,
13
Single -Family houses are inspected — are field
14
we have confirmed that the sewer has not only been
14
inspected for compliance with the code. All the
15
permitted by the City through a permit that was issued
15
inspectors have multiple certifications — plumbing,
16
in 1927, but it has adequate capacity, and I'll get to
16
electrical, structural — and when they do their
17
Jason's testimony. Here's actually a copy of the
17
Inspections, it is at that moment in time and we do
18
permit. Copying it, I can't -- you can't see the note
18
multiple inspections, and actually, we do more
19
here In the corner, so I have an arrow to it. Three
19
inspections than many communities because we inspect at
20
houses on the west side. You know, they go into a
20
many, many phases of construction to ensure that the
21
private six-inch line. So each one of them has a
21
structure meets the code and its field inspected and
22
service that ties into the six-inch. It's my
22
field confirmed. And this, of course, would be done at
23
understanding that 101 Lusk Avenue has a four -inch
23
the time of the final inspection.
24
service that ties directly into the end of the six-inch
24
Again, as we look at the number of fixtures shown
25
line.
25
at the bottom, shown on the plans for 101 Lusk Avenue
Page 38 to 41
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1s
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
would be 50 fixture units, well under the sewer
capacity. The four -inch line would accommodat
according to the plumbing code, 216 fixtures. T
six -Inch line would accommodate 720. It's — Th
capacity is really — is not an issue.
We have allowed basketball courts in other
in Iowa City, and they're still considered single -f
dwellings. We consider them private recreation
The zoning code defines use a purpose or activi
which land structures and portions thereof are d
occupied, and maintained. Bullet number two,
building is constructed and occupied, the use m
determined by the design of the structure, and
believe the structure's designed for residential
occupancy and the information provided by the
the owner chooses to abuse the zoning code, br
law, then that's when we get involved in enforcin
code to ensure that they are compliant.
I think about this issue that it may look like a
commercial recreational use, and I think about r
the house located south of Ace Hardware in Go
where we found out that they were running an
entertainment venue, a bar and music venue in t
basement. You know, it's -- it looks like a
single-family house. It -- it's rental, but somebo
he 3 Fire P
e 4 differe
5 C, whi
houses 6 nexto
single -l", 7 a AA h
al uses. 8 hydran
ty for 9 Knowi
esigned, 10 scena
until a 11 that's
ust be 12 Ou
we 13 with, th
14 minute
owner. If 15 the B
eak the 16 of mull
g the 17 that w
18 at last
19 ofthos
ecently 20 contain
Goo 21 the flo
22 a little
he 23 As
24 know,)
dy 25 earlier i
43
chose to put an illegal use in a basement of that area,
and we deal with that type of violations from time to
time throughout the community. You know, people make
bad decisions, and that's why we have to lake them to
court and bring them back into the fold with regard to
what's allowed in a particular zone.
This is again about the site plan. I don't think I
need to go into this. This is just showing you that, in
fact, there are provisions in the code. Fire safety is
also not stated in the fire code but at this point, I
would like -- I'm not sure who's going to speak, whether
ifs the assistant director or Brian Greer. I'd like to
have you speak to this particular issue, if you'd come
forward, please. Cops, I went too far.
(An off-the-record discussion was held.)
MR. GREER: Hi. I'm Brian Greer, fire marshal here
in Iowa City. Basically, there's just a couple of items
that we were asked to address, with the first one being
the amount of water needed for the fire flow for that
particular structure or building. So we don't disagree
with anything that has been brought up about the amount
of — of water we need to use, 2,250 gallons per minute.
The big thing would be how we would do it.
Now, they -- they were -- In the appellants'
packet it said that there was one hydrant that was
44
that was right by that area, and it flowed 1564
per minute, which if you look at the National
rotection Association, they come up with four
nl levels for hydrants. The first one's a Class
ch is 500 gpm or less; next one's 501 to 999; the
ne's 1,000 to 1499; and then the highest level 1,
ydrant, is 1500 gallons or more. Well, this
I actually falls into the highest of those levels.
ng that we need additional water should worst-case
rio happen where the whole building Is on fire,
where we need the 2250 gallons of water.
r— our fire engines that we use that we pump
By only are able to flow 1500 gallons per
so even in the -- in a situation such as like
uegger's fire, we had to have multiple lines off
iple hydrants to get the required fire flow, and
cuid be the same instance here. If we look back
year, we had 56 building fires, and 71 percent
e actually resulted in just the fire being
ed in the room of origin, and another 9 percent
or of origin so, you know, roughly 20 percent got
bigger than that, but -- but most fires don't.
we — as we talk about other hydrants there, you
noticed there were a couple that were mentioned
n Director Boolhroy's presentation that are
45
1 within the 450 feet of that particular structure, and
2 that — that puts it within the code requirements for
3 the 2015 International fire code. To be able to
4 actually extinguish a fire, we would have to hook one of
5 those, provide another engine, and we would flow water
6 from two different apparatus to — to meet that
7 requirement. We can actually go further for hydrants if
8 we actually need to for firefighting operation and, you
9 know, we'll kind of get into a little bit of firefighter
10 101 just —just so people have a little background on
11 this.
12 We carry large -diameter hose which is a five -inch
13 hose, so it basically provides a water main on top of
14 the — the surface of the road going from the hydrant
15 in. It provides a lot of flow. Everyone of our— our
16 fire engines carries a thousand feet of that, so we
17 can — we can stretch out several -- several places or
18 several distances. When we do have a residential
19 building fire, we're going to send five different
20 vehicles there. We're going to send our— our ladder
21 truck, we're going to send three fire engines, and a
22 battalion chief, so that would be a standard response to
23 that area.
24 Now, when we talk response to that area, we've --
25 with the -- Deputy Chief Jensen does a lot of stuff with
Page 42 to 45
Board of Adjustment a-14-16
42
1 tested
e, 2 gallons
1
2
3
4
5
fi
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Board of Adjustment 9-14-16
46 1
our accreditation, and we're able to get to that area
with travel time of about four minutes, so that gives us
a gcodjump on the fire. Now, granted, there's a minute
of dispatch, a minute of us responding from the station,
and then that travel time. It's about six minutes,
which — which still falls within what we consider to be
good, and it meets our accreditation standards as well.
The other thing that — that we were talking about
was the width of the road. The width of the road was in
the appellants' stuff from HBK Engineering said that the
road was roughly just slightly over 20 foot wide, and
that's the International fire code states that fire
apparatus access roads need to be 20 foot wide and dear
and have a vertical clearance of 13 foot 6 inches, so
the vertical's not a big problem in that area. If — if
it was, it would be tree limbs, stuff like that that we
could easily take care of.
The 20 foot, you know, as — as the fire
department, sure, we'd love to have a street where
there's no on -street parking, anything like that so that
we have that clear path, but in reality, we see a lot of
streets in the city that are dead ends just like this,
that have parking on one side. We have streets and the
most prolific ones I can think of are down in the
southeast portion of town where there's parking on both
47
sides of the street, so it really narrows the street,
dawn to maybe about 12 to 14 foot. We still get
through.
The difference with a through street and a dead-end
street is with a through street, we're able to — if we
maintain that 20 -foot width, we're able to drive an
apparatus or a fire truck past the other one if — if
needed. In a dead-end situation, that fire engine's
going to just be there. It's going to provide fire
flow. It's going to be hooked to the hydrant. We're
going to not really see a need to have another fire
engine go past them on a dead-end street. The other
thing is and it all depends on where we measure. I mean
it's somewhere between 145 and 155 feet in length, that
dead-end street.
In most new constructions, new subdivisions,
everything else, if its a dead-end street, or the
street terminates greater than 150 foot, then we have
to — we require a turnaround In It. You know, this is
a little different, I guess, since it's kind of an
existing street already. You know, I don't know, you
know, how much hardship that would be on someone to
get -- it may or may not be able to be done with the
topography there or just with the, you know, houses and
stuff that are currently there.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1s
16
17
19
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
48
Also, that street, as I know Director Bcolhroy
said, was it is an existing street and it is an infill
property. We don't — we don't do much with the site
plans, any of the housing stuff, any of the residential
really, so I mean that's kind of In their field but, you
know, we just — you know, if something's there, we're
going to do our best to protect it no matter what —
what sort of building it Is. You know, and this
building — you know, it is — it Is a large building.
I mean its — you don't see a lot of places that are,
you know, over 7,000 square feet.
Well, you know, we talked about the hydrants and
water supply and all that. You know, one thing that,
you know, I'd be remiss if I didn't be an advocate for
would be, you know, maybe residential sprinklers inside
of the house. With that, it could minimize the amount
of water needed. It could cut it in half. It can
start — stop any fires In the incipient stages or the
early stage of the fire and provide a little bit more
safety for occupants to — to exit the building, plus
for our personnel as well.
I guess there's really nothing much else that —
that we'd have to talk — talk about. It's just those
couple Issues, the water — the water supply, the fire
flow for that, and -- and the street width and length,
49
you know, for possible turnaround in them, and I can —
I'll accept any questions or anything you have to try to
clarify.
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Mr. Greer, rather than have you
come back up at the end after Doug talks, I understand
the difference between something that you would like to
be able to do and what the code prevents you from doing.
If this were a lot split, you could require a
turnaround. You could have a turnaround built there, is
that correct?
MR. GREER: I believe so. I'd have to kind of
defer to maybe Tim Hennes or — or Doug on that. I
think —
(Overlapping speakers)
CHAIRMAN BAKER: — it's a question that we could.
But that would be your recommendation Is what I'm trying
to figure out.
MR. GREER: If it — if it were to be split and
subdivided and they have to add onto the road, yes, I
would — I would --
CHAIRMAN BAKER: So the lot would be split and two
new houses would be built, each of them approximately
half as big as what's proposed for the one lot now.
Okay, and it's my understanding you just said there are
no sprinklers required in this structure?
Page 46 to 49
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
w]
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Board of Adjustment
60
MR. GREER: No, there are not. Any residential
1
sprinklers with the exception of apartment buildings,
2
multifamily are — are not required.
3
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Okay. So for two smaller houses,
4
you would want a turnaround, and you could also
5
require — no, it would be the large — the size of the
6
current project would sort of indicate that sprinklers
7
would be an asset to you.
8
MR. GREER: That is correct. They—theywould be
9
an asset.
30
CHAIRMANBAKER: But there's noway to require
11
that, and Doug could certainly address this, by the code
12
because it's not part of the single-family residence
13
requirements.
14
MR. GREER: Yeah, and they -- they can speak a
15
little more to that because I believe they have amended
16
the section of the IRC out— or the International
17
Residential Code that mandated sprinklers for— for
18
these occupancies.
19
CHAIRMAN BAKER: So as far as safety concerns, you
20
would feel better if there were two houses there of
21
approximately 3,000 or 2500 square feet, three, four
22
bedrooms, having a turnaround in that location.
23
MR. GREER: I wouldn't necessarily say, yeah, we'd
24
feel better. I — To me it —
25
51
CHAIRMAN BAKER: As a safety factor, you would feel
this would be justified.
MR. GREER: I would feel it would be justified to
have sprinklers put in, but as far as two houses versus
one, that doesn't affect us a lot. Granted, that other
house Is larger. You know, as i staled before, we've —
many of our fires are — are caught early on and we're
able to — to extinguish them.
CHAIRMAN BAKER: But certainly if you did not catch
a fire In this house early, it would be a bigger issue.
MR. GREER: It would — it would lake more
resources, and chances are we would probably — you
know, depending on where the fire's at, there's a lot
of — a lot of variables that you can throw in. You
know, it—the house could bum down. We obviously
protect any exposures, which would be other houses
around there, you know, and make sure that the fire
doesn't spread anywhere else but, you know, it all
depends on the variables whether we could extinguish the
fire or not.
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Okay. Thank you. Does the board
have any other questions?
MR. CHRISCHILLES: I have a follow-up — related
question to that. I know it's not going to be divided,
but If It were divided and this proposed turnaround were
9.14-16
52
created, what is the purpose of the turnaround In terms
of overall public safety?
MR. GREER: It's -- it's basically for fire
department apparatus to he able to maneuver easier
instead of backing up that — that large distance, which
any time you have to back up a large vehicle, there's
always opportunities to — to hit something else or—
or things to go wrong. It allows the fire apparatus to
be able to turn around and drive straight out of that
area.
MR. CHRISCHILLES: So does it contribute to better
access to whatever fire is occurring at that — on that
lot, whether it's one house or two houses, in terms of
being able to extinguish the fire and — and create
public safety?
MR. GREER: The turnaround would probably not
affect that at all. We would — Most times when we —
when we actually would arrive at a fire scene, we're
going to pull up in front of the building and do all of
our operations from there, so the turnaround would be
something that would be a little bit further down on the
street.
MR. CHRISCHILLES: So you're saying it's not—
it's not a public safety issue, the turnaround.
MR. GREER: Not directly, but it is code driven.
53
1 It's in the 2015 International fire code and the fire
2 codes before that. It's — its for the safety of — of
3 basically the fire personnel and the apparatus.
4 MR. CHRISCHILLES: So it is public safety related.
5 MR. GREER: Yes.
6 MS. SOGLIN: I have a question but it may be for
7 Mr. Boothroy, I'm not sure. I can go —
8 (Indiscernible)
9 CHAIRMAN BAKER: Thank you.
10 MS. SOGLIN: Thank you.
11 MR. BOOTH ROY: The Board of Appeals that is
12 involved with the fire code and recommends approval of
13 the fire code and the city council determined that they
14 did not want to require residential sprinklers in
15 Iowa City.
16 MS. SOGLIN: Could you just make one clarification
17 here for the big picture? So fire safely Is issues of
18 access and protection are part of plot or, as you call,
19 site plan review, or are they also part of the issuing
20 of the permit, or both?
21 MR. BOOTHROY: Specifically addressed in the site
22 plan or review process, if you read through that -
23 MS. SOGLIN: So that's why --
24 MR. BOOTHROY: When we -- when we look at
25 development within — that is infill, you know, we look
Page 50 to 53
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
30
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Board of Adjustment 9-14-16
54
at all the factors in the situation of — in this
situation, the determination was that the flows are
adequate, as — as Brian indicated, and/or if they
needed more, they can interconnect hoses and — and —
and we are—we do not—we have this situation
existing In many areas of the community, and as I just
mentioned, we just designed a new subdivision of 183
lots with lower fire flows than this one. So this is an
acceptable and, as he said, one of the top-rated fire
hydrants with regard to the fire code. The turnaround
is -- as he mentioned, is about apparatus and its about
being able to move the apparatus in and out of the area,
but It doesn't deal with — directly with the fire
safety of the house.
MR. CHRISCHILLES: That's not what he said.
MR. BOOTHROY: That's what I thought I heard. I
thought he — I thought he was saying that It was for
the protection of the firefighters and the apparatus.
MR. CHRISCHILLES: He admitted it was for public—
it was a public safety concem.
MR. BOOTHROY: Well, It Is a public safe -- it's in
the fire code, but maybe Roger Jensen can clarify that
because I don't — I don't believe that's what I heard.
MR. GREER: And if I misspoke, then sorry about
that, but it — it Is in the fire code, and the
55
turnaround Is -- is made specifically for the fire
apparatus to tum around basically and safely drive out.
It's -- it's not meant for any fire operations. It's
for after -- afterwards or, you know, if we're driving
down that area.
CHAIRMAN BAKER: It— I understand that, and so
why would —why would you require it In a lot split if
It's not a matter of public safety, It's just
convenience?
MR. GREER: From my understanding, when the initial
time — Well, the site plan came up where they were
talking — or I don't know if the site plan was even
there, but when they were looking at the sub —
subdividing that property, in order to do that, they
would have to extend that road, so that road became even
longer, which would definitely have -- have exceeded the
150 feet, and with that, knowing that it's — it's being
extended and all that, we would try to get turnaround
put Into that.
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Okay. But not necessarily because
of a public safely issue; because of a — just a
logistical Issue of moving equipment In and out.
MR. GREER: Yeah, and that— that would be mostly
what it would be for is we're -- we're not going to —
we're not going to utilize that turnaround per se as
56
1 we're doing cur firefighting unless the houses are, you
2 know, built around a certain type of — of turnaround,
3 but in this, it would just be a turnaround for the
4 apparatus to get out of that area.
5 CHAIRMAN BAKER: Okay, thank you.
6 MR. BOOTHROY: Mr. Chairman, let me clarify about
7 that subdivision. They — they were extending the
8 street. It provided additional frontage to the lot to
9 the east. There was potential for more than just two
30 lots with the extension of that street, so we were not
11 talking about just one additional house, we were talking
12 about the possibility of more structures on that street.
13 So, you know, when we get into that — looking at that,
14 we were looking at that about the potential of future
15 subdivisions on the other side of the street.
16 CHAIRMAN BAKER: It may just be me, but that was
17 not clear at all in the reports that I read for this
18 particular— that we were dealing with the expansion,
19 the split of the lot for one additional house.
20 MR. BOOTHROY: I understand that. The — That was
21 just what — that was specifically about what
22 Mr. Oliveira wanted to do. I wasn't talking about what
23 the property owner to the east wanted to do.
24 CHAIRMAN BAKER: Okay. All right, thank you.
25 MR. BOOTHROY: We were trying to clarify the point
57
1 that under the subdivision regulations, there -- the
2 planning and zoning commission has other authority as
3 well as the city council. Again, this is not a
4 zoning -related matter, and we do not believe It a life
5 safety issue.
6 The erosion and sediment control provisions are not
7 in the zoning code. We deal with those through the
8 construction process, and in the situation if there was
9 illicit discharge or erosion onto the street or In some
10 situations silt fences may be required to maintain that.
11 This particular property drains away from existing
12 development. It does not drain to the north. It does
13 not drain in a way that would impact those abutting
14 properties.
15 This is again in the -- this is just a
16 single-family house with a three -car garage. Obviously,
17 vehicle and pedestrian circulation doesn't apply. We
18 talked about the front yard setback. Here's the code
19 section. On short streets like this averaging doesn't
20 apply. State and federal regulations don't apply. The
21 building permit under this particular section, the --
22 people often confuse the purpose statement in the zoning
23 code as regulatory, and as I indicate in the memorandum,
24 it's aspirational but not regulatory. You cannot cite
25 anybody and take them to court. There's nothing in the
Page 54 to 57
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
19
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
58
purpose statement that is a regulation.
What the courts will look at is it is the
regulation protecting the public health, safety, and
welfare, but — but its -- In that context and so the
regulations are developed to meet the purpose statement,
but the purpose statement cannot be enforced because
its not regulatory. And that's pretty standard zoning
construction and its commonly done.
Conformity of the use. We talked about the lot we
find to be conforming, but even if and the lot were to
be found nonconforming, for whatever reason, the city
regulations allow single-family uses to be established
on any nonconforming lot. And that provision was put in
the code in 1984, when we changed the code to be
noncumulative and to segregate the uses by zone, and
there was concern by the planning and zoning commission
and the city council that they were single-family houses
In commercial zones and industrial zones that might not
be able to remodel or build, and so in that situation we
added an exception to accommodate that, and that was
back in 1984, and we've carded it forward since.
The sewer service is not zoning related. I would
like to have Josh, the city engineer -- Jason, excuse
me, the city engineer, step up and — and talk about his
memorandum that he submitted tonight, so Jason, could
59
you ---
MR. HAVEL: Good evening. Like Doug mentioned, my
name is Jason Havel and my title is city engineer for
City of Iowa City. First item I wanted to talk about
was the sewer service, and really this is a situation
where you have a sewer service tying into a private
main, which as Doug mentioned, its not necessarily
typical but I also wouldn't call it a rarity. We do
have it in other locations around the city, and for this
service it really can be broken down into kind of three
parts. You have the — the service for the individual
property, which is believed to be, I think, four -inch
and that ties into a private sanitary sewer main which
is shared by two other properties, and theta a six-inch
section.
And then that then ties into the public sewer
system and an eight -inch sanitary sewer main at the
corner of Bayard and Lexington. As Doug mentioned, it
was permitted in 1927, and it Is — it's our belief that
based on the size of the existing service and what the
anticipated use would be, that capacity is sufficient
for it to be used for this property.
This sewer service does provide direct access to
the public sewer as required by code, and we based cur
decision on the fact, again, that it is — it's an
lent 9-14-16
60
1 existing permitted service. It is a — a service that
2 provides direct access to the public sanitary sewer
3 system, and the sewer -- or the service is basically
4 servicing a use that is similar to the one that was
5 there existing, and again, that was — it used to be a
6 single-family home and it would — and under the
7 proposal would serve a similar use.
8 One thing I did want to mention, obviously, you
9 know, there has been some mention of condition of the
10 sanitary sewer service, and as is the case throughout
11 locations in Iowa City, individual property owners are
12 responsible for maintenance and repairs to their
13 sanitary sewer services. In locations where there Is
14 private sanitary mains, users that tie onto that private
15 main typically are responsible for maintenance and
16 repairs to those — those lines as required or as
17 needed.
18 Moving on. It looks like there's a — there's been
19 a couple of issues or — or I guess issues raised
20 regarding stormwater. I would kind of break these down
21 into a couple of categories, one being site grading or
22 how stormwater will be handled onsite within the
23 property, the other one being once that property [sic]
24 leaves the site, how will it be handled when it reaches
25 Lusk Avenue, especially at the end of Lusk Avenue at the
61
1 dead-end section. Here there's -- there's a couple
2 of -- of code sections that were -- had been identified
3 in some of the correspondence, but you can see here that
4 they don't really apply. What really applies is kind of
5 the general stormwater management requirements for the
6 City, and more or less what those state -- Well, 1
7 guess let me take a step back.
8 Regarding the lot, it typically or generally slopes
9 to the — to the east and south, so that would direct
10 stormwater to the Lusk Avenue right-of-way or to the
11 railroad right-of-way that exists to the south. The
12 City does allow overland Flow of stormwater so, you
13 know, roof drains, that kind of thing, stuff coming off
14 of driveways, it is allowable to allow that to travel
15 over land. And the — the intent there is really that
16 it travels In a direction that is — reasonably follows
17 the existing terrain, so it's really -- if it slopes
18 downhill existing and you build a house, the expectation
19 is that it would continue to slope or the — the runoff
20 would continue to flow downhill.
21 And the -- the requirements for that really —1
22 guess to kind of simplify things are really just to make
23 sure that it doesn't create damage to neighboring
24 property. So what you're trying to avoid is those
25 situations where maybe somebody tries to put all
Page 58 to 61
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Board ofAdjusl
62
their— their downspouts into one pipe and outlet it In
one location. You know, typically something like that
results in erosion if there aren't other measures in
place, and so really the requirement Is that you're
allowed to let It run over land but really, you're just
trying to have it do so in a manner that doesn't cause
damage to neighboring properties or, in this case,
right-of-way.
So I guess really for the site portion of it Is
again, just making sure that that stormwater is managed
and that it is allowed to flow into the right-of-way but
it's not allowed to do so in a manner that would cause
damage to the right-of-way. And that's consistent with
other properties and the way we handle things throughout
the city.
So that kind of brings me to my — to my last
section, I guess, and that deals with the water once It
gets into the Lusk Avenue right-of-way. Obviously Lusk
Avenue's a dead-end street. Currently there isn't a
curb or— or other measures to -- to really handle
stormwater at the end of the street other than to allow
it to flow downhill to the railroad right-of-way and to
the ditch down there as it continues on its way. I
think for -- So this is stormwater that -- that reaches
Lusk Avenue and that reaches the end of Lusk Avenue.
63
Its a combination of water that comes from Lusk Avenue.
It is also from properties that have runoff from private
property onto Lusk Avenue. Again, that's fairly typical
around town.
You know, you have a lot of times where yards
will — you'll have water that will run off of yards
Into the right-of-way. In some locations they're caught
by intakes and then piped to wherever it's going. In
some locations like this, it reaches the street and then
runs off the end of the street into a ditch somewhere
again to be conveyed to another location.
And when we have these situations where you don't
have storm sewer or you don't have intakes to collect
that water, typically our stance has been that in those
situations where it's water that is in the right-of-way,
is traveling In the right-of-way, that any existing
erosion issues or concerns are addressed by the City,
whether that's the Installation of storm sewer or
riprap, other measures to kind of slow that down and
allow the water to travel without damaging property.
Typically those are taken on by the City when it's In
the right-of-way.
So I guess to really simplify things, really
once — as long as they're making sure to get that water
to the right-of-way without causing damage, then the
nent
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
30
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
8-14-1e
M. -
City
City would then take that responsibility to — to
continue that travel of the water within the
right-of-way, again, taking care to allow it to do so
without causing damage or in this case erosion.
So that's really all I had.
MR. WEITZEL: I had a question about— either for
you or Doug about the grade of the driveway, and there
was a recommendation by a consultant that the driveway
slope away from the house. Would that then cause water
to leave the property towards an adjacent property owner
and is that a problem? Is that allowed?
MR. HAVEL: I guess I'm not familiar for — with
the exact comment.
MR. BOOTHROY: The zoning code specifically states
that if the driveway is on the property line, it has to
be sloped and — so that the water runs away from the
property. I'd have to look at the site plan. I don't
recall how close the driveway is to the property line.
It's not unusual in Iowa City to have driveways right on
the property line, and so we put a provision in there
that requires that runoff to be redirected away from the
adjacent property.
MR. WEITZEL: Okay.
MR. BOOTHROY: With regard to the building itself
under the International Residential Code, there are
65
1 provisions in there that, you know, when they do the
2 final grading, they have to have a positive flow away
3 from the foundation so that you don't have infiltration
4 in the basement cellar area.
5 MR. CHRISCHILLES: I have a question. What are
6 the -- what -- what are the City's remedies for problems
7 that might arise if -- from stormwater runoff if it
6 becomes a problem after the home is built?
9 MR. HAVEL: It really is going to depend on the
10 situation. Again, it could be anything from installing
11 intakes in storm sewer to pipe the stormwater where it
12 needs to go. If it's something that could be handled,
13 whether it's perhaps seeding; you know, maybe it's a
14 situation where its just a need for establishing grass
15 or turf to— to prohibit that or eliminate that
16 erosion. It could be dprap, it could be check dams.
17 Again, it just kind of depends. Is it a volume issue?
is Is it a speed issue? What exactly Is the concern? But
19 there's a number of things that can be done to address
20 that.
21 CHAIRMAN BAKER: Along that same line, on page 20
22 of Doug's report, there's a comment about the surface
23 drainage standards are only applied after the house is
24 built Is that — Am I paraphrasing that correctly?
25 MR. BOOTHROY: We're talking about two things.
Page 62 to 65
Board or Adjustment 9-14-16
66
68
1
We're — That was referencing the International
1
and — and other desirable characteristics of the sewer
2
Residential Code based on public works provisions, and
2
service at that point. So I think more so than a --
3
so when we do the final inspection of the house, we
3
necessarily the subdivision itself, it really was
4
always ensure that there is positive drainage away from
4
difficulty in — in being able to service that other --
5
the house and -- and how they handle that drainage
5
that second house on the existing sewer line.
6
between houses.
6
CHAIRMAN BAKER: It's not a question of — well,
7
CHAIRMAN BAKER: But there's no way to determine
7
maybe It is a question of flow capacity, that ifs more
8
that before the house is built.
8
difficult with the second house and so you'd require
9
MR. HAVEL: Absolutely not.
9
a — a bigger line.
10
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Okay.
10
MR. HAVEL: I don't know that it was necessarily
11
MR. HAVEL: You don't know. You -- you don't have
11
capacity as much as it was layout of the —the sewer
12
a finished grade. I mean you have a speculation, but
12
service. So again, you're -- with that second house,
13
you don't have it until you build it.
13
you basically would have had to go out and around the
14
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Okay. And if there's a problem,
14
first house, I guess is maybe the best way to put it,
15
you can force the property owner to make remedy.
15
and so that's really where the diffirrulty became.
16
MR. BOOTHROY: It's called a certificate of
16
Rather than having a straight shot, which is obviously
17
occupancy.
17
most desirable, you would have had to introduce bends
18
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Okay. Back to you, sir. One of
18
and other fittings there that really just aren't
19
the sort of underlying themes that's going to come back
19
desirable for sewer service.
20
in this entire discussion is the difference between what
20
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Okay. But again, correct me if 1
21
the City would like to see happen versus what the city
21
misread this. It would have required a bigger -diameter
22
can make happen governed by the rules in place at the
22
pipe.
23
time. If this lot were to be subdivided, the City could
23
MR. HAVEL: We would have, but that -- for the --
24
do something else or require something else.
24
the public sewer main and again, that's because our —
25
There was a discussion in the -- the previous year
25
our minimum would have been the eight -inch.
67
69
1
when the previous owner was going to subdivide, there
1
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Okay. All right, thank you. And,
2
was a sewer upgrade that would have been required for
2
Doug, before you start, let me ask just a procedural
3
the -- this time It was a discussion of just two houses
3
question here. About how much longer do you think your
4
only, two lots only, and that would have been, again,
4
presentation might bel
5
two houses, each approximately half as big as the
5
MR. BOOTH ROY: I'm getting Gose to the end.
6
current proposal with six to seven bedrooms and toilets,
6
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Okay, because when you get to the
7
at cetera.
7
end, I'm going to suggest that we take a short recess.
8
So why would the City want that change in the sewer
8
MR. CHRISCHILLES: I have some questions.
9
line on those two houses? What is the -- what is the
9
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Yeah, but I'm going to have that
10
issue, the health and safety issue there?
10
recess before we come back, because I have a lot of
11
MR. HAVEL: I think the -- You know, as you
11
questions.
12
mention with the subdivision process, there Is
12
MR, CHRISCHILLES: Okay.
13
additional possibilities or options there for what we
13
MR. BOOTHROY: I would say, too, Mr. Chairman, that
14
can require, and I think what really drove it when we
14
when the City approves a subdivision, we have certified
15
were looking at splitting that lot is the difficulty for
15
that it meets certain subdivision standards. And like
16
that second house to tie onto the existing sewer line.
16
Jason was pointing, doing a convoluted sewer run would
17
You know, its set up right now so that that four -inch
17
have created problems and it was not something we were
18
section especially is directed right at the existing
18
comfortable certifying, so then somebody else buys the
19
house. So it — it's much simpler to tie that existing
19
house and they have problems. They're going to come
20
or proposed structure into that sanitary sewer line.
20
back on us because you approved that configuration, much
21
When you look at adding a second house, you then
21
like we're having this conversation about this private
22
need the sewer service for that house to somehow get
22
sewer line that was approved in 1927, you know. Why did
23
around more or less where the existing house would have
23
we do that. Well, I wasn't alive at that time and so 1
24
been. So it becomes much more challenging not only from
24
don't know, but I — yes.
25
a grade standpoint but again, not having to add bends
25
Anyway, moving on. The — We just talked about
Page 66 to 69
Board of Adjust
70
1 the drainage standard and the International Residential
2 Code and site plan doesn't apply. Height is measured,
3 as I said earlier, by the average grade around a
4 building, and this building will —will meet the height
5 standard, so its not going to be an issue. The —
6 Getting into more — This isn't exactly the same
7 project, just a detail on that. It had — it had more
8 square footage and had some different configurations.
9 We did provide the — and I read from the — the email
10 that -- or the letter that the city attorney, Steve
11 Ballard, sent us with regard to the fact that the review
12 was on Sensitive Areas Ordinance really and not about
13 zoning compliance and not about finding that it was a
14 commercial recreational use, and so University Heights
15 never ruled on that. We're the first to consider It.
16 Let's see. It's zoned RS -5. These are not uses,
17 commercial or otherwise, that are allowed in the RS -5
18 zone. The permit does not authorize it. The permit
19 only authorizes a residential use and any of the rights
20 that go with a residential use, which tailgating is
21 specifically allowed in all zones as long as it's
22 noncommercial. Let me see, I went too far.
23 We did look at the evaluative process in our
24 deliberations. However, technically speaking, it only
25 comes into play when a use is nonlisted, as an example,
71
1 and when you determine that it does meet the definition
2 of a single-family use, it's not necessary to spend time
3 going back through that particular process. We didn't
4 ignore it, we just didn't — it wasn't necessary and
5 wasn't determinative.
6 The building official was required to evoke
7 objectively but did not is a comment. This is not true.
a 1 would say that, you know, none of us have met or at
9 least I have not met the applicants. I don't think John
10 has either. I've not had any -- We don't have any
11 interest In Manville Heights in terms of property or -
12 or role. Our only role as a staff is to get it right.
13 It's our responsibility to do an honest review, and we
14 try not to contrive issues or create situations that are
15 not legitimate, and so we did a careful review of
16 everything, and we could not find that it was not a
17 residential use and we had several people — the city
18 attorney's staff, my staff -- looking at it, and we
19 could not — we could not comfortably come to any kind
20 of conclusion like that. Well, the affidavit of use was
21 never used for classifying a use. That's — that was
22 that -- you know, after the fact.
23 The site plan is not appropriately used. The
24 courtyard we talked about. We talked about the drainage
25 and Iowa drainage law. We just went Into that.
rent 9.14-16
72
1 With regard to the — the movement of the lot and
2 driveway, just so people know how this all came about,
3 after the permit was issued, it came to my attention
4 that the driveway was on the south side of the lot where
5 there was no street, and so I informed the inspectors
6 that the permit — they either had to -- to redesign the
7 driveway or the permit would be denied, and because the
8 street was not extended and was not open for use, and so
9 they did redesign the driveway.
10 Let's see. That was the subdivision process,
11 subdivision rule. It has — The applicant indicates
12 that there's no egress. In fact, there is egress out of
13 there. Meets the International Residential Code. It's
14 actually more egress than — than would be required.
15 And — and the memorandum. The fire testing was — we
16 talked about that, 1500. Here's a map of the fire
17 hydrants. We have one here at Lusk, we have one here on
18 Bayard, we have one here dawn on Woolf Avenue, and so
19 there's a number of fire hydrants in the area. We have
20 one down on Rowland Court which would have the same fire
21 flow that's on — it's a fire hydrant on a six-inch line
22 so likely would have the same fire flow because its
23 coming off the same size pipe. More houses, more
24 density, more occupancy.
25 The conflict with the fire hydrant is really not an
73
1 issue. When we do the water tap permit, it's standard
2 operating practice to look at that. If, in fact, it
3 needs to be moved, we move it. It's not — it's not
4 something -- It's just a construction detail. We will
5 look at that with the water tap permit. The way that's
6 enforced, they don't get water unless they comply with
7 the water tap permit, so ifs pretty effective. And 1
8 think the standard is that the fire hydrant, if they do
9 move it, its not an existing situation. I think it has
10 to be several feet from the edge of the driveway.
11 So in conclusion, the City didn't misclassify, the
12 use. We determined that it was designed as a
13 residential use, that it — it is going to be occupied
14 by a single household. That it has living, sleeping,
15 cooking, and eating facilitles, and It is open and it
16 has communicating rooms to be used by one household.
17 And the permit dearly says it's only residential, and
18 we have documentation that they cannot use it ever for
19 commercial use.
20 So we are in agreement with the neighborhood in
21 that fact, that this property has been prevented from
22 being used as a commercial recreational venue. Site
23 plan does not apply. The building permit was not issued
24 in error. It does comply with the International
25 Residential Code, and under the International
Page 70 to 73
74
1 Residential Code as well as the zoning code, if it
2 complies, we shall issue the permit as it states in the
3 International Residential Code.
4 The City has no authority to deny this building
5 permit based on architectural design. I understand the
6 concern that this is by many a very ugly house. There's
7 no quesflcn it doesn't fit within the context of the
8 neighborhood. I don't believe that I would be -- 1
9 would be distraught and upset about it myself.
10 However — however, there's nothing in our code -- This
11 doesn't have a historic preservation zone, it doesn't
12 have any other kind of zone that regulates architectural
13 compatibility, and so I understand looking for any
14 opportunity to deny this based on any section of the
15 code as a subtext for eliminating this particular
16 building as it's designed, and we looked at all of those
17 and we vetted all of those and we did that with our
18 attorneys — city attorney staff, and we could not
19 conclude in good conscience that It was anything but a
20 single-family house.
21 Yes, the structure includes private recreational
22 uses, but so do other structures have the same type of
23 recreational uses and they are considered single-family
24 structures, and I've listed at least a couple homes in
25 which they have basketball courts, and we have homes
76
1 that have badminton courts inside when they choose not
2 to have basket — basketball.
3 The property owner has submitted three separate
4 documents and he's going to testify tonight, I'm sure,
5 that this is for his family. It's his Intended use, and
6 he doesn't intend to break the law and use it as a
7 commercial use. The building size is not regulated by
8 the zoning code with the exception of building coverage,
9 and this meets all of those. It's a two-story building,
10 it's — it's 25 112 feet tall and, yes, it's a large
11 house but it's clearly not the largest house in this
12 community because we have houses significantly larger
13 than this one on the west side, you know, on Kennedy
14 Parkway.
15 So that's the end of my presentation.
16 CHAIRMAN BAKER: All right. Thank you again.
17 Before I noted the board has a lot of questions for
18 Doug, but I would ask that before we start our
19 questioning of Doug we take a short recess, say ten
20 minutes, till seven -fifteen. Is that agreeable? So
21 we'll reconvene at seven -fifteen. Thank you.
22 (A brief recess was taken.)
23 CHAIRMAN BAKER: Now, at this time the board would
24 like to get some clarification. We'll start with Gene.
25 MR. CHRISCHILLES: Before I start, I have a quick
tent 9.14-16
76
1 question for Mark Parmenter. The memo that we got on
2 Monday included some other, I guess, parts of the code,
3 one of which was 18-1-1. Is that indeed part of the
4 zoning code?
5 MR. PARMENTER: It's part of the city code, but for
6 purposes of your — I think as — as the City has
7 presented is that residential properties don't require
8 site plan review, and so it's my opinion that that's not
9 really an issue for this board to take up for purposes
10 of its decision here. In my memorandum to you, in my
11 opinion there are two issues that you need to decide
12 which are on page 3 of my memo to you, which is the
13 classification of the structure as a single-family
14 residence, and then also whether -- whether it was done
15 in error or whether the issuance of the building permit
16 was done in error.
17 MR. CHRISCHILLES: Well, then what was—what was
18 the purpose of the inclusion of — of the — of the
19 other forms?
20 MR. PARMENTER: Good question. Are you talking
21 about Title 187
22 MR. CHRISCHILLES: Yeah.
23 MR. PARMENTER: Yeah. Because the original appeal
24 included the question as to whether or not the site plan
25 was properly done for the proposed structure.
77
1 MR. CHRISCHILLES: That's why that was in there?
2 MR. PARMENTER: Right.
3 MR. CHRISCHILLES: Okay, and what was the -1'm
4 sorry, Mr. Boothroy, but since I've gotten him here now,
5 what was the purpose of this second memo?
6 MR. PARMENTER: To give a clarification for what
7 the authority and the -- the powers that this board has.
8 MR. CHRISCHILLES: That was outlined in the first
9 memo, however.
to MR. PARMENTER: Well, I don't -- I don't think it
11 was all of the applicable law that should be applied
12 here, and that's why I sent the second — I sent the
13 second memo, my memo, to clarify that for this board.
14 MR. CHRISCHILLES: Was your feeling at all that the
15 first memo was too strongly worded or perhaps might have
16 been interpreted as leading to bias?
17 MR. PARMENTER: Well, I'm not— I'm not really
18 sure what you mean by that. My opinion is that the —
19 some of the information that was contained in the
20 original memo was not necessary for this board to
21 utilize for purposes of making its decision, and that's
22 what motivated me after receiving a letter from
23 Mr. Larew to clarify that based on the Iowa Code and the
24 city code requirements. That was the purpose of that
25 memo from me.
Page 74 to 77
1
2
3
4
5
W1
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Boats of Adiu:
78
MR. CHRISCHILLES: Oh. Because I -- I had the
opinion upon reading the first memo that it was — it
was strong — more strongly worded than it needed to be
and that it was almost directing us to tell us what we
had to do and which way we had to vote on the appeal.
MR. PARMENTER: Right, and of course, you're an
Independent body. You can't be instructed on what to
make as far as your decision In this case, and thafs
the -- that was another reason for me to provide you
with — with my memorandum so you clearly knew what your
authority -- what your legal authority is and what your
powers are for — for purposes of this hearing.
MR. CHRISCHILLES: So just by giving us a second
memo, we're supposed to just wipe away whatever memory
we had of the first memo?
MR. PARMENTER: Well, I mean I think — I think you
all are very smart people. Obviously you've read all of
the materials that have been submitted by all the
parties, whether it's the City, the proponents, or the
opponents. All I asked you to do in my memo was 10
simply disregard that prior memo and apply the law or
utilize the law that — and authority that I've
presented to you in my memo.
MR. CHRISCHILLES: Okay, thanks. Okay,
Mr. Boothroy, these questions are probably going to be
79
out of sequence, but I have several. It seems to me
that if we're going to talk about misclassification that
we need to address the code section -- I'm sorry. In
regards to the establishment of the principal use, when
you went through the -- the steps that you used to — to
say that this was a single-family residence, it appeared
to me that the — and it was stated in here that
under — under City -- City Code 14-4A-2, It was —
MR. BOOTHROY: Do you have a page number you're
referring to?
MR. CHRISCHILLES: This is on page Number 5.
MR, BOOTHROY: Of my report or—
MR. CHRISCHILLES: No, at the very beginning, page
5. Under Larew Law Office.
MR. BOOTHROY: Under what?
MR. CHRISCHILLES: Just the very beginning of the
packet, page 5.
MS. SOGLIN: You're on the appellant packet, I
think? Are you on the appellant packet or are you on
the other?
MR. BOOTHROY: The past information or the —
MR. CHRISCHILLES: Oh.
MR. BOOTHROY: It's probably a different page.
MR. CHRISCHILLES: Yeah, I'm at the —the packet
prehearing submission, Larew Law Office.
rent 9-14-10
80
1 MS. SOGLIN: The page 2 of that?
2 MR. CHRISCHILLES: Page 5 of that.
3 MR. BOOTHROY: Page 5?
4 MS. SOGLIN: And that's in the appellant packet, is
5 that correct?
6 MR. BOOTHROY: It has drainage, fire safety,
7 erosion, sediment control, vehicle, pedestrian, 15 -foot
8 side yard.
9 MR. CHRISCHILLES: Well, no. No.
10 MR. BOOTHROY: Well, maybe just say it and I'll —
11 1 can get there.
12 MR. CHRISCHILLES: Well, see, it says here --
13 MR. BOOTHROY: Don't give me the code section, just
14 give me the —
15 MR. CHRISCHILLES: It says that the — there's a
16 list of factors to be considered and a mode of analysis
17 to be used to determine whether a proposed building does
18 or does not comply with the purpose of the zone
19 according to the structure's principal use as a contrast
20 with one or more accessary uses.
21 It seemed to me that during — You know, you went
22 through the — all of the criteria in a very systematic
23 fac — fac-- in a very systematic way when you did your
24 analysis, but it seemed as though it was kind of glossed
25 over as to the principal use factor, and it says that
81
1 the analysis should include in the instances such as
2 Cadsons' proposed building the following: The
3 description of the use or activities in comparison to
4 the stated category -- characteristics of each use; the
5 intensity of the activity or use In comparison to the
6 stated character use — characteristics of each use; how
7 the use advertises itself.
8 And then point H there says that under -- under
9 the — that mode of analysis, an Impartial city official
10 is required to determine a proposed building's principal
11 use. Only If a structure's principal use is compatible
12 with the zone's purpose and allowed uses may it be
13 induced in the — may it be located in that zone. Then
14 paint I says no such analysis was performed by the City.
15 Was it?
16 MR. BOOTHROY: Well, first of all, we did look at
17 that section of the code, so that's not exactly correct.
18 Secondly, this section commonly comes into play for uses
19 not listed or identified, so there are a lot of -- if
20 you read through the zoning code, there are a lot of
21 uses, residential uses, that are identified, commercial
22 uses that are identified, industrial uses that are
23 identified, and — and so forth. And so what this is
24 designed to do is help the City in situations where they
25 feel that the use is not that clearly Identified.
Page 78 to 81
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Board of Adjustment 9-14-16
82
So when we did our analysis of looking at -- it
came in as an application for a single-family dwelling,
so the first thing we do is look at whether or not it
meets the definition of those -- of that criteria, and
we determined that it did. We also did take a look at
this because we knew it was going to come into play, but
we were comfortable that it still met the definition of
a single-family use with the way it's designed.
MR. CHRISCHILLES: Okay. If -- And if you go
further along in that course of that argument, as you
get to page 7, points U, V, and W, the — the appellants
contend that you didn't — that the City did not, in
fact, use -• use -- use the City's classification
decision -- decision-making process to determine the
principal as — as contrasted in the accessory uses of
the proposed structure, but you're saying that you did.
MR. BOOTHROY: We used an objective process that we
invoke the provisions of the zoning code that include
all the provisions that are listed in the zoning code to
help us decide whether we made the right decision, and
so we did review this section as well and use it, but we
also — I want to note that it is use that clearly meets
the definition of a single-family use, and I don't --
and we don't think that that is qualified.
MR. CHRISCHILLES: But is there am, factual proof
83
of your method of analysis, or is it just you saying
that you did it?
MR. BOOTHROY: Do you want to bring up two other
people?
MR. CHRISCHILLES: Well, if --
MR. BOOTHROY: I mean I — I guess what you have to
do is you — there's no reason for me to not do an
objective analysis here. I mean there's just simply --
it's a -- it's a — its an assertion that -- that has
no merit.
MR. CHRISCHILLES: Okay.
MR. BOOTHROY: I mean, if I was -- if I had found
that it was a recreational use, then we would — that
would have been the easiest path to follow.
MR. CHRISCHILLES: Right.
MR. BOOTHROY: And -- and I understood that because
of the architecture of this building, these neighbors
would be down here and they would want my scalp. I get
that. And — and I understand that, and It made it very
difficult to come to an objective decision because I
understood that they would not want me to be objective.
MR. CHRISCHILLES: Okay. Now, the City of
University Heights in -- in their original email to the
Carlsons did state that they deemed it a recreational
commercial use. However, they did not use that as the
84
1 basis oftheir --
2 MR. BOOTHROY: I think if you read Ballard's --
3 MR. CHRISCHILLES: But did they — they never --
4 MR. BOOTHROY: They never made a finding.
5 MR. CHRISCHILLES: But they never retracted that
6 statement either.
7 MR. BOOTHROY: He kind of retracts that in his
8 letter today, so --
9 MR. CHRISCHILLES: Well, that's today, after --
10 MR. BOOTHROY: Well, we asked for clarification
11 because my understanding is that -- that the issue never
12 was focused on the zoning classification because very
13 quickly in the process, they got into the sensitive
14 areas, and so the applicant is here tonight and they may
15 provide more information on that. I was not involved in
16 the University Heights, I don't know what their codes
17 say, I don't know what their regulations say. All 1
18 know is what the city attorney of University Heights
19 said, and he said they did not make a determination that
20 that was a commercial recreational use. And he's not
21 here.
22 MR. CHRISCHILLES: It just says that their decision
23 was not based on the conclusion that a proposed
24 structure appeared to show a commercial recreational use
25 that was prohibited in the R-1 zone.
85
1 MR. BOOTH ROY: That's — that's what I said, it
2 didn't add a conclusion that it was a commercial
3 recreational use.
4 MR. CHRISCHILLES: That just shows that that's not
5 what they based their decision on. That does not mean
6 that that wasn't their opinion of what that structure
7 really was. Or how they viewed that structure.
8 MR. BOOTH ROY: But he said he did not come to a
9 conclusion. I came to a conclusion as the building
10 official that this was a single-family residential
11 intended for household use. He did not get to that
12 point in his analysis. It was all about the slopes. He
13 did not arrive at a conclusion that it was a — and
14 frankly, it's important from the historical perspective
15 of this, but it's not germane to this particular
16 meeting.
17 MR. CHRISCHILLES: But how does the original plan
18 that they were looking at when they first called it
19 commercial recreational differ from the plan that was
20 submitted to you, the blueprints?
21 MR. BOOTHROY: I haven't seen the blueprints. My
22 understanding is -- I've seen some concepts. My
23 understanding it was three-story, it had some — they
24 may have some plans here tonight to share with you. You
25 should ask the applicant. That was not submitted to the
Page 82 to 85
Page 86 to 89
Board of Adjustment
9-t4-16
1
86
1
88
1
City. The preliminary stuff that I've seen had —was a
1
lines like they — like it was done in the'80s.
2
drawing that showed some — a three-story building. 1
2
And so in recent history with subdivision process,
3
don't remember specifically except that— that it was a
3
we require either a permanent turnaround if the street
4
little bit taller, had an additional story and — and
4
cannot go forward, like a hammerhead, thafs not — or a
5
was a little bit larger. And -- and you're right on
5
cul-de-sac. If we know that the street could possibly
6
that the Issue Is still whether or not it's a commercial
6
be extended at some future date, then we require a
7
use. Whether it's —
7
temporary turnaround and it's as much for motorists, not
8
MR. CHRISCHILLES: Right.
8
turning around in driveways, and service vehicles as it
9
MR. BOOTHROY: -- three stories or two stories, you
9
is also important for fire apparatus. So it's — it's a
10
know, we're dancing on — on the head of a pin.
10
combination of traffic circulation as well as fire
11
MR. CHRISCHILLES: Right, but I — I'm just
11
apparatus.
12
interested to know what-- if you were familiar with
12
MR. CHRISCHILLES: But there are different— there
13
what had been changed that led you to believe that what
13
are different standards on streets that have only three
14
they first -- their first opinion, what had changed when
14
houses on them versus four or more?
15
it came to the City of Iowa City that made it a
35
MR. BOOTHROY: Absolutely. Because in terms of
16
nonfactor.
16
averaging, the code specifically says if you have three
17
MR. BOOTHROY: I found out about the email from
17
or less houses on a street, then the council legislated
18
Steve Ballard that you're talking about --
18
that they do not have to meet the 20 -foot setback You
19
MR. CHRISCHILLES: Yeah.
19
don't have to do the averaging, you can have 15.
20
MR. BOOTHROY: —when the packet went out to the
20
MR. CHRISCHILLES: Yeah, I understand —1
21
board, so If you read the packet on Friday, that's the
21
understand that in relation to setbacks, but does it
22
same time I found out about it. So the decision on the
22
create any public safety differences?
23
building permit was made without seeing those plans or
23
MR. BOOTHROY: Not any more than Rowland Court,
24
no one having that information in hand. It Is a
24
which has five or six houses on a longer street that's
25
different city. It has different rules. It has a
25
dead end without a turnaround.
Page 86 to 89
87
89
1
different process, and frankly, It doesn't — it — It
1
MR. CHRISCHILLES: Okay.
2
isn't significant in terms of what our laws say. 1
2
MR. BOOTHROY: Which is the — which is the street
3
don't know what their sensitive areas -- I can tell you
3
right next door.
4
that Iowa City we exempt single-family and two-family
4
MR. CHRISCHILLES: I have one more question. In
5
dwellings from the Sensitive Areas Ordinance. They
5
the notes here, it said that — or in the packet it said
6
obviously don't
6
that the issue was brought to council on June --
7
MR. CHRISCHILLES: Okay. And this -- I guess it's
7
June 21st, and they said they would look into it at
8
just kind of a general question. So having — If that
8
their next meeting, which was two weeks after that. And
9
lot had been subdivided into two, is that — that
9
then the final building permit was issued one week after
10
obviously increases the standards applied to that
10
that.
11
property In terms of, you know, does it bring into play
11
MR. BOOTHROY: I think it was reissued, but -
12
slormwater, sewer, erosion, fire safety, vehicles,
12
MR. CHRISCHILLES: Reissued, right, after that. On
13
circulation, et cetera?
13
June 28th. So --
14
MR. BOOTHROY: Stormwater management doesn't come
14
MR. BOOTHROY: Because of the driveway.
15
into play because iCs not— stormwater management does
is
MR. CHRISCHILLES: Yeah. So why—why wasn't the
16
not come Into play because it's not large enough. It
16
process delayed until the city council weighed In on it?
17
doesn't comply. It — it's too small a parcel under
17
MR. BOOTHROY: Council has no authority.
18
the — the City's code. Because the street is being
18
MR. CHRISCHILLES: Then why did they even look at
19
extended the full length of the property, and you know
19
it?
20
the property's over 120 feet long and it gives
20
MR. BOOTHROY: Good question. It— The — the --
21
opportunities for additional lots along the frontage, we
21
1 don't know. I mean the public brought it to the
22
felt it important to have the ability to have vehicles
22
council's attention, but I think they were misled to
23
tum around because it would be more than 150 feet long
23
believe that the council actually had authority. You
24
there. Even If It wasn't a fire apparatus issue, we no
24
have authority. Council has no authority. The reason
25
longer promote streets being stubbed out of property
25
we're here tonight and I think subsequently, as I
Page 86 to 89
Board of Adjustment
91
1 got a shed roof, so at the midpoint down to the grade,
2 the average grade around the building, that's how we
3 determine the height. in this — in this situation,
4 most of the building is below grade.
5 MR. WEITZEL: And did construction ever begin on
6 this project?
7 MR. BOOTHROY: No. The grading— They did
8 excavation.
9 MR. WEITZEL: Okay.
10 MR. BOOTHROY: That's a term of art. Development
11 is a term of art, sounder that --our definition, that
12 would be considered the start of — of the project, but
13 they never actually poured footings or did any kind of
14 structural work.
15 MR. WEITZEL: Okay. So they've not really become
16 materially encumbered on this?
17 MR. BOOTHROY: Well, that's a legal question.
18 MR. WEITZEL: Okay.
19 MR. BOOTHROY: I would say that in my experience,
20 that would be fairly debatable.
21 MR. WEITZEL: Okay.
22 MR. BOOTHROY: And I think we would have to look at
23 that. I — I don't want to talk about that at this
24 moment —
25 MR. WEITZEL: Okay.
9-14-16
92
MR. BOOTHROY: — because I'm not so sure --
MR. WEITZEL: Okay.
MR. BOOTHROY: -- of what the decision would be.
MR. WEITZEL: Okay.
MR. BOOTHROY: In other words, I would want to
consult with the city legal department.
MR. WEITZEL: Okay. And there's no such thing as a
residential entertainment use.
MR. BOOTHROY: That's correct.
MR. WEITZEL: Okay, thanks.
MS. SOGLIN: I just have two questions as well. I
had the question about the height and since you're using
this average — averaging of the grade —
MR. BOOTHROY: It's -- its defined that way in the
zoning code.
MS. SOGLIN: And that there is one window that
allows egress --
MR, BOOTHROY: Yes.
MS. SOGLIN: — so what is —
MR. BOOTHROY: Window well.
MS. SOGLIN: — the greatest portion of that
cellar, if you will, that is above grade?
MR. BOOTHROY: I think I could have -- Tim, can
you — I'm not sure you — he knows it, but maybe you
can -- you've looked at the plans in more detail than I
93
1 have, so you're asking me a very specific question
2 on the —
3 MS. SOGLIN: And part of the reason I'm asking is
4 there is a definition somewhere in these hundreds of
5 pages about a cellar being 3.5 feet below grade, that
6 the height — the height --
7 MR. BOOTHROY: Basically it's a cellar if it's —
8 if its less than four feet out of the ground. Or —
9 Did I say that correctly? Yeah. So that — so a
10 basement wall is typically eight feet, and so If more
11 than half of the wall of the basement is below grade,
12 then it's defined as a cellar as opposed to a basement
13 The reason that's significant, that it gets into how
14 you — whether you define that as a story or not.
15 However, we don't prohibit three-story buildings in
16 residential zones. We'd only — So I think It's kind
17 of irrelevant.
18 MS. SOGLIN: Okay.
19 MR. BOOTHROY: But it's all about the height of the
20 building. It's not about the number of stories.
21 MS. SOGLIN: No, I understand. It was just partly,
22 you know, with —
23 MR. BOOTHROY: Yeah, yeah.
24 MS. SOGLIN: — three-dimensional drawings, its
25 sometimes hard to truly understand the elevation.
Page 90 to 93
90
1
understand it, we informed the council that they had no
1
2
authority. I don't recall if there was a -- a
2
3
memorandum issued, but I think it was a misunderstanding
3
4
in the neighborhood that the council could do something
4
5
when, in fact, they couldn't. Except listen.
5
6
MR. CHRISCHILLES: But it was never considered that
6
7
it might be just a courtesy to allow -- to wait until
7
8
you heard what happened at that meeting, or you just
8
9
thought it didn't make any difference?
9
10
MR. BOOTHROY: I think the code says that if it
10
11
complies with the regulations, particularly the
11
12
International Residential Code, the building official
12
13
shall issue the permit. Shall means shall.
13
14
MR. CHRISCHILLES: All right, thank you.
14
15
MR. WEITZEL: I have just a few questions. Is
15
16
there any consideration in the process for defining a
16
17
use over the types of fixtures used, like plumbing
17
18
fixtures?
18
19
MR. BOOTHROY: No.
19
20
MR. WEITZEL: Okay. Building height has been
20
21
stated to be about 26 or 27 feet Could you go over the
21
22
process of determining the height of a building?
22
23
MR, BOOTHROY: Well, in this case it's the —
23
24
its -- it's measured from the grade to the midpoint
24
25
between the eave and the pitch of the roof, so this has
25
91
1 got a shed roof, so at the midpoint down to the grade,
2 the average grade around the building, that's how we
3 determine the height. in this — in this situation,
4 most of the building is below grade.
5 MR. WEITZEL: And did construction ever begin on
6 this project?
7 MR. BOOTHROY: No. The grading— They did
8 excavation.
9 MR. WEITZEL: Okay.
10 MR. BOOTHROY: That's a term of art. Development
11 is a term of art, sounder that --our definition, that
12 would be considered the start of — of the project, but
13 they never actually poured footings or did any kind of
14 structural work.
15 MR. WEITZEL: Okay. So they've not really become
16 materially encumbered on this?
17 MR. BOOTHROY: Well, that's a legal question.
18 MR. WEITZEL: Okay.
19 MR. BOOTHROY: I would say that in my experience,
20 that would be fairly debatable.
21 MR. WEITZEL: Okay.
22 MR. BOOTHROY: And I think we would have to look at
23 that. I — I don't want to talk about that at this
24 moment —
25 MR. WEITZEL: Okay.
9-14-16
92
MR. BOOTHROY: — because I'm not so sure --
MR. WEITZEL: Okay.
MR. BOOTHROY: -- of what the decision would be.
MR. WEITZEL: Okay.
MR. BOOTHROY: In other words, I would want to
consult with the city legal department.
MR. WEITZEL: Okay. And there's no such thing as a
residential entertainment use.
MR. BOOTHROY: That's correct.
MR. WEITZEL: Okay, thanks.
MS. SOGLIN: I just have two questions as well. I
had the question about the height and since you're using
this average — averaging of the grade —
MR. BOOTHROY: It's -- its defined that way in the
zoning code.
MS. SOGLIN: And that there is one window that
allows egress --
MR, BOOTHROY: Yes.
MS. SOGLIN: — so what is —
MR. BOOTHROY: Window well.
MS. SOGLIN: — the greatest portion of that
cellar, if you will, that is above grade?
MR. BOOTHROY: I think I could have -- Tim, can
you — I'm not sure you — he knows it, but maybe you
can -- you've looked at the plans in more detail than I
93
1 have, so you're asking me a very specific question
2 on the —
3 MS. SOGLIN: And part of the reason I'm asking is
4 there is a definition somewhere in these hundreds of
5 pages about a cellar being 3.5 feet below grade, that
6 the height — the height --
7 MR. BOOTHROY: Basically it's a cellar if it's —
8 if its less than four feet out of the ground. Or —
9 Did I say that correctly? Yeah. So that — so a
10 basement wall is typically eight feet, and so If more
11 than half of the wall of the basement is below grade,
12 then it's defined as a cellar as opposed to a basement
13 The reason that's significant, that it gets into how
14 you — whether you define that as a story or not.
15 However, we don't prohibit three-story buildings in
16 residential zones. We'd only — So I think It's kind
17 of irrelevant.
18 MS. SOGLIN: Okay.
19 MR. BOOTHROY: But it's all about the height of the
20 building. It's not about the number of stories.
21 MS. SOGLIN: No, I understand. It was just partly,
22 you know, with —
23 MR. BOOTHROY: Yeah, yeah.
24 MS. SOGLIN: — three-dimensional drawings, its
25 sometimes hard to truly understand the elevation.
Page 90 to 93
Board of Adjustment 9-14-16
94
96
1
MR. BOOTHROY: Its most Important that we talk
1
get our arms around it and to deal with the -- the
2
about the height, not — not the number of stories.
2
vending. It does come Into play here because this
3
MS. SOGLIN: Okay. Well, I am — okay.
3
particular owner wants to use the property for
4
Tallgating, you've gone over this about how that is an
4
tailgating activities, so It's important to know about
5
informal gathering that's allowed in the City without a
5
that but, you know, we — we do — we devised that
6
permit, so if it is — and it specifically says on home
6
definition to deal with the area around Melrose Avenue
7
games.
7
primarily.
8
MR. BOOTHROY: Yes.
8
MS. SOGLIN: I Just have one more question. You
9
MS. SOGLIN: It's an away game, people decide they
9
mentioned you have had homeowners fill out affidavits
10
want to have a lot of people over, you couldn't be
10
prior.
11
parking vehicles on the lawn.
11
MR. BOOTHROY: Many times.
12
MR. BOOTHROY: Right.
12
MS. SOGLIN: Have you had any that are similar to
13
MS. SOGLIN: If it's a bas -- and the, you know,
13
this, about tailgating? I know -
14
NCAA basketball, same thing.
14
MR. BOOTHROY: I dont see every affidavit of use,
15
MR. BOOTHROY: Right.
15
so — I can tell you that overoccupancy, which Is a
16
MS. SOGLIN: It's a — It's treated a little bit
16
common problem in Iowa City, particularly in certain
17
different than tailgating.
17
neighborhoods, so we've used that. Houses that have
18
MR. BOOTHROY: What tailgating does is open up the
18
been designed with separate living units in them, like
19
opportunity for people to illegally park vehicles on the
19
a — you know, there's several up in the Peninsula.
20
lawn. In Iowa City parking has very specific standards,
20
We've required affidavit of use because they'd have a
21
and you can't park at the front yard in residential
21
separate entrance and a kitchen, and we wanted to make
22
zones and other areas, and so in that process of looking
22
sure that it wasn't being disguised as a duplex, and so
23
at the Melrose Court area and other areas, we tried to
23
we've had it in those kinds of situations. I don't know
24
come up with a way to legitimize allowing parking in
24
what other examples 1 can give. Those are two that come
25
lawns. It's a huge thing to get your hands around, as
25
to — tonight that come to the top of my head. I don't
95
97
1
you can imagine, and so we — we recognized it on home
1
know that we've done it for tailgating except in this
2
football game weekends only as being a residential use.
2
one situation. I'm not aware of one.
3
MS. SOGLIN: And for any —
3
MS. SOGLIN: Thank you.
4
MR. BOOTHROY: As long -- Go ahead.
4
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Okay. With your indulgence, Doug.
5
MS, SOGLIN: Sorry. No, no, sorry. Finish.
5
First of all, I want to thank you for at least
6
MR. BOOTHROY: I think I was done. Sorry.
6
acknowledging an obvious concern that indeed, if you
7
MS. SOGLIN: And for any homeowner, if they wanted
7
were in the neighbors' situation, you completely
8
to allow somebody to use their home for, say, a wedding,
8
understand and you probably wouldn't want to live next
9
a graduation party, they can — they can do that at any
9
to this house. That — that's sort of grounded in
10
time as long as —
10
whatever work you do taking into account, but one of the
11
MR. BOOTHROY: And they do.
11
problems here is what you wish and what you can do, what
12
MS. SOGLIN: -- they're not charging and there's no
12
you —what you would prefer and what you're allowed to
13
fees involved? Are there —
13
do, and not only that, but what you are mandated to do,
14
MR. BOOTHROY: Well, we — we want to — The issue
14
and so I want to get into those issues with you for a
15
with tailgating was that it was being used commercially
15
few. minutes.
16
in the Melrose area, and that's why we clearly defined
16
A couple of very quick questions. The — the
17
it as being permitted as a noncommercial event. We have
17
property — the house that was originally on that
18
not regulated weddings and high school graduations and
18
property was demolished. Does city code require that
19
family reunions and all of the other kinds of social —
19
a — a demolishment be advertised ahead of time on site?
20
informal social gatherings that occur in homes in
20
MR. BOOTHROY: Yes. They require a demolition
21
Iowa City. Those are — those are allowed as -- as a
21
permit and there is -- is it seven or ten days? Seven?
22
right.
22
And so there is some placarding on the property
23
We -- we had a problem of significant —
23
providing — and the purpose of that is to not only put
24
significance in the Melrose Avenue area, and I worked
24
people on notice about demolition, but we put that in --
25
with the neighborhood to come up with a way to try to
25
we put that in play because one of the things with older
Page 94 to 97
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Board of Adjustment 944-16
99 1
structures, Friends of Historic Preservation and others
would have the opportunity maybe to salvage —
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Sure.
MR. BOOTHROY: -- important features.
CHAIRMAN BAKER: But there was neighborhood notice,
public notice, that the house was going to be
demolished, and questions could have been raised at that
time about future development, though most people would
not assume that this was going to happen. All fight.
MR. BOOTHROY: Well, if — yeah, I think if the
house is going down, you might assume that We not
going to be left un -- unbuilt on, just like the comer
lot around — you know, at some point that's going to be
built on.
CHAIRMAN BAKER: The --the figure of 200 people,
capacity of 200 people, has been used more than once in
these reports and these memos. Do you dispute that
figure? Is this the capacity of this building to host
200 people?
MR. BOOTHROY: I really don't have any way of
knowing. I'd find that to be very tight in this
situation. Tim, do you — can you address that at all?
I mean, you know, as you know, with commercial the
occupant load is kind of a belly -button -to -belly -button
figure, so it's not -- it's more for exiting —
99
determining exiling requirements and --
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Sure.
MR. BOOTHROY: -- those type of issues as opposed
to comfort. Maybe Tim can address it.
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Remind us again how big the
courtyard is.
MR. BOOTHROY: Do you know how big the courtyard
is?
MR. HENNES: 1352 square feet or something like
that.
MR. BOOTHROY: About 1300 square feet or so, okay.
So what —
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Again, do you dispute the capacity
of 200?
MR. BOOTHROY: You could -- you could get 200 in.
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Okay.
MR. BOOTHROY: I — I don't know. I mean I --
it — its -- it could be a large group of people.
CHAIRMAN BAKER: I understand. I understand.
Because it all goes back to when we talked about the
definition of tailgating and what the house can be —
what the structure can be used for and what's the
capacity for that use.
Very quick question: Did any plan submitted to the
City include male and female bathroom designations,
100
1 urinals, more than one toilet per bathroom, or locker
2 rooms?
3 MR. BOOTHROY: I don't recall lock — locker rooms,
4 but in all honesty I didn't review the plans
5 specifically so I'd have Tim —
6 CHAIRMAN BAKER: Those were mentioned in the
7 reports.
8 MR. HENNES: Yes, there were — the restrooms did
9 come in labeled male — or male and female, men's and
10 women's, and there was —
11 CHAIRMAN BAKER: Plans submitted to this city.
12 MR. HENNES: Yes.
13 CHAIRMAN BAKER: Okay.
14 MR. HENNES: Originally. There was no locker
15 rooms, nothing designated with locker rooms.
16 CHAIRMANBAKER: Okay. Now, backtoyour--
17 MR. BOOTHROY: But that's not the plans that were
18 issued, they all —
19 CHAIRMAN BAKER: I understand.
20 MR. BOOTHROY: Okay.
21 CHAIRMAN BAKER: But that starts the perception
22 process about --
23 MR. BOOTHROY: Okay.
24 CHAIRMAN BAKER: -- the difference between intent
25 and design, which I want to address as well. We have
101
1 had some discussion about what University Heights did
2 with a comparable project, the history of this project,
3 This did not come to you without — or the staff without
4 some foreknowledge of — this was an issue in University
5 Heights. What the specifics were are debatable at this
6 point, but it was Gear that one of the things being
7 discussed, whether it was in the city staff at
8 University Heights or the public, was a recreational
9 facility being composed or — or proposed for a
10 residential neighborhood.
11 Now, throughout your report, and -- and I first
12 noticed that there's a John Yapp memo from April the
13 14th and then talking about more information being
14 requested, and then John in a memo of June the 17th
15 talks about we questioned the use of the house due to
16 its design. Why — What was it about the proposal that
17 caused you to take this long to determine its proper
18 use? Because normally looking at the standards you use
19 for residential development, and I have to mention
20 standards, bedrooms, so on, so forth, so what was it
21 about this project that took so long to resolve?
22 MR. BOOTHROY: We knew it was controversial in
23 University Heights. I didn't know the details. All 1
24 knew that — was that it was denied because of sensitive
25 slopes and that the issue for the neighborhood that
Page 98 to 101
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
it
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Board of Adjustment 9.14-16
102 1
attended the council meeting was that It was — they
were concerned about a commercial recreational use.
That's what I knew. I knew that it was controversial.
I did not know any of the details. It's a different
city, different regs, so I didn't pay any attention.
So when it came into our office, the permit came In
and it was recognized because of the design of the
building that it was a Kinnick Stadium resemblance, and
we knew that that would be controversial In terms of how
it fits into the neighborhood, and so we felt as an
infill property as well as making sure, as I mentioned
earlier, that we looked at every aspect of the zoning
code, make sure we got it right. And so In — in
working with the various Individuals in the department
in working through this, we felt that we vetted all of
the options and came to the conclusion, the right
conclusion.
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Okay.
MR. BOOTHROY: It— it did take more time but, you
know, I felt It important that we do our due diligence
in terms of -- of taking the time to make It right.
Obviously some feel that we didn't get it right, but
we're comfortable. I have absolutely no second thoughts
about our decision. Okay.
CHAIRMAN BAKER: I guess my confusion is the
103
hesitation on this project being because of the design
as presented or the fact that there was a public outcry
about the design that indeed, if you just looked at the
design as submitted, forgetting the letter of intent
from the -- the applicant and the public outcry,
you're — in your mind that was clearly a residential
use.
MR. BOOTHROY: In my mind, I wasn't going to make
that decision until I worked through the zoning code and
tested it against all the definitions. Ido not Jump to
judgment based upon the facade, but I -- but I
recognized -- you know. I've been involved with other
infill lots even In Manville Heights, and for whatever
reason, they become very controversial. This is much
more controversial than the last One I worked with a few
years ago, and so I know that -- that we better make
sure that the yards are there. We better make sure that
it could — all the I's are dotted, the T's are crossed
and what I — I knew that this question had been raised,
and so I did not draw a conclusion until after I had
gone through the code. I do not work by prejudging
anything.
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Okay.
MR. BOOTHROY: I've been in this business too long
to prejudge.
104
1 CHAIRMAN BAKER: Okay. But I'm trying to
2 understand when you looked at the design, what
3 information was missing from the design that — the
4 specs were all there. The lot, the specs, the sewer. I
5 assume that was all in the original plan that was
6 submitted. So what — what is the information that you
7 were trying to get versus the interpretation that you're
a trying to — does that make sense as a question?
9 MR. BOOTHROY: Well, you know, I met with John, I
10 met with Tim, and I met with the legal department,
11 and — and not everybody's available the same time — at
12 the same Ume at the same moment, and so it takes time
13 to have those discussions. And when staff would come to
14 me and say, you know, we've looked at these particular
15 provisions and we think it complies, I would say now
16 wait a minute, have you looked at this section of the
17 code or have you looked at that section of the code or
18 do we need to look at this, and so we did more research.
19 We wanted to test the commercial aspect of it so that we
20 were comfortable that we were making no error.
21 CHAIRMAN BAKER: Okay.
22 MR. BOOTHROY: And so we didn't spend all our
23 energies at one moment of time and — and direct all of
24 our resources to day one. It took — it took a period
25 of meetings over a period of time to -- to come through
105
1 with our decision.
2 CHAIRMAN BAKER: Okay. So it wasn't clear from the
3 very beginning, in your mind.
4 MR. BOOTHROY: What you're asking me Is whether --
5 whether I would prejudge it based on — and I knew that
6 there was a question about it, and so I think its what
7 is fair to say is I wanted to test It at every point,
8 and so while maybe at first blush — There is no
9 question at first blush, Larry, that its residentially
10 designed. I mean, okay, you look at it. Its got five
11 bedrooms, it's got a kitchen, a dining area, all that
12 kind of stuff. That was never an Issue. Anybody that
13 looks at that knows that's residential. It's designed
14 to live in it. It's got a three -car garage. I could be
15 describing a lot of different types of features that are
16 common throughout this community. That never was in
17 doubt.
18 What becomes an issue in terms of wanting to test
19 it is is there any reason based on the design, is there
20 anything we can find that would qualify it to be other
21 than residential, and we looked at every aspect of the
22 code to see whether or not we could find anything, and
23 we could not find a provision in the code, and we did
24 not issue a — a — a permit for a commercial use.
25 CHAIRMAN BAKER: Okay. On page 3 ofyour report,
Page 102 to 105
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
!8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
6
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Ylrl
21
22
23
24
25
Board of Adjustment 9-14-16
106 1
you talk about the building permit being reestablish --
reassign -- reapproved with a change in the driveway.
MR. BOOTHROY: Okay.
CHAIRMAN BAKER: This is sort of your timeline
sequence.
MR. BOOTHROY: I'm on it. I'm sorry, I'm on it.
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Okay. So a plan was submitted.
You discovered that plan was approved and then
rescinded, Is -- is — Is that the right word to use?
MR. BOOTHROY: Well, suspended -- I think we used
the word "suspended."
CHAIRMAN BAKER: So -- But does that mean it was
approved initially?
MR. BOOTHROY: Yes, the permit was issued.
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Okay. And then rescinded because
of the driveway issue.
MR. BOOTHROY: Yes.
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Okay. But also In that you talk
about double toilets, that toilets were removed from the
bathrooms. So in the first permit you approved double
toilets.
MR. BOOTHROY: Is that true? Yeah. Okay.
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Okay. So why did you require them
to change that, or did — how did the removal occur?
Why were they removed?
107
MR. BOOTHROY: Was that a requirement or was that
just a question that — that they voluntarily remove?
MR. HENNES: They submitted anew design.
MR. BOOTHROY: They submitted a new design. So it
wasn't a requirement. Not a requirement.
CHAIRMAN BAKER: So — but you approved the initial
request for two bathrooms per —
MR. BOOTHROY: Right.
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Two toilets per bathroom.
MR. BOOTHROY: The applicant -- Ask the applicant
why they moved them.
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Okay. But this goes back Into how
you evaluate Intent and design and whether this is going
to be commercial versus recreational. These are tiny
factors, but I'm just interested to note that the
original was approved with double toilets, and then that
you're saying at the applicants' behest only, not at
your behest, they were changed.
MR. BOOTHROY: That's what the senior building
inspector told me just now.
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Okay. Because I know later on
page 17 of your report, you're talking about the City
has no power to regulate —
MR. BOOTHROY: Number of bathrooms.
CHAIRMAN BAKER: — number of bathrooms -- number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
108
of toilets., Plumbing fixtures.
MR, BOOTHROY: Yes, that's true.
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Okay. So if that — if the
applicant wanted to leave the double toilets in each
bathroom —
MR. BOOTHROY: Yes.
CHAIRMAN BAKER: --he could.
MR. BOOTHROY: And we obviously issued the permit.
CHAIRMAN BAKER: All right. I'm sorry —
MR. BOOTHROY: Yes, we — oh, we would approve
that.
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Okay. What if they wanted to have
three bath -- three toilets a bathroom?
MR. BOOTHROY: Not a problem.
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Not a problem, okay.
MR. CHRISCHILLES: Larry, can I ask a quick
question?
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Okay, go ahead.
MR. CHRISCHILLES: It's -- it's kind of related to
that. So how many times can a permit be Issued and then
reissued?
MR. BOOTHROY: There's no limit.
MR. CHRISCHILLES: There's no limit. So the—
what Larry was saying —
MR. BOOTHROY: Typically what people do is — is if
109
we find code violations, they just amend the plans and
we don't require resubmittal of a permit and — and
require additional fees. I mean frankly, what you're
asking is how many times can we charge for a building
permit.
MR. CHRISCHILLES: No, I'm just interested how many
times can this occur. Indefinitely?
MR. BOOTHROY: Sure.
MR. CHRISCHILLES: And— Butlhere'sno—
there's no designation that the first permit was —was
approved.
MR. BOOTHROY: It was issued.
MR. CHRISCHILLES: It was Issued.
MR. BOOTHROY: Thus approved.
MR. CHRISCHILLES: It was— it was Issued and it
shouldn't have been?
MR. BOOTHROY: No, I didn't say that.
MR. CHRISCHILLES: Is that — is that a logical
conclusion or not?
MR. BOOTHROY: No. Well, in the sense that about
the driveway, yes.
MR. CHRISCHILLES: So it was — it was approved in
error.
MR. BOOTHROY: Correct.
MR. CHRISCHILLES: And it was improved — approved
Page 106 to 109
Board or Adjustment 9-1416
110 1
1 in error -
2 MR. BOOTHROY: There was no street paving out
3 front.
4 MR. CHRISCHILLES: It was approved in error the
5 second time as well, at — before the -- when the --
6 Well, I don't know if it was in error, but the bathrooms
7 were changed. Was that — That wasn't an error?
8 MR. BOOTHROY: No.
9 MR. CHRISCHILLES: Because it would have been — it
10 would have been allowed?
11 MR. BOOTHROY: Yes.
12 MR. CHRISCHILLES: And the applicants just came up
13 with that on their own.
14 MR. BOOTHROY: Ask them.
15 MR. CHRISCHILLES: Okay.
16 MR. BOOTHROY: I mean I can't -- I can't tell you
17 what they were thinking.
18 MR. CHRISCHILLES: I thought they might have said,
19 you know. They —
20 MR. BOOTHROY: I — I have not had any conversation
21 with the applicant.
22 MR. CHRISCHILLES: Okay.
23 MR. BOOTHROY: I just met their attorney tonight.
24 MR. CHRISCHILLES: Okay, thank you.
25 CHAIRMAN BAKER: Okay, Doug. When you ask for an
111
1 affidavit of use, there's no specific objective trigger
2 forthat. It's your judgment that -
3 MR. BOOTHROY: My judgment.
4 CHAIRMAN BAKER: -- that it would be necessary.
5 How often do you ask for an affidavit of use and a
6 letter of intent from the applicant?
7 MR. BOOTHROY: You mean together?
8 CHAIRMAN BAKER: Yeah.
9 MR. BOOTHROY: I -- I have no idea. It's not, you
10 know— We get affidavit of uses on a regular basis
11 throughout the year, whether we also get a letter of
12 intent.
13 CHAIRMAN BAKER: Okay.
14 MR. BOOTHROY: I — I honestly don't know the
15 answer to that.
16 CHAIRMAN BAKER: Because one of the — I think the
17 public perception is that when you're defining principal
18 use, you reach a certain point that you — if the
19 perception is you let the owner — or the applicant
20 define the use.
21 MR, BOOTH ROY: That's correct.
22 CHAIRMAN BAKER: Okay.
23 MR. BOOTHROY: Because it's how its used, so once
24 it's designed as a residential use, the law allows it to
25 be used as a residential use but not as a commercial
112
1 use.
2 CHAIRMAN BAKER: Okay.
3 MR. BOOTHROY: And so we were concerned that at
4 least with subsequent owners that because of the
5 controversy of this that this house may be used
6 illegally, and so I wanted — I'm all about documenting
7 it, creating a case, and if there's a violation that 1
8 can use that document in a court of law to win that
9 case. And that's what this is about, protecting the
10 neighborhood and making sure that there's proper
it documentation in place so we don't have a problem with
12 101 Lusk Avenue.
13 CHAIRMAN BAKER: Okay. In the affidavit, there's
14 several things addressed in that affidavit, and you talk
15 about the property being used as rental property, can be
16 used on a month — monthly basis, rented out, but not —
17 not for a period shorter than two weeks. I think that's
18 the --the limit, wasn't It? The— This concept of
19 Airbnb, this person —the owner could not rent out
20 this — this building for a weekend visitor, a weekend
21 rental.
22 MR. BOOTHROY: I'd have to look at the affidavit of
23 use, Larry. I don't have it — I don't remember
24 exactly what it says. It's been awhile since I've seen
25 it.
113
1 CHAIRMAN BAKER: Sure.
2 MR. BOOTHROY: I simply don't remember —
3 MR. CHRISCHILLES: Didn't the applicants in their
4 statement of use say they were not going to --
5 MR. BOOTHROY: Yes.
6 MR. CHRISCHILLES: —rent the property?
7 MR, BOOTHROY: Yes, they did.
8 MR. CHRISCHILLES: Yeah.
9 CHAIRMAN BAKER: At all.
10 MR. BOOTHROY: I think you should ask them. My
11 recollection is that — that that's what they said.
12 CHAIRMAN BAKER: While they're looking up that
13 particular provision, it's also — in the affidavit, 1
14 think there's a mention of a bed and breakfast, that
15 there is a — this could be used in all residential
16 zones, a residence could be converted to a bed and
17 breakfast, but in this case it's restricted to the
18 three-bedroom —
19 MR. BOOTHROY: Home stay.
20 CHAIRMAN BAKER: Okay.
21 MR. BOOTHROY: Which requires owner occupied.
22 CHAIRMAN BAKER: One of those units has to be owner
23 occupied.
24 MR. BOOTHROY: Correct.
25 CHAIRMAN BAKER: Okay.
Page 110 to 113
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
31
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Board of Adjust
114
MR. BOOTHROY: We expanded that a number of years
ago at the request of bed and breakfast operators on the
north side.
CHAIRMAN BAKER: If this were converted to a bed
and breakfast or use as a bed and breakfast, is the
parking currently provided enough, or would that be
something that would be — came back through the Board
of Adjustment for a special exception or variance?
MR. BOOTHROY: Packing would be required.
CHAIRMAN BAKER: But is it more than is
currently —
MR. BOOTH ROY: I'm looking at John Yapp. You're
asking me questions. I don't have the zoning code in
front of me and I can't look it up. It's — You've
seen the zoning code; it's over 300 pages. I haven't
got it all memorized.
CHAIRMAN BAKER: I used to read this for fun, Doug.
You know that.
MR. BOOTHROY: Well, I've drafted way too many of
them.
MR. YAPP: John Yapp, Development Services. What's
in the affidavit of use mimics existing city code.
MR. BOOTHROY: Okay.
MR. YAPP: There's nothing in there that is more or
less restrictive than what applies to other residential
115
properties.
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Okay. Well, my question is if
this were to be used as a bed and breakfast in the
future, it would have to come to the Board of Adjustment
for a special exception or —
MR. YAPP: For a three-room bed and breakfast, it
does not require a special exception.
CHAIRMAN BAKER: And it doesn't require any
additional parking.
MR. YAPP: I believe it does require additional
parking.
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Which would have to be approved
by —
MR. YAPP: Which would have to be approved by city
administrative staff.
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Wouldn't come back through here.
MR. YAPP: Four bedrooms or more would come to the
Board of Adjustment for a special exception.
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Okay. Back to Doug. Thank you.
MR. YAPP: Thank you.
MR. BOOTHROY: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN BAKER: On page 6 of your report — page 6
of your report, Doug, you italicize the expression
"private recreational use is permitted as an accessory."
You're talking about how this property can be used and
hent
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
9-14-16
116
is permitted as an accessory use.
MR. BOOTHROY: Yeah, drawing attention to that
because that's — that's defined In the code.
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Right. But are there any
restrictions on recreational use?
MR. BOOTHROY: No.
CHAIRMAN BAKER: None.
MR. BOOTHROY: None.
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Okay. So the number of people
using it for recreational purposes is not a factor.
MR. BOOTHROY: Correct.
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Okay. The —
MR. BOOTHROY: As long as it's not commercial.
CHAIRMAN BAKER: As long as its not commercial,
okay. If it's therefore not limited, you can lock at
certain aspects of this project as a recreational use,
the basketball court. Right.
MR. BOOTHROY: The family roam.
CHAIRMAN BAKER: The family room, the basketball —
MR. BOOTHROY: The kitchen.
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Movie theater.
MR. BOOTHROY: The living area.
CHAIRMAN BAKER: So there are —
MR. BOOTHROY: Like on all houses, every room can
be recreational, except maybe the bedrooms. Sorry.
117
1 CHAIRMAN BAKER: For the record —
2 MR. BOOTHROY: I think we need a little bit of
3 levity here.
4 CHAIRMAN BAKER: — Doug and I have known each
5 other for 35 years. I — And I'm still funnier than he
6 Is. All right.
7 MR. BOOTHROY: But I'm aspiring.
8 CHAIRMAN BAKER: That's right. So there's no
9 restriction on how this property can be used for
10 recreational purposes.
11 MR. BOOTHROY: Private recreational purposes,
12 CHAIRMAN BAKER: Private recreational purposes.
13 MR. BOOTHROY: I think you need — Because the
14 commercial is. coming in here, I want to make sure we
15 talk about it being private.
16 CHAIRMAN BAKER: You also note, I think it's on
17 page 6, that you have approved structures with as many
18 bedrooms as this current one,
19 MR. BOOTHROY: Yes.
20 CHAIRMAN BAKER: Have you approved structures with
21 more — single-family residences with more bedrooms?
22 MR. BOOTHROY: Well, I'll have to ask the senior
23 building inspector because I don't re — believe it or
24 not, I don't see every single-family house that comes
25 into Iowa City, since there's over 200 or so.
Page 114 to 117
Board of Adjustment 9-14-16
118
120
1
MR. HENNES: More than five bedrooms?
1
So if somebody wanted ten bedrooms — if this applicant
2
MR. BOOTHROY: Yeah.
2
wanted ten bedrooms with two toilets per bathroom in
3
MR. HENNES: Tim Hennes, senior building inspector.
3
each bedroom, you would approve it.
4
More than five bedrooms, I'm sure there is. I just
4
MR. BOOTHROY: Yes, we would.
5
can't recall them off the top of my head, but there are
5
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Okay.
6
a lot of —
6
MR. BOOTHROY: Most likely anyway: I — I — It
7
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Okay.
7
raises a flag, and I don't think it's — I think its
8
MR. BOOTH ROY: We can run — We may be able to run
8
fair to — I mean It's fair to — to question that.
9
a report in our computer to get that information.
9
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Okay. And the recreational uses
10
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Because it really leads to my
10
are permitted.
11
second question, which is if this structure had come in
11
MR. BOOTHROY: Yes.
12
with len bedrooms, there's nothing you could do about
12
CHAIRMAN BAKER: But what if this structure had two
13
it.
13
basketball courts?
14
MR. BOOTHROY: That's correct.
14
MR. BOOTHROY: You mean a full court or just two
15
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Fifteen bedrooms.
15
basket —
16
MR. BOOTHROY: Well —
16
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Half courts?
17
CHAIRMAN BAKER: My question is —
17
MR. BOOTHROY: This is a half court so I wasn't
18
MR. BOOTHROY: — obviously -- obviously you
18
sure.
19
begin — There — there is a tipping point on
19
CHAIRMAN BAKER: In other words, there's nothing —
20
everything, as you know.
20
MR. BOOTHROY: Nothing in the code.
21
CHAIRMAN BAKER: That's—
21
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Somebody could brought — could
22
MR. BOOTHROY: And —
22
have brought in a project with all of these things, and
23
CHAIRMAN BAKER: — that's what I'm trying to get
23
you are constrained by law to approve it.
24
to, Doug, which is the tipping point is not in print.
24
MR. BOOTHROY: Has that house on the west side got
25
MR. BOOTHROY: Exactly.
25
a full court? Yeah, I think the one that — that — out
119
121
1
CHAIRMAN BAKER: If there's a certain point where
1
on the west side where — if you're familiar with the
2
you as the building official would say no, this is no
2
one I'm talking about —
3
longer a residential structure, and then my question is
3
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Yeah.
4
where in the zoning code could you say and, therefore,
4
MR. BOOTHROY: — I think he has a full court in
5
we will not approve it? How do you turn somebody down
5
his basement.
6
based upon what you see as an obvious problem?
6
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Right. But we have a giant lot.
7
MR. BOOTHROY: Well, I'm glad I haven't had that
7
This question here, this —
8
problem. Never had a proposal with 15 bedrooms in it
8
MR. BOOTHROY: It's a large — it's above -average -
9
that wasn't a rooming house.
9
size lot.
10
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Okay.
to
CHAIRMAN BAKER: And you can put 7500 —
11
MR. BOOTHROY: And I think we would — we would
11
7,000 -square -feet structure on it. And yet, I think
12
bring together the zoning code interpretation panel and
12
the -- the public's concern is this is obviously not
13
have — that would be the legal staff and the — and the
13
intended to be a residential unit, so I'm trying to get
14
NDS and decide whether or not there was anything in the
14
at how would you have approached this using the current
15
code. Obviously, the appearance of that would raise
15
code, but what I hear is there's nothing In this
16
questions, and so we would do — we would lock at the
16
application to you or the staff that would indicate that
17
code and do a review. If there wasn't anything in the
17
this is a rec — I'm not talking commercial; I'm just
18
code that restricted that, Larry, we would approve It.
18
talking a recreational, nonresidential or primarily
19
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Which I'm back to the point I've
19
recreational use.
20
been making earlier, which is what you would like to do
20
MR. BOOTHROY: I agree with what you said. There's
21
versus what you can do, what you're permitted to do, and
21
nothing in the code. I've been in houses that — that
22
you're constrained in your view by the letter of the
22
have that type of extensive recreational uses in them,
23
zoning code.
23
and they're just single-family homes with people that
24
MR. BOOTHROY: Yes.
24
live there.
25
CHAIRMAN BAKER: I think that's a fair statement.
25
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Okay.
Page 118 to 121
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
is
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Board of Adjustment
122
MR. BOOTHROY: But what makes this maybe a little
1
bit different is the second home.
2
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Yeah, the second home, not to be
3
occupied that — the applicant is —
4
(Overlapping speakers)
5
MR. BOOTHROY: The one that I'm thinking of is the
6
family lives there and they have —
7
CHAIRMAN BAKER: — conspired to have a home where
8
he can recreate. You don't have to address that.
9
MS. SOGLIN: Larry, can I ask a related question,
1D
would you mind, on that?
11
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Go ahead.
12
MS. SOGLIN: So I just want — So if you —
13
someone submitted a request to build a home that had,
14
say, 200 square feet of — that included the kitchen,
15
the bedroom, the bathrooms, and 3,000 square feet that
16
included a basketball court, a large theater viewing
17
room and other types of what you would call the
18
recreational space, that — there is nothing about
19
percentages of how the home is broken out in square
20
footage. I just want to — You would have to — Again,
21
that would be something —
22
MR. BOOTHROY: I would approve that. I mean some
23
of these — You know, your patio out back is part of
24
that and, you know, we have patios, you know, in the
25
123
Kennedy Parkway area that are significantly larger than
1
this. This is an open courtyard, it's a patio. This is
2
actually relatively small to some of them and, you know,
3
how people want to play In their homes and what they
4
want to have as features, we -- there's a lot of
5
latitude. But, that being said, it would have to be
6
designed to be habitable. It would have to have living,
7
sleeping, eating area and it would have to -- you know,
8
you could not just do this without a residential aspect
9
to it.
30
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Okay.
11
MR. BOOTHROY: And you couldn't put it in — you
12
know, it may come up as a question of it was in a
13
separate building. That may -- might draw attention to
14
it as well possibly.
15
MR. CHRISCHILLES: Did I read somewhere in here
16
that in regards to principal use that it is somewhat
17
dependent on the square footage designated for living
18
space and — versus other uses of the — of that
19
residence?
20
MR. BOOTHROY: Well, the principal use is — is —
21
there's a couple things about principal use. One is
22
that there's only one principal use permitted on the
23
lot, which is I don't think in question.
24
MR. CHRISCHILLES: Right.
25
9-1419
124
MR. BOOTHROY: And then in this — in the zoning
code there are definitions about accessory and principal
use. Accessory uses serve the principal use, and
there's — I don't recall if there's percentages in
there or not. We'll look it up and I'll get back to you
as soon as --
MR. CHRISCHILLES: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN BAKER: All right. Doug, I want to expand
on something that Becky raised about tailgate parties.
There are no regulations for tailgate parties except the
public nuisance laws. Is that a generalization that's
accurate? You have a definition in the code here. Is
there anything else in the code that regulates tailgate
parties in any way?
MR. BOOTHROY: No.
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Okay,
MR. BOOTHROY: Except the fact that we define them
as noncommercial.
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Yeah, and they're — and they're
also defined as football home weekends only.
MR. BOOTHROY: Specifically.
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Okay. You use on page 14 these
terms: Social activity, social event, social gathering.
And these are all used —it's — don't worry about it.
I — I'm assuming they re used interchangeably.
126
MR. BOOTHROY: Yes.
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Okay. You would agree that this
house could accommodate a very large tailgate party.
MR. BOOTHROY: Yes.
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Okay.
MR. BOOTHROY: Yes, excuse me.
CHAIRMAN BAKER: But we define it as football home
weekends. Now, take that same social activity any other
day. I think this is the Issue that Becky started.
There's no regulation for it. It's not a tailgate party
because its not defined that way, but Its the same
activity. Home basketball game, wrestling, championship
play -- and that could be done hundreds of times a year.
MR. BOOTHROY: There's no — If it's on TV, it —
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Sure.
MR. BOOTHROY: — you could have a party to watch
it.
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Okay. So we're getting — we're
sort of going around the issue of primary use again.
Parking for a tailgate, there's no regulation on
packing. You can park on the grass.
MR. BOOTHROY: We—we liberalized the parking
standard during home football weekends.
CHAIRMAN BAKER: But you cannot charge for the —
the party.
Page 122 to 125
Board of Adjustment 9-14-16
126
1 MR. BOOTHROY: Right.
2 CHAIRMAN BAKER: Okay.
3 MR. BOOTHROY: We've got a number of criteria.
4 CHAIRMAN BAKER: Can you charge for parking?
5 MR. BOOTHROY: I don't believe that that's
6 regulated there.
7 CHAIRMAN BAKER: Because people charge for parking
8 in their lots all the time.
9 MR. BOOTHROY: Right.
30 CHAIRMAN BAKER: Okay. So this could generate
11 revenue for the owner who's simply charging $20 a car
12 for parking.
13 MR. BOOTHROY: If that house wasn't built?
14 CHAIRMAN BAKER: Yeah.
15 MR. BOOTHROY: Yes,
16 CHAIRMAN BAKER: There's a limited amount of — of
17 grass open space, I understand, for where —
18 MR. BOOTHROY: But it has to be in conjunction with
19 a tailgating activity, so I'd have to look at the
20 definition. I'm not sure you could just charge for
21 parking without having a tailgating activity in -- in —
22 in progress.
23 CHAIRMAN BAKER: What about a social activity in
24 progress?
25 MR. BOOTHROY: You mean a different type of
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the front lawn if we wanted to make it, but it's
128
unnecessary.
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Okay. The unpaved portion of
Lusk, how much — how long Is the unpaved portion of
Lusk?
MR. BOOTHROY: Well, I think the paved — in front
of the lot I think is about 40. And so they talked
about it being about 150 -same feet long, so from the
property line in along Lusk -- along the 101 Lusk Is
about 40 -some feet.
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Forty -something feet and that is
city property?
MR. BOOTHROY: Right-of-way. City property.
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Would the tailgaters be allowed to
park on city property?
MR. BOOTHROY: You mean like on the city street?
CHAIRMAN BAKER On the unpor-- unpaved portion of
Lusk, which is — fronts their house.
MR. BOOTHROY: Well, it's really not part of
this — this meeting, but— but, you know, we are going
to require it to be barricaded for a couple reasons:
Number one, I'm ooncemed that — that that might become
an issue because of the applicants' interest in
having — hosting parties, and it is a flat --
relatively Flat area and can easily be packed. Number
129
two, there Is a gigantic oak tree right in the middle of
that right-of-way.
I'm concerned that during the construction that
that tree could be damaged by compaction of construction
equipment, so were going to fence that off so that they
cannot use it for staging so we don't have that tree
damaged during the process. I'm very concerned about
that. I didn't raise it because it's not -- I didn't
think it was germane to this particular meeting, but
it's something that we're going to do once the
construction — to prevent those kinds of things that
we're talking about.
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Yeah, and the reason I raise the
issue is because if the concern of the neighborhood is
the consequences of a large tailgating party, then the
City is — has plans to restrict parking on its property
at least.
MR. BOOTHROY: Absolutely.
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Absolutely.
MR. BOOTHROY: I'm going — I'm strongly
recommending that we have — It's aur property. We can
barricade it. There are a lot of these dead-end streets
around Iowa City that don't have barricades or— and
it's because we just used to allow it that way. And in
this situation because of the location of this
Page 126 to 129
127
1
activity?
1
2
CHAIRMAN BAKER: It's all the same.
2
3
MR. BOOTHROY: Then you cannot--
3
4
CHAIRMAN BAKER: It's a party.
4
5
MR. BOOTHROY: You know, as a practical matter, you
5
6
know, again, we're getting into situations where when
6
7
people — when their kids graduate from high school,
7
8
they sometimes park on the front lawn. We're not —
8
9
we're not — because ft's — it's — we just recognize
9
10
that that — that is the kind of activity that should be
10
11
allowed. The code strictly restricts that, and where we
11
12
enforce it rigorously is with rental property and
12
13
commercial property because in those situations it is —
13
14
it's — it's consistently being done and it creates
14
15
issues in terms of erosion and — and all kind of issues
15
16
with public sidewalk access.
16
17
CHAIRMAN BAKER: The—
17
18
MR, BOOTHROY: But temporarily, you know—
18
19
CHAIRMAN BAKER: — unpaved street Lusk — the
19
20
unpaved part of Lusk —
20
21
MR. BOOTHROY: Lel me just also say technically
21
22
speaking, and you may — I don't know if you were
22
23
involved with this, but anyway, we did create a
23
24
temporary use permit so if we wanted to, we could — we
24
25
could issue temporary use permits for these parking on
25
the front lawn if we wanted to make it, but it's
128
unnecessary.
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Okay. The unpaved portion of
Lusk, how much — how long Is the unpaved portion of
Lusk?
MR. BOOTHROY: Well, I think the paved — in front
of the lot I think is about 40. And so they talked
about it being about 150 -same feet long, so from the
property line in along Lusk -- along the 101 Lusk Is
about 40 -some feet.
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Forty -something feet and that is
city property?
MR. BOOTHROY: Right-of-way. City property.
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Would the tailgaters be allowed to
park on city property?
MR. BOOTHROY: You mean like on the city street?
CHAIRMAN BAKER On the unpor-- unpaved portion of
Lusk, which is — fronts their house.
MR. BOOTHROY: Well, it's really not part of
this — this meeting, but— but, you know, we are going
to require it to be barricaded for a couple reasons:
Number one, I'm ooncemed that — that that might become
an issue because of the applicants' interest in
having — hosting parties, and it is a flat --
relatively Flat area and can easily be packed. Number
129
two, there Is a gigantic oak tree right in the middle of
that right-of-way.
I'm concerned that during the construction that
that tree could be damaged by compaction of construction
equipment, so were going to fence that off so that they
cannot use it for staging so we don't have that tree
damaged during the process. I'm very concerned about
that. I didn't raise it because it's not -- I didn't
think it was germane to this particular meeting, but
it's something that we're going to do once the
construction — to prevent those kinds of things that
we're talking about.
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Yeah, and the reason I raise the
issue is because if the concern of the neighborhood is
the consequences of a large tailgating party, then the
City is — has plans to restrict parking on its property
at least.
MR. BOOTHROY: Absolutely.
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Absolutely.
MR. BOOTHROY: I'm going — I'm strongly
recommending that we have — It's aur property. We can
barricade it. There are a lot of these dead-end streets
around Iowa City that don't have barricades or— and
it's because we just used to allow it that way. And in
this situation because of the location of this
Page 126 to 129
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Board of Adjustment 9-14-16
130 1
neighborhood -- actually, I'm kind of surprised maybe
that It hasn't happened already, even without this house
in — in play.
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Okay. A couple more questions,
and thank you for your patience. On page 21 there's a
reference to an appeal --
MR. BOOTHROY: My 21?
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Yeah, your — of your report.
There's a reference to the — having one month to appeal
a building code issue to the Board of Appeals.
MR. BOOTHROY: Where are we? You're starting to
wear me out, Larry.
MR. WEITZEL: Second — second paragraph of the
City's staff response regarding fire safety.
MR. BOOTHROY: Yeah, that's a pretty standard
statement for appeals. I think you have something
similar.
CHAIRMAN BAKER: All right. My question is has
that time period already passed? Or is it only
applicable after the building permit is — is
reapproved?
MR. BOOTHROY: Well, I would — I would go with the
latest approval of the permit, but —
CHAIRMAN BAKER: So if they have concerns they can
take those concems to the Board of Appeals, okay.
131
MR. BOOTHROY: Right. Now, the board of -- Not
to -- not to make this too confusing, but the Board of
Appeals can't grant variances and can't grant — they
have very limited authority under the building code, so
their authority is less broad then yours.
CHAIRMAN BAKER: So what is it that the
neighborhood could — neighbors could appeal to the
Board of Appeals?
MR. BOOTHROY: They could appeal that the structure
doesn't — doesn't meet the -- the specific standards of
the International Residential Cade, that the truss
system is not properly certified —
CHAIRMAN BAKER: These are issues that we as the
Board of Adjustment cannot address.
MR. BOOTHROY: I don't— No.
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Okay.
MR. BOOTHROY: But they could — they could — they
can look at the — those kinds of issues. If there's a
plumbing code Issue, they're not putting in low -flow
toilets and they're supposed to, those kinds of things
could be appealed to the — you know, those kinds of
technical details. It's more of a tech — it's a life
safety code, its not a zoning code, which is not life
safety, and — and so you cannot waive life safety
requirements. In the zoning code, of course, you know,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
132
it's a different matter.
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Okay, let me sort of wrap this up
here because — because its getting late.
MR. BOOTHROY: I think 1 thought I was going to be
home by eight -thirty.
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Yeah, I thought nine oVock easy
but then I —
MR. BOOTHROY: You've been asking me so many
questions.
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Well, I forgot you were the first
speaker.
MR. BOOTHROY: I am? I thought I was last.
CHAIRMAN BAKER: On the Issue of what you can and
cannot do based upon the zoning code, this same project,
this 7500 — 7,000 square foot —
MR. BOOTHROY: Plus.
CHAIRMAN BAKER: — house, same design, same
bedrooms, basketball court, everything could be put
anywhere in Iowa City that has a 15,000 square — any
residential lot — single-family —
MR. BOOTHROY: That it could fit on.
CHAIRMAN BAKER: That it would fit on. Okay. And
if the lot were bigger, you could have the same design
and a bigger scale.
MR. BOOTHROY: As long as you didn't exceed a
133
1 building coverage requirement.
2 CHAIRMAN BAKER: Like 45 percent, right?
3 MR. BOOTHROY: Right.
4 CHAIRMAN BAKER: Okay.
5 MR. BOOTHROY: So there is some limit but you could
6 go vertical.
7 CHAIRMAN BAKER: Right. I have a
8 12,000 -square -foot lot, I could put a 5,000 -square -foot
9 version of this house on my lot on Rochester if I wanted
10 to.
11 MR. BOOTHROY: Yes.
12 CHAIRMAN BAKER: Okay.
13 MR. BOOTHROY: I wasn't sure if that was rhetorical
14 or whether that was --
15 CHAIRMAN BAKER: No. John wouldn't be happy.
L6 MR. BOOTHROY: Yeah.
L7 CHAIRMAN BAKER: So there's nothing you can do in
Is most cases to — to change the primary use definition.
L9 If ten bedrooms, three basketball courts, a courtyard
?0 with a performing stage on it, there's nothing in your
?1 mind that you can do to redefine the primary use from
02 residential to something else. Make residential a
!3 secondary use. At what point in the current zoning
!4 code — And I asked this a little bit earlier but 1
15 want to close with this. At what point in the current
Page 130 to 133
Board of Adjustment 9-14-16
134
136
1
zoning code could you say no?
1
the building being in context with the neighborhood, you
2
MR. BOOTHROY: Well, as you — as you know, it
2
know, I don't see an issue with siting; but I do see an
3
gives wide latitude to what is a single-family dwelling
3
issue with style, architecture, and we don't have that
4
and wide latitude for private recreational use, and it
4
in.
5
is that way on purpose because single-family homes in
5
Some communities do have an infill ordinance. It's
6
the zoning code are treated special.
6
like an overlay zone, so it's notjust this
7
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Okay.
7
neighborhood, it would be any neighborhood. And as 1
8
MR. BOOTHROY: They're exempted from nonconforming
8
said earlier, some of the most difficult site plan
9
provisions, they're exempted from -- in the site plan
9
review issues, because neighbors get upset because it's
30
ordinance and so if — they're even exempted from the
10
been — in this case it wasn't open space, but in many
11
rental housing code. We — we create a lot of — of
11
cases it's just been -- you know it's got trees and it's
12
flexibility and latitude for people to design the home
12
been open space and it's always been there.
13
any way they want and use it just about any way they
13
CHAIRMAN BAKER: So is that --
14
want except for prohibited uses. They can't -- as we've
14
MR. BOOTHROY: People always challenge it and are
15
talked. So ask your question again. At what point
15
very upset because it's a change.
16
would it be not allowed?
16
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Okay. But is —
17
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Yeah.
17
MR. BOOTHROY: So that's what we need.
18
MR. BOOTHROY: Well, clearly if it didn't have any
18
CHAIRMAN BAKER: An infill ordinance, is that on
19
residential features.
19
the agenda?
20
CHAIRMAN BAKER: I've got a bedroom and a bathroom
20
MR. BOOTHROY: Its not been requested. I have a
21
and a garage and --
21
ton of priorities --
22
MR. BOOTHROY: Kitchen?
22
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Sure.
23
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Kitchen.
23
MR. BOOTHROY: Affordable housing and I can go
24
MR. BOOTHROY: Living?
24
through a litany of things that — that are on -- on our
25
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Yeah, and —
25
list, but no, that has not been requested.
135
137
1
MR. BOOTHROY: And rec room? There's no point --
1
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Well, one of the things that a
2
CHAIRMAN BAKER: -- and lots of other stuff. Okay.
2
neighborhood could do, especially someone with
3
Now, last question, and this is sort of one of the
3
established homes like Manville Heights, is expand the
4
things that --
4
coverage of the historic preservation ordinance. Would
5
MR. BOOTHROY: I mean that's how we hang everything
5
that — If that were In place here, that would be --
6
together.
6
MR. BOOTHROY: That would — that would also do it.
7
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Yeah.
7
1 think it comes with different type of rules. Ifs a
8
MR. BOOTHROY: Yeah.
8
little more restrictive than what I was talking about.
9
CHAIRMAN BAKER: One of the things we do on the
9
So I think you could look at either one. It depends on
10
board here is when we have these issues come through, we
10
what you want to do, but both of those have been used in
11
study them. We make a decision based upon the rules
11
other communities to deal with the integrity of the
12
that we operate under. But very often we discover that
12
neighborhood and its context in terms of — of -- of the
13
the rules we operate under are inadequate to the
13
architectural styles. So you could either do it through
14
problems before us. We're constrained, like you, to
14
an overlay zone like a historic or you could do it with
15
answer yes or no based upon a rule that we think doesn't
15
an overlay zone with Infill. I think the reason infill
16
work or should be amended. From this experience, is
16
comes in is that — is that it would apply anywhere,
17
there anything the staff would look at and say, you know
17
even if it didn't meet the criteria as being suitable
18
what? This is something that needs to be addressed in
18
for historic district.
19
the zoning code by A, B, or C, or is it just simply
19
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Okay. Any other questions from
20
we'll deal with it when it comes up again. Is there any
20
the board?
21
change to the code that would make this issue less
21
MR. CHRISCHILLES: I have one. On page 15 of
22
problematic?
22
your -- of your section.
23
MR. BOOTHROY: Well, I think -- well, if we had in
23
MR. BOOTHROY: I'm there. Yes.
24
place infill standards in the zoning code that would
24
MR. CHRISCHILLES: Where it says Number 3.
25
require certain performance measures in terms of — of
25
MR. BOOTHROY: Okay.
Page 134 to 137
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
30
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Board or Adjustment
138
MR. CHRISCHILLES: And it —the last sentence 1
says, "In determining a property's principal use" — 2
MR. BOOTHROY: Referring to the bottom of the page 3
or —
MR. CHRISCHILLES: No, it's right in the middle.
MR. BOOTHROY: Oh, I'm sorry. Okay, I see It.
MR. CHRISCHILLES: "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 through F. I'm not -- I'm not
going to read each one of those, but I think that
several of those would be applicable before the
principal use is determined, but yet, your argument is
that it is — you've already determined that it's a
single-family dwelling, which negates these points being
valid, so you've kind of got the cart before the horse.
You already said that it's a single-family dwelling.
Therefore, none of this applies or is — is valid, but
these are the things that should have been evaluated
before the use was determined. And I don't — I don't
understand that.
MR. BOOTHROY: I think what I said — Let me just
go back and get to what Larry was saying. You know, at
first blush we know it's got a residential factor to it.
MR. CHRISCHILLES: Right.
139
MR. BOOTHROY: That's not debatable. It's got
bedrooms, eating, sleeping areas.
MR. CHRISCHILLES: But you have to have all the —
MR. BOOTHROY: Let me — let me finish then. So —
so knowing that it was controversial, knowing that the
issue that the tail may be wagging the dog in this
situation, this stuff came Into our conversation. It
was not ignored.
MR. CHRISCHILLES: And — and the reason that It
didn't carry sufficient weight was because you have no
other category to put this structure in or — or —
MR. BOOTHROY: We — When we —
MR. CHRISCHILLES: — because you just didn't deem
that it was important?
MR. BOOTHROY: When we concluded that the — based
on our analysis which would — which was a broad
analysis —
MR. CHRISCHILLES: Yeah.
MR. BOOTHROY: -- and this implies a broad
analysis, when we concluded that it does meet the
definition of a single-family detached dwelling —
MR. CHRISCHILLES: And everything else was just
(descriptive sound).
MR. BOOTHROY: Once you Identify the use, you move
forward.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
9-14-16
140
MR. CHRISCHILLES: Right, but then this is— What
I'm getting at is this should have been — these factors
are very important In determining the principal use and,
therefore, you get my cart -before -the -horse argument?
MR. BOOTH ROY: I don't think we put the cart before
the horse. What I would say is that we tried to do the
most objective analysis possible. I would not prejudge
this and put the cart before the horse. What I would do
is say this is what this looks like. It is -- it has
got a residential component. Is it, in fact, a
single-family dwelling. Let's look at all the factors,
and we did talk about these kind of things, but some of
these just drop off. The site —
MR. CHRISCHILLES: Some of them do. Yeah, some of
them do.
(Overlapping speakers)
MR. BOOTHROY: Most of them do.
MR.CHRISCHILLES: No,not—not—well—
MR. BOOTHROY: Well, building and —
(Overlapping speakers)
MR. CHRISCHILLES: What I'm saying, it seems kind
of to me that what — the process that was done was the
checking off of boxes and it satisfies this, this, this,
this, this. We've got five boxes —
MR. BOOTHROY: No.
141
1 MR. CHRISCHILLES: — checked, so it qualifies as a
2 single-family residence.
3 MR. BOOTHROY: Doesn't take six and a half weeks to
4 check off boxes.
5 MR. CHRISCHILLES: That's what Larry was asking.
6 Why — why did it take so long?
7 MR. BOOTHROY: Because of the thoroughness of the
8 review. You — We were not going to rush — rush to
9 judgment on this, and so when you debate whether or not
10 there is any reason to consider some of these other
11 aspects that you're talking about —
12 MR. CHRISCHILLES: Some of them are —
13 MR. BOOTHROY: —it takes time.
14 MR. CHRISCHILLES: —very important. Very
15 important, though.
16 MR. BOOTHROY: No question. Do you have a
17 question? Sorry, John Yapp has a point too.
18 MR. YAPP: John Yapp, Development Services. 1
19 can't find the reference right now, but the use
20 classification section of the code does specifically say
21 that those criteria listed on page 15 are to be used for
22 uses not otherwise classified. In other words, they're
23 to be used as a method to classify a use when the use
24 classification is not otherwise listed. That's — The
25 residential use classifications is listed —
Page 138 to 141
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Board of A
142
MR. CHRISCHILLES: That's a circular argument. I
have one more question for — for Tim, is it? Is it —
What's your last name?
MR. HENNES: Hennes.
MR. CHRISCHILLES: Oh, no, you're the wrong one.
Is — is Tim — Tim Goerdt here? Tim?
MR. BOOTHROY: No. Terry Goerdt.
MR. CHRISCHILLES: Terry Goerdt?
MR. BOOTHROY: No.
MR. CHRISCHILLES: Okay. Never mind then.
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Any other questions for Doug?
MR, BOOTHROY: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Thank you very much, Doug.
MR. BOOTHROY: Anyone need another break?
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Well, I want to talk to Mr. Larew
about that. Jim, give us an idea about the — the
format of your presentation and what we can expect as
far as time goes.
MR. LAREW: You can expect that it will last an
hour or more. We'll begin with myself. We have 12 or
13 speakers who have given thought to their presentation
but will not ovedap it or making their points in a
redundant way. It would take me three minutes to -- to
set up. If you want to take a break now, that's —
CHAIRMAN BAKER: I was coins to say. I don't want
143
to interrupt the presentation later—
MR. LAREW: I think it would be good to take --
CHAIRMAN BAKER: -- if we take like a five-minute
break now.
MR. LAREW: Yes.
CHAIRMAN BAKER: And come back at eight -forty and
then once your presentation is over, I think that the
board needs to talk about a possible postponement or a
continuance of the hearing, but we'll talk about that
after your presentation.
MR. LAREW: Right, and with your permission, what
I'd like to do when you're up and around, I have bound
exhibits to try to make it easier for people to find
things. Some of these you've gotten electronically.
They're tabbed and numbered, and I will put them on
your— on your desk. And then so you get some sense of
the order of things, the first person that we intend to
have speak after me is a representative of our
engineering fine because we think there are technical
specific issues that you'll want.
Then we'll have a couple of speakers, and this is a
core issue here where we're presenting that there is a
methodology. Particularly we're calling this an
entertainment matter and the point has come up
expressly. And that is to say, where there's a use
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
944-1e
144
that's not anticipated, we'll have a couple of speakers
and then we'll go from there, so I would anticipate that
we'll be taking at least an hour Just to present our
list.
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Let's take a ten-minute break.
All right. Eight forty-five.
(A brief recess was taken.)
CHAIRMAN BAKER: All right. Before Jim speaks, I'd
like to raise the possibility that after Jim, the
appellant presentation, and the public discussion from
those that support the appellants' case, we adjourn
until Monday evening to hear from the homeowner, the
lawyers, supporters of that because quite frankly,
folks, I would suspect that with just that schedule,
we're going to be pushing eleven o'clock and we're not
going to be able to be at our best after a certain
point. And to be fair to everyone, I suspect that most
of the people here are in support of the appellant and
you will get a chance to talk, but I want to be fair to
the board and be fair to everybody else that indeed, we
are probably looking at a continuance of this hearing
until Monday evening. And, Sarah, I assume that we can
get this chamber back.
So, Jim.
MR. LAREW: I -- I will be in St. Louis on Monday.
145
Appellate court.
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Is there some other attorney or
some other representative — since you're -- so this
will not work for you. Okay. Just -- I've got to be
fair here. When would you be here, Jim?
MR. LAREW: I'm only gone until midweek, so I'll be
there Sunday through Tuesday.
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Through Tuesday. I teach on
Thursday nights. We're now back to Wednesday, a week
from today. Any problem with any board member? Okay.
And once again, I apologize if this seems arbitrary, but
to be fair and to be effective, I think a reasonable
cutoff point is after the presentation of the
appellants' case and their supporters, so with that in
mind, we'll see where we go and what time it is. And,
Jim, please say hello.
MR. LAREW: Thank you, and thank you to members of
the board for your service. We understand the
independent nature of the board as it is designed and
created by state code. I don't intend to respond to
every paint that came up. I know there are others here
who can do that and will, but there are a few points
that came up that perhaps only I can respond, and I'll
try to do it now before going into the body of the --
of -- of the work, and it will be along these lines:
Page 142 to 145
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
Z
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Board of Adjustment 9.14-16
146 1
One, that it was us who, in fact, objected to certain
documents placed in the file by the -- the City which we
thought wrongfully instructed this body as to the nature
of its powers.
We were disturbed that a member of the City would
instruct you as to anything because you are intended to
be independent. This was an administerial kind of memo
here. It was instructing you, we thought wrongfully, as
to the scope of your duties and made that point as
emphatically as we could through counsel. You should
know that that correspondence has been included in the
pack of the materials and, counsel, you'll decide
whether — I don't intend to go through them as a part
of my presentation, but they're public records and —
and because frankly, Mr. Parmenter and I don't agree
on -- on some things, and I'll point out those as we
come because it affects our case.
We're going to present our case broadly and
respectfully because people can have differences and we
do. It comes, for example, to the issue of the site
plan. I do think it's an issue before this group, and
I'll explain to you why it is and in the course of our
presentation, we'll -- we'll present those facts in
support of that and part of that proposition.
Two, an issue has been brought up about the
147
Steve -- or the Steve Ballard letter, and let me be
clear. I've read it carefully, although quickly,
because it was just presented to us. I don't think it
says a thing that's in contradiction as to what we
presented, and that was this: We have two levels of
concern. On the -- along the board, I don't have
PowerPoints so you have copies of these. These -- This
exhibit, which is the University Heights proposal by the
Carlsons, is your --
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Jim, just a second. Sarah, Is he
being picked up by the --
MS. WALZ: You might want to sit --
MR. LAREW: And I'll sit back. This is 40, 39, 41.
So It's right in that -- in that group in your books by
tabs. And when this proposal was made to University
Heights, you can see the middle placard here. That
schematic is the one that the Carlsons presented to
University Heights, a 3D diagram of what they thought
University Heights should have in its residential
neighborhood, and it was that proposal and then as far
as we know, then the drawing and the schematic that is
to the left of it which was the source of the initial
opinion issued by Steve Ballard in an email which you
have a copy of which says, "We have reviewed the initial
documents and we feel after going through a use analysis
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
148
that this really isn't a residential structure. It's
our preliminary opinion. We've gone through it and we
think it is more commercial than residential," and they
went through a use analysis and gave the conclusion, and
they broke it down by percentages.
That document was quoted in our submissions to you,
and we concede that some other issues took over. That
was the initial opinion. It was never withdrawn, and
in -- in University Heights it was rejected on other
grounds, which is what my submission says. It was -- it
was voted by the council because it involved a Sensitive
Areas Ordinance interpretation, it involves
infrastructure involving stonnwater, things that don't
apply here. But that initial opinion was rendered and
never retracted, and it's important to us for two
reasons: One, that a reasonable person using
classification analysis that we think every city,
whether it's an RS -1 or an R-1, should be able to do,
and such an analysis appears nowhere in the city
records.
We did a public records request and it's like
Myrtle the Turtle, how high can the stack go, and not
one page of that kind of analysis performed by the City.
We have conclusions today, we have boxes that were
checked, but couldn't a reasonable analysis say, listen,
149
90 percent residential here, 10 percent something else.
No. The conclusion from the City from start to end is
this is a residential structure only, and it did not
employ the use classification system that's in the
zoning code that's intended to sort out ambiguous
situations. Is it a fish or is it a fowl? Is it a
grocery store or is it liquor store? Let's find out
what the use is and what is the intent. This goes on in
the city but it didn't happen in this city.
Two. The City knew how to do it. How do we know
that? Because the individual who did not come to
today's meeting, Terry Goerdt, was the building official
designated by University Heights who joined Mr. Ballard
in that analysis. How ironic is it in a city of $278
million budget that the same Terry Goerdt would be hired
by the City to perform the same analysis here. If you
go to the city records, and this was one of our
complaints about a concerned bias or conflict of
interest, maybe Mr. Goerdt changed his mind over time,
over a period of months. Maybe he was intimidated by
the thought of a lawsuit filed by the Carlsons. We
don't know.
But he didn't come to the Iowa City project with a
fresh, open mind, and he was deeply involved in the
classification decisions having to do with this property
Page 246 to 149
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
and building code. He was a point of contact for
members of our group who went to the City. Can
find one person in the City with skills and knowle
who would start this project with a fresh outlook r
than someone who's bound and made decisions
another city. How ironic could that be?
The second issue that we felt could involve a
and here are these people who are evil? No. Th
people who come with preexisting inclinations or
of view that make less than a candid assessment
possible.
The other issue that we mention, and this is i
Eleanor Dilkes' note here, the concern that we ha
one of the attorneys who was suing University He
because they didn't like the decision that was me
married to an attorney here at the City of Iowa Ci
was handling some degree of the communication
do with this very project. And Ms. Dilkes is -- and
admire her. I think she's a good lawyer. She wro
her memo that the city -- as I'm understanding the
delivered tonight, that the city attorneys weren't m
involved in this -- this process. But I was — lost
count of the times that Mr. Boothroy talked about
the collaboration they did with the City, including t
city attorney's office because they wanted to get
right.
Well, yes. Different spouses work for differen
organizations. It happens, but we have ways to s
people. There should be a memo. Hey, listen, o
our assistant city attorneys has a — a spouse is
representing the Carlsons. Well, better watch out.
Just keep her sealed off, Here we have at least t
appearance of a conflict that makes us uneasy be
look at it from where we are. We think a horrible
mistake has been made by a city staff that gets it
a lot of times. We live here. We're proud of the ci
staff in most cases. When something goes terribly
wrong, are there ways that it can be explained?
there blind spots?
We —we have a sense — We don't know
Mr. Boothroy. We have a sense from his present
frankly, as to whether he takes criticism well, has
open mind to other people's thoughts. It's an open
question, and so when we have a decision-making
who wrote the code, who surely knows what it me
making a decision in some of these areas where n
you should have resistance going back and forth,
was Mr. Goerdt? Why was he even on this project
don't know.
The bottom line, though, is that it has to come
Board of Adjustment 9-14-16
150
1 the rig
we not 2 wrong
dge 3 issues.
other 4 of tryin
already for 5 waggin
6 that be
bias; 7 simple
ey're 8 wrong
points 9 that fire
10 street i
11 and yo
n 12 experts
d that 13 It
ights, 14 implies
de, is 15 street i
ty who 16 it comp
s having to 17 City's 9
1 18 Mr. Ca
to in 19 sacrifi
memo 20 to occu
uch 21 and if it
22 law, it
all 23 simply
he 24 board.
t 25 Sa,
161
1 meanin
t 2 have th
eal off 3 CH
on of 4 you're t
5 MR
6 CH
he 7 transiti
cause 8 M
9 speak
right 30 who ca
ty 11 know m
12 Our firs
Are 13 MR
14 book?
15 MR
presents 16 the mo
an 17 well, an
18 misclas
person 19 MS
ans 20 that we
ormally 21 Friday?
where 22 MR
? We 23 did was
24 we had
to 25 the buil
152
ht or the wrong decision. We think the right and
decision can be boiled down to about five basic
I've called those the five fatal flaws as a way
g to simplify this, and I take the City's
g its finger at us saying these are not Issues
long in front of this board, but it's not that
because if you start with a decision that's the
one — for an example, what if you make a decision
code provisions don't apply even though the
s longer than 150 feet, and we'll get into this,
u don't need to do the turnaround, which we have
saying are required.
makes a difference because if its implied or
ted and you have to have a turnaround at that
n order to comply with International fire code,
lately impacts the site plan. Either that or the
oing to condemn a neighbor's land so that
Car
can have his project. Or its going to
ce public infrastructure to allow this turnaround
r. So for us to say we think this is involved
were there would be a turnaround required by
does, in fact, involve the site plan, and not
a matter that should be -- go before another
what document is what and what
153
g it has can be a complicated matter even when you
e City's -- Yes, sir?
AIRMAN BAKER: Jim, I just want to — you're --
alking about five fatal flaws.
. LAREW. Yes.
AIRMAN BAKER: Would you clearly make the clear
ons between each one.
R. LAREW: Yes. The first one, and I'm going to
at length only on one because we have other people
n do it. I think there's one that you need to
ore about, and I think I can present it the best.
t is the--
. CHRISCHILLES: Are they — are they in this
LAREW: They — they are. They're In the — in
mos
recent submission, and its by that caption as
d the first one, it says, 'The unlawful building
sification."
. SOGLIN: And are these the same as the ones
re originally in the packet that we got on
. LAREW: You got the packet on Friday. What we
we had an initial application we put in because
24 hours' notice. We were concerned that with
ding permit issue that the Cadsons would begin
Page 150 to 153
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Board of Adjust
154
to do construction and then they would make a complaint
that having them stopped had caused an undue burden, at
cetera, so we moved quickly in 48 hours. That first
document that was submitted was an application. Then we
were asked a week ago for any additional submissions,
which we did, and that -- that document was described as
such, the additional submission. And do — do parties
have that?
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Okay. We've got it in your
original submission.
MR. I-AREW: In -- in the submission that came on --
a week ago. All right. The first is that it's an
unlawful building misclassification, and we will have
speakers tonight to explain how it is that we believe
that the City, following the same analysis that
University Heights did, at least should have gone
through the analysis and speakers that will be here to
advocate that had a proper use analysis been performed
that an entertainment -- a kind of use that isn't even
contemplated in the RS -5 — is the principal use and
that residential use is an accessory use. We think on
that basis alone that this permit should not have been
allowed.
Second, that there was an unlawful site approval.
Because Mr. Parmenter and I have disagreed on that, I
155
want to spend just one minute, and I'll come back to It
but that's the second one, that under the code
ordinances — we understand that under the provision
that Mr. Boothroy says he wrote 20 years ago that site
plans are not required. But once they're requested and
once they become the basis for the City's invoking a
suspension of the building permit because they don't
agree with the site plan, how can we say that citizens
cannot contest a decision of the building official.
Then to approve a site plan and lift the suspension of
the building permit.
This will be our argument that site plans stand
above and on their own. They're subject to review, if
we feel the building official has made the wrong
decision, and they're not subject to the precept of
chapter -- or Title 18 but they're subject to here. Or
alternatively, if the City actually is requiring the
site plan documents as a part of the building permit
process, you fold it in and say it's a part of the
wrongfully issued building permit, but it's not an
innocuous document.
And our second fatal flaw Is that the way in which
the site plan was approved with a driveway slapped on
the north side going over a fire hydrant was not a
thoughtful way or a lawful way for the City to have
nent 9-14-16
156
1 proceeded in its rush to issue a building permit.
2 Third, that the City has issued unlawfully a permit
3 when there is no sanitary sewer to this property. We
4 think it will be a first in the modern history of the
5 city in which such a circumstance where a preexisting
6 older structure having been torn down and leaving the
7 lot vacant is somehow grandfathered in to a sanitary
8 sewer shared by others, an unlawful use, without the
9 permission of those who are asked to share that burden,
10 know nothing to them about this until this event arose
it that the City cannot under those circumstances issue a
12 building permit. In fact, it cannot be defined as a
13 single-family dwelling because by definition, and every
14 definition we have, a single-family dwelling has a
15 sanitary sewer, and this one does not. You will not
16 find on the plans submitted where there was a sanitary
17 sewer.
18 Third -- or fourth, we believe that the misuse,
19 misinterpretation of the fire code --that is to say,
20 somehow In the $278 million budget we don't have the
21 measuring tape that goes longer than 150 feet. We will
22 have experts who will say that under the International
23 fire code, if your straight, paved street is longer than
24 150 feet, then the Intemational fire code provisions
25 apply. This is 155 feet long, not measured by the
157
1 state, not -- or city, not taking into account and if it
2 were to do so, it would require the same kind of
3 infrastructure that was going to be imposed on
4 Mr. Oliveira, albeit with a different trigger point.
5 He was changing two lots with a lot line that went
6 north and south and changing it 90 degrees to have it go
7 east -west, and that was the trigger that they said all
a of these fire code provisions applied. We think that
9 ifs a fatal flaw of the building department not to have
10 required these infrastructure improvements for the
11 purpose of protecting the public and the 200 people that
12 we think will be in there from being hurt or damaged
13 because fire trucks can't get there, or the fire trucks
14 need to get somewhere else, they can't tum around.
15 It's -- There Is a public safety issue Involving with
16 turnaround, It's not just the convenience of the fire
17 department. It is a public safety measure involved.
18 Third -- or fifth, the unlawful and inadequate fire
19 water flow. This will be a fact issue that you will
20 have to determine because we will have experts who say
21 that for the kind of construction of this building, 7500
22 wood frame -- take the words from the building and the
23 application — residential woad frame structure of this
24 size and magnitude, our experts will say require a fire
25 flow in gallonage that exceeds what the City's own tests
Page 154 to 157
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
i5
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Board of Adjustment
158
conducted after the permit was issued allows. Could
1
there be a more Gear issue of public safety ignored
2
than in this instance to issue a building permit and, we
3
think, unlawfully.
4
Well, I want to go back to the one issue to touch
5
about — on it only for this purpose because we've had a
6
lot of discussion from Mr. Boothroy on the issue of a
7
site plan, and this is the second Issue, which I'm not
8
going to go into great detail but just to get to
9
definitionals. The second issue, the second fatal flaw
10
that we pointed to was that the building official's
11
approval of the site plan violated the Iowa City Cade of
12
Ordinances and law because the site plan omits reference
13
to fundamental code requirements that are not addressed
14
and poses threats to neighboring appellants and the
15
general public.
16
If you will go to page 45 of the exhibit book.
17
It's tab 45. You will recall from Mr. Boothroy's own
18
testimony and the timeline that he put up that this
19
project was delayed, and the question is why was it
20
delayed? It was delayed because the City discovered
21
somehow that the driveway was going to go to an unpaved
22
portion of the road and the building permit had been
23
issued nonetheless. Someone in the shop found that out
24
and didn't like it, and they said we're going to have to
125
159
flip the driveway. Nothing was changed with the
drawings, but they put a new site plan and flipped it
over to the north side, right along Ms. Alet —Anne
Lahey's lot. No careful analysis as to how this was
going to work. It was a flip, and the document says on
it "site plan."
Here's Doug Boothroy answering Tim Hennes.
Mr. Hennes is here, and this is June 14th and it says,
"Terry" — now, that's Terry Goerdt, the gentleman who
was deeply involved in this in both cities but who is
not here tonight, "contacted the owner,' the owner would
be Carlsons, "and the owner has not started" — that is,
started to construct a home — "and was already having
MMS" -- that's the engineering firm — "revise the site
plan to have the site access on the north side" — that
is flipping the driveway from the south to the north —
,.of the lot. This would not require the street
extension."
See, the City is saying you can do this but we're
not going to increase our infrastructure down there, so
you're going to have to do this by flipping your
driveway. Okay, we'll do that.
"Question: Knowing that 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
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
30
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
9-14-16
160
the permit?" Now, here your most experienced senior
building person -- We were told that the public is
confused as to whether even site plans govem
single-family dwellings. They'd rather call it a plot
plan or something.
Well, here the senior building person is asking
Mr. Boothroy what do we do now? The site plan is
Inaccurate. Do we revoke? Do we suspend? What do we
do? The answer was the building permit should be put on
hold, suspended until a compliant site plan has been
approved. So in order to get this project approved,
they needed what they called a compliant site plan.
Well, why does that matter? Because we as
appellants have said that approving that site plan was
wrong. We're saying that site plans matter, and we
don't wish to be dismissed because we don't have the
right vocabulary or because we're a part of the public
that doesn't understand. If you're in the bowels of the
city, it's a duck because it sounds like one, quacks
like one and they call them a site plan around here, and
we ought not to be put off by appealing a building
official decision wrongfully to approve the site plan
because that's exactly what happened.
When the citizens went to the first council
meeting, there was no site plan. Two days later,
161
Mr. Boothroy told ABC News — national ABC News, because
this was a big story — we're going to be approving that
building permit next week, and when he said that, there
was no site plan. But they approved it, the moment they
got a site plan. How can we as citizens be told there
is no such thing as a site plan. We cannot challenge a
building official's approval of a site plan that we
think was done erroneously. This is an area where I
think Mr. Parmenter and I disagree. We think ft's an
Issue in front of the board, and we're asking that it be
addressed.
Here then, having just touched on that issue having
to do with site plan, I want to move to the area where I
think probably of our group of very interested citizens
and able speakers who can talk about other things better
than I, 1 probably need to be the one to talk about the
sanitary sewer. This is one where I think a City's
decision to push something forward, even at the injury
of some property owners, at the expense of others, comes
through most brutally. Most brutally.
We will have speakers who will talk to you about
the entails. They're in your book because I provided
them to you. There was a lot of— lot of concern in
the staff level about what to do with this, They
discovered a sewer. Anne Lahey never knew about it.
Page 158 to 161
Board of Aojustmnl
9.14.16
164
speakers will — will give you sort of a — a
line -by-line blow. Here's -- here's my concern, and
I'll tell you where we're at and why this is
definitional, why this cannot be, as a matter of
definition, the single-family dwelling, because It has
no sewer. It has no sewer. When they demolished the
property, they cut it off. They should have had a
licensed plumber. That's what the demolition permit
requires, but no licensed plumber did it, but it was cut
off. There's been no use of -- of this sewer since the
property was demolished.
But in the meantime, the neighboring properties
have had the matter surveyed. What was — what was
unnerving to people that I represent —Anne Lahey, who
owns the property — What that Is is an outline
drawing. You see the proposed building and the — and
the structure with the north driveway. The first
property just to the north is Anne Lahey, a small little
cottage structure. The next one is the Syrop/Sadler
home, and then over to the left is the Ackerman
building. They had rumors because there had been other
architects and engineers involved in the Oliveira
project, and we heard rumors going through town, and
these people who owned the property were the last to
know, hey, you guys have an unlawful sewer there.
165
And we hired independent engineers to look Into it
What they discovered is that the sewer line Is that
purple one that goes from the edge of the property that
the Carlsons own now and it bends over. Now, nowhere
along the way were the Carlsons never at the briefs.
They want to be neighborly. They're great Hawkeye fans.
No one came and knocked on the door said, hey, we got a
problem. Can we do something here? You know, if — if
we cause a problem, we'll pay for it. We've got an
issue here. We've —we go back here, we don't know the
origins of this, but we have an Issue here. We're going
to have a big problem. No one knocked on the door.
Not at the City. They talked to each other but
never to the citizens who live there, and this permit
was issued under the false belief that somehow the fact
that you have a 1927 permit connecting three homes —
and they're there assuming that this is the three homes
we're talking about. I have three abstracts of title.
They belong to Ackerman, they belong to Syrop/Sadler,
and they belong to Lahey. All of them in 1924 were
owned by James Burns, the person to whom an Issue — a
permit was issued for three homes to connect a sewer.
We don't know what's happened since then. Let's assume
that he must have owned this property of Carlsons' as
well, but why is that a problem?
Page 162 to 165
162
1
She's immediately next door. The Syrop/Sadler property,
1
2
which is the next one up the street, so you have two,
2
3
knew nothing about a shared sewer.
3
4
It's not an easement that appears in their abstract
4
5
of title. It's nothing they ever had a problem with,
5
6
but somewhere, perhaps in 1927, we don't know, you were
6
7
asked to take as faith a transcription of a certain
7
8
amount of letters on a 1927 document that says — and
8
9
let's take them at their word that they can translate it
9
10
better than we can see it, that It refers to a permit to
10
it
connect a sewer to a gentleman named James Bums, and it
11
12
says — the only thing I can read is it says "three
12
13
houses, 1927:'
13
14
Now, this is before there were zoning ordinances,
14
15
the first zoning ordinance in 1935, but they got
15
16
permission to connect, it says, three houses. Mr. Bums
16
17
no doubt owned also the Carlson property. He bought all
17
18
four properties. They'd been platted, they'd been
18
19
bought and sold ahead of time back and forth, and he
19
20
decided to hook them together In a way you cannot do
20
21
under todays law.
21
22
In the course of investigating that sewer,
22
23
Mr. Oliveira, who had other plans and some of which
23
24
you've heard, had an opinion by a licensed engineer and
24
25
said he was very worried. It wasn't the issue of
25
163
1
capacity. How big is the pipe. What condition is it
1
2
in, and what happens with the people downstream if
2
3
something goes wrong with this sewer? And the City with
3
4
Oliveira said you must either take your sewers out to
4
5
Lusk, or if you intend — if you intend to use the
5
6
existing sewer, you must get a written easement
6
7
agreement from the people who will be affected. He
7
8
said, fine, I have a lawyer, we'll do it.
8
9
No one came to the next-door neighbors, no one
9
10
informed them. The City knew all about this. No one
10
11
came and said you got a problem here, and everyone knew
11
12
it was a problem. Now, no discussion. As soon as that
12
13
property was sold -- was sold to Mr. Carlson, it was
13
14
full speed ahead. There was no discussion. No
14
15
discussion by Mr. Boothroy, but there is discussion at
1s
16
the staff level, as recently as a couple months ago.
16
17
This isn't right. We -- we got to do something here.
17
18
Don't we get to — have to alert these people? Don't we
18
19
have to get an easement agreement? How can we hook this
19
20
up? What's going to happen? Can they take the flow
20
21
that's going out onto the private sewer?
21
22
Yes, sir.
22
23
CHAIRMAN BAKER: The staff discussion you're
23
24
referencing, do you have copies of that?
24
25
MR. LAREW: Yes, yes. They're there and other
25
9.14.16
164
speakers will — will give you sort of a — a
line -by-line blow. Here's -- here's my concern, and
I'll tell you where we're at and why this is
definitional, why this cannot be, as a matter of
definition, the single-family dwelling, because It has
no sewer. It has no sewer. When they demolished the
property, they cut it off. They should have had a
licensed plumber. That's what the demolition permit
requires, but no licensed plumber did it, but it was cut
off. There's been no use of -- of this sewer since the
property was demolished.
But in the meantime, the neighboring properties
have had the matter surveyed. What was — what was
unnerving to people that I represent —Anne Lahey, who
owns the property — What that Is is an outline
drawing. You see the proposed building and the — and
the structure with the north driveway. The first
property just to the north is Anne Lahey, a small little
cottage structure. The next one is the Syrop/Sadler
home, and then over to the left is the Ackerman
building. They had rumors because there had been other
architects and engineers involved in the Oliveira
project, and we heard rumors going through town, and
these people who owned the property were the last to
know, hey, you guys have an unlawful sewer there.
165
And we hired independent engineers to look Into it
What they discovered is that the sewer line Is that
purple one that goes from the edge of the property that
the Carlsons own now and it bends over. Now, nowhere
along the way were the Carlsons never at the briefs.
They want to be neighborly. They're great Hawkeye fans.
No one came and knocked on the door said, hey, we got a
problem. Can we do something here? You know, if — if
we cause a problem, we'll pay for it. We've got an
issue here. We've —we go back here, we don't know the
origins of this, but we have an Issue here. We're going
to have a big problem. No one knocked on the door.
Not at the City. They talked to each other but
never to the citizens who live there, and this permit
was issued under the false belief that somehow the fact
that you have a 1927 permit connecting three homes —
and they're there assuming that this is the three homes
we're talking about. I have three abstracts of title.
They belong to Ackerman, they belong to Syrop/Sadler,
and they belong to Lahey. All of them in 1924 were
owned by James Burns, the person to whom an Issue — a
permit was issued for three homes to connect a sewer.
We don't know what's happened since then. Let's assume
that he must have owned this property of Carlsons' as
well, but why is that a problem?
Page 162 to 165
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
l0
it
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Board of Adjustment 9-14-16
166 1
Why is that a problem? Because its axiomatic
under Iowa law that a person cannot grant to himself an
easement. It's a fundamental black letter law.
Whatever Mr. -- And you have a case in the materials
that I gave to you that stands for the proposition.
It's a recent one. It's a recent one. Has to do with
sewers even, that I can own a large piece of property
and send out a sewer somewhere and then later subdivide
it and create easements to other people I don't know,
but if I own all the properties as separate, I can't
create an easement for myself.
So from this early period of time, there's been no
easement and why does that matter? Why does that
matter? Because the Carlsons only have a sewer if they
got permission to go through other people's properties
to get to the city main, and last Thursday if there was
any doubt in their mind, they gave — they were given
notice that they have no such permission. In your
materials you'll find notice of termination. We have an
easement statute in Iowa which says if you think someone
is wrongfully claiming an easement interest over your
land, you must give them notice. It must be served as a
civil process document would be served, and the sheriff
of Wnneshisk County served it, a notice from each of
the property owners upon them and said you no longer
167
have —
MR. CHRISCHILLES: Where is that located In the
book, do you know?
MR. LAREW. It's in the Exhibit 9, Exhibit —
that's for Ackerman; Exhibit 10, Armstrong: Exhibit 11,
Syrop and Sadler; Exhibit 12, Lahey. And then the
certificates of service are by the sheriff, and they're
at the county recorder's office today.
MR. CHRISCHILLES: So how does that reconcile with
the City's argument that since this is a single-family
dwelling and — and -- and has been granted that status
that sewer issues are not part of the zoning code and
they cannot be — they're not under the purview of this
board?
MR. LAREW: Because this is one of those areas
where it depends on — on what side you're on. If you
go to the definition of what a single-family dwelling
is, there is no such thing as a single-family dwelling
under the Iowa City Code, under the International
Residential Code, under the Uniform Plumbing Code, under
the code of Iowa, the Uniform Landlord -Tenant Act. All
of them require -- all of them require that by
definition, a single-family dwelling have a sewer, and
this one has none. I think they avoided this issue.
MR. CHRISCHILLES: When you say "have a sewer,"
168
1 what — what do you mean?
2 MR. LAREW: Here -- here's the code of Iowa,
3 Uniform Landlord -Tenant Act. Why I say its — Its the
4 only time that the General Assembly of the State of Iowa
5 has spoken on the issue, and we're not talking about a
6 Uniform Landlord -Tenant issue here, but it's -- it's the
7 definition that the people of Iowa have provided.
8 It says, "Single-family residence means a structure
9 maintained and used as a single dwelling unit,
10 notwithstanding that a dwelling unit shares one or more
11 walls with another dwelling unit. It is a single-family
12 residence if it has direct access to a street or
13 thoroughfare and shares neither heating facilities nor
14 water equipment nor any other essential facility or
15 service with another dwelling."
16 This — this couldn't pass muster if they wanted to
17 rent it. It doesn't pass. There is no — there is no
18 sewer. They have no easement.
19 MS. SOGLIN: Is that statement in here as an
20 exhibit, you said?
21 MR. LAREW: Yes.
22 MS. SOGLIN: Which ane?
23 MR. LAREW: What's that?
24 MS. SOGLIN: Do you know which of the several
25 exhibits that statement is in?
169
1 MR. LAREW: That statement would be in the — in
2 the argument. It would be in the submission that we
3 gave the — the series of — that's point Number 3 --
4 MS. SOGLIN: Exhibit 3?
5 MR. LAREW: -- of our submission, the unlawful
6 submission of the sanitary sewer. And that's -- the
7 code section is 62A.6.13. But Uniform Plumbing Code,
8 take that. That's adopted by reference, and we
9 understand that there are plumbing code enforcement
10 matters that can be taken to the Board of Appeals. We
11 get that, but it's a definitional issue. 'The drainage
12 system from each new building shall be separate and
13 independent from that of any other building, and where
14 available every building shall have an independent
15 connection with a public or private sewer."
16 The International Residential Code says, "A single
17 unit providing complete independent living facilities
18 for one or more persons, Including permanent provisions
19 for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation."
20 You will find in the summary of the City's arguments,
21 when they go back and they say "conclusions," oddly when
22 they take these definitions they drop off the word
23 "sanitation." They drop it off. Its a fighting issue
24 here. How can you approve this?
25 The City Code 17.5.17.E, "Connection of Sanitary
Page 166 to 169
Board of Adjustment
171
1 MR. LAREW: They're City documents, yes.
2 CHAIRMAN BAKER: But I just want to get clear -
3 MR. LAREW: Yes.
4 CHAIRMAN BAKER: — it is your position, it is your
5 position that there is relevant staff communication
6 about this issue —
7 MR. LAREW: Yes.
8 CHAIRMAN BAKER: -- that was not presented to this
9 board.
10 MR. LAREW: Yes, and it wasn't presented to the
11 people who own the property. Ti the biggest shame
12 of it. Since when do we start putting our thumbs and
13 our feet on one side of a scale? Where is this "we've
14 got to get it right" attitude when it comes to people
15 who already live in the neighborhood? We don't see it.
16 And instead of rushing this thing through, they ought to
17 be securing, okay, if we're going to let that kind of
18 use — we're talking urinals and bathtubs and showers,
19 and those do have lockers. University Heights locker
20 room, lockers.
21 The first -- And there are so many generations of
22 these prints, its gone through so many airbrushings —
23 you would think that -- you would think that these
24 features were like the Politburo on May Day at the
25 Russians. Who's going to stand there today, who's going
8-14-18
172
to be there tomorrow? Who knows. Every time we get
another one of these there's something that's changed,
and we think its a political document trying to
assuage. People are concerned that the intent, the
intent is to make an entertainment facility and not a
residential home, and others will speak to that.
But how could you -- My point Is this: How much
sewage can you get through a place if 200 people in all
these restrooms and — and locker rooms and all the
rest, have at it. Have fun, but that sewage has got to
go somewhere. Does it fill up in the Syrop/Sadler
basement? Does it fill up in the Lahey basement and if
so, do they call the City? I don't think any of their
grounds people are going to come and undo it. They're
going to say that's your private problem. Hope you can
work it out. Hope you can work it out. Good luck.
We think this Is shoddy work, and we're embarrassed
by it because we're proud of our city. Other people
will speak today better than I ever could about the
other issues that are in front of you, but it starts at
the most fundamental level. This doc-- This property
never should have been classified residential, and you
have the tools that no one disputes that are here.
You're going to have to do the work because the City
never did.
173
1 And we're going to help you because we have
2 speakers who have informed views, experts, and we think
3 you're going to conclude, and I'll have a chance to wrap
4 it up, but we're going to give you enough evidence to do
5 the right thing: To find that this should never have
6 been classified as a residence use. The principal use
7 Is for entertainment and it's not in the code. That's
8 why you go to the use analysis.
9 Second, it cannot be defined. It cannot be defined
10 as a residence because it's got no sewer and there's no
11 definition that allows for it, and that's not simply a
12 plumbing code issue. We think fire safety is a huge
13 deal and its been glossed over. Since when do you
14 ignore -- 150 feet is 150 feet or it's not. Since when
15 can you overlook a longer street and say, well, those —
16 those regulations don't apply, even though they did
17 apply to Mr. Oliveira because he had the audacity to
18 change his property line from east -west -- or
19 north -south to east -west, so all these fire code matters
20 applied. Well, they apply here because of the length of
21 the street. That Is our argument, and you will either
22 believe our experts or you won't, but that's why we're
23 here.
24 Now, the first speaker that we intend to bring
25 forward are from HBK. They were the engineering firm
Page 170 to 173
170
1
Facilities to Water and Sanitary Sewer Systems. Every
1
2
kitchen sink, toilet, lavatory basin, bath, and clothes
2
3
washer shall be properly connected to an approved water
3
4
and sanitary sewer system." At the staff level there
4
5
were people really concerned about this. They were
5
6
concerned because in their own file for this very
6
7
property, it says this is in no condition to take on
7
a
more. That was — that was Shoemaker.
a
9
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Jim.
9
10
MR. LAREW: Yes.
10
11
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Just for clarification —
11
12
MR. LAREW: Yes.
12
13
CHAIRMAN BAKER: -- you're referring to a staff
13
14
communication.
14
15
MR. LAREW: Yes.
15
16
CHAIRMAN BAKER: That communication was not
16
17
included in the packet that we received. Is that your
17
18
position?
18
19
MR. LAREW: Our position is that the staff knew it
19
20
and we will have speakers today who will bring those
20
21
documents — they're in the packet of stuff that you
21
22
have now.
22
23
CHAIRMAN BAKER: From your documents.
23
24
MR. LAREW: Yes.
24
25
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Okay.
25
171
1 MR. LAREW: They're City documents, yes.
2 CHAIRMAN BAKER: But I just want to get clear -
3 MR. LAREW: Yes.
4 CHAIRMAN BAKER: — it is your position, it is your
5 position that there is relevant staff communication
6 about this issue —
7 MR. LAREW: Yes.
8 CHAIRMAN BAKER: -- that was not presented to this
9 board.
10 MR. LAREW: Yes, and it wasn't presented to the
11 people who own the property. Ti the biggest shame
12 of it. Since when do we start putting our thumbs and
13 our feet on one side of a scale? Where is this "we've
14 got to get it right" attitude when it comes to people
15 who already live in the neighborhood? We don't see it.
16 And instead of rushing this thing through, they ought to
17 be securing, okay, if we're going to let that kind of
18 use — we're talking urinals and bathtubs and showers,
19 and those do have lockers. University Heights locker
20 room, lockers.
21 The first -- And there are so many generations of
22 these prints, its gone through so many airbrushings —
23 you would think that -- you would think that these
24 features were like the Politburo on May Day at the
25 Russians. Who's going to stand there today, who's going
8-14-18
172
to be there tomorrow? Who knows. Every time we get
another one of these there's something that's changed,
and we think its a political document trying to
assuage. People are concerned that the intent, the
intent is to make an entertainment facility and not a
residential home, and others will speak to that.
But how could you -- My point Is this: How much
sewage can you get through a place if 200 people in all
these restrooms and — and locker rooms and all the
rest, have at it. Have fun, but that sewage has got to
go somewhere. Does it fill up in the Syrop/Sadler
basement? Does it fill up in the Lahey basement and if
so, do they call the City? I don't think any of their
grounds people are going to come and undo it. They're
going to say that's your private problem. Hope you can
work it out. Hope you can work it out. Good luck.
We think this Is shoddy work, and we're embarrassed
by it because we're proud of our city. Other people
will speak today better than I ever could about the
other issues that are in front of you, but it starts at
the most fundamental level. This doc-- This property
never should have been classified residential, and you
have the tools that no one disputes that are here.
You're going to have to do the work because the City
never did.
173
1 And we're going to help you because we have
2 speakers who have informed views, experts, and we think
3 you're going to conclude, and I'll have a chance to wrap
4 it up, but we're going to give you enough evidence to do
5 the right thing: To find that this should never have
6 been classified as a residence use. The principal use
7 Is for entertainment and it's not in the code. That's
8 why you go to the use analysis.
9 Second, it cannot be defined. It cannot be defined
10 as a residence because it's got no sewer and there's no
11 definition that allows for it, and that's not simply a
12 plumbing code issue. We think fire safety is a huge
13 deal and its been glossed over. Since when do you
14 ignore -- 150 feet is 150 feet or it's not. Since when
15 can you overlook a longer street and say, well, those —
16 those regulations don't apply, even though they did
17 apply to Mr. Oliveira because he had the audacity to
18 change his property line from east -west -- or
19 north -south to east -west, so all these fire code matters
20 applied. Well, they apply here because of the length of
21 the street. That Is our argument, and you will either
22 believe our experts or you won't, but that's why we're
23 here.
24 Now, the first speaker that we intend to bring
25 forward are from HBK. They were the engineering firm
Page 170 to 173
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Board of
174
that the appellants hired, and we asked them just to
look for the fads. We're not asking them to make
arguments, but just to present facts and answer your
questions about fads. Now, to do that, they're already
in the materials but when you copy these, at least with
the printers that we have, they become more fuzzy than
not, so I'm going to, with your indulgence, pass out a
calor copy of the same thing so you can (indiscernible)
and then Brian, come on forward. Introduce yourself.
I'll hand these out and we'll go forward.
MR. BOELK: Good evening. Brian Boelk, HBK
Engineering.
CHAIRMAN BAKER: I'm sorry, would you spell your
last name.
MR. BOELK: Sure. B, as in boy, 0 E L K. That's
HBK Engineering, 509 South Gilbert Street here In
Iowa City. As Jim mentioned, we were asked -- asked to
and tasked with providing a due diligence report for the
appellant based on information provided to us or
obtained through investigation, so with that we did our
best to simply slate facts as we know them based on code
and based on that information that we were able to
obtain. Jim has covered most of these items already, so
in order for us to all avoid eating breakfast here In
the morning, I'm going to try to get through this really
175
quick and summarize briefly.
The main item, as just mentioned, is the sanitary
sewer, so this being based on a new structure being
built, the site is nonconforming sanitary sewer service
as it relates to current code and standards. As you
know, the service Is shared privately with two other
properties, 111 and 117 Lusk Avenue, and that service,
as just recently shown here, does cross those multiple
properties of 111 and 117 Lusk in the location and
within those properties. As far as we could find, there
was no documentation of an easement or any other
agreement for that shared sewer between the property
owners which share that service now. There are no
cleanouts provided on the existing sanitary sewer line
as well.
So with all that being said, the main concern that
stands out is the maintenance that would need to be
provided and shared by the neighboring properties if
something were to happen to that service. Who is taking
care of that, who is paying for it. You're adding a new
service to it essentially because there is none there
currently, and somebody's going to have to pay for that
and be responsible for that, and from what we saw, there
was no agreement amongst those three properties.
In regard to the fire flow available for the
Hent 9.14-16
176
1 building, that's been discussed and the fire marshal has
2 certainly addressed, but per International fire code
3 again, and this Is based on an assumption of type VB
4 construction -- we do not know exactly how they are
5 constructing It — the 2250 gallons per minute fire flow
6 was required for the proposed building. Again, the City
7 has certainly addressed that and discussed it, so 1
8 won't -- I won't go into that too far. We did find,
9 again, the fire hydrant is within the 400 -foot
10 requirement so that was good there.
11 In terms of the inadequate access for fire
12 apparatus, the existing access road for fire, which is
13 Lusk Avenue, is approximately 20 foot 8 inches wide, but
14 it has parking allowed on one side. Fire code does
15 require unobstructed access roads with at least 20 foot
16 wide and marked with no parking fire lane signs within
17 those access roads, which currently that is not set
18 there. Again, Lusk Avenue is approximately about 150
19 foot -- 55 foot long and dead ends with no means for
20 turnaround. Again, fire code calls for the approved
21 turnaround for access roads longer than 150 feet.
22 With that being said, the appellant also asked us
23 just to do a cursory review and look at the site plan
24 that was submitted for the individual building, so with
25 that and with some field visits, we noted a few
177
1 different Items that I'll quickly point out here that
2 have already been addressed as well. The proposed
3 driveway conflicts with the existing fire hydrant, again
4 as -- as shown. I think you can see here that proposed
5 driveway right here, and the fire hydrant is located
6 within that driveway as currently shown or from the site
7 plan we have.
8 A couple questions that we just came up while
9 looking at this site and -- and would be normally when
10 first taking a first glance at it is how will the site
11 be graded, and the reason I state that is because of
12 that proximity and how close -- you can see how close
13 that north edge of that driveway Is to the adjacent
14 property there at 111 Lusk. Looking atjust the
15 topography of the site, there's at least a -- what
16 appears to be a six-foot elevation difference along the
17 west wall here, and the question is how is that driveway
18 going to make that transition change with elevation and
19 not get into the neighboring property or cause any
20 problems with the neighboring property. Again, I have
21 no other documentation to know what they are doing
22 there, but something that raised -- raised a question to
23 us.
24 Other questions: Haw will the stormwater be
25 managed to prevent erosion and as stated, the City does
Page 174 to 177
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
19
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Board of Adjustment
178
not have any direct requirements for this based on the
1
size of the site. However, again, a question to
2
certainly note and address. And then how will adjacent
3
properties he protected from damage during construction.
4
Again, with this size of a structure being this close to
5
the neighboring houses, just something we pointed out to
6
the appellant of making sure that precautionary measures
7
are made there when going to construct this building.
8
With that being said, that's pretty much all I had
9
at this point, unless there's questions that I could
10
address now or later. Either way.
11
MR. WEITZEL: Surely the hydrant can be moved?
12
MR. BOELK: Yes. Correct. Yeah. Anything else at
13
this time?
14
MR. LAREW: I have a question.
15
MR. BOELK: Yes.
16
MR. LAREW: Brian, what is the significance of 155
17
feet 6 inches particularly as that involves the
18
International fire code and the turnaround; and
19
secondly, if you have an opinion, that turnarounds under
20
the code need to be placed there, what does that do in
21
terms of encroaching? In your report you have a page
22
that you can refer the people to as to layouts and --
23
and whether or not you — you made an assumption there
24
that if You were to do a turnabout. that all of that
25
179
turnabout is externalized onto a private property owner.
We don't have any -- any knowledge that anyone's
going to give that property up. The City hasn't ceded
that it's going to give up any of its road. Let's
assume that that was placed such that it went onto the
Carlsons' property. Do you have an opinion as to
whether that would affect the site plan or the proposed
building?
MR. BOELK: Sure, yeah. And as you can see here,
so we did show both in this case, which is a cul-de-sac
type bulb for a turnaround or whether you do what is
referred to as a hammerhead type turnaround. As you can
see here, in both those cases that would certainly
encroach outside of the city right-of-way and the
right-of-way of Lusk Avenue, which is a narrow
right-of-way as it is, being an older part of town. So,
yeah, whether that be pushed to the east side as these
shown -- whoops, as these show, or to the west side,
which would certainly encroach into the Carlson property
and building and yes, would have a — certainly a
significant role in terms of where that building Is
placed and/or where the driveway is accessed to that
site. Yes, that would certainly play a role, and again,
I mean — again, IFC does call for — they call it the
150 -foot limit, and as we measured it and I'm sure you
9.14-16
180
can measure it in a couple different ways, we were at
about 155 feet.
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Thank you.
MR. BOELK: Thank you.
MS. SOGLIN: Actually, I'm sorry, but could you
just -- you went through the part about the fire flow
kind of quickly, and I wasn't quite dear why you were
disagreeing with what the marshal said —
MR. BOELK: Yeah, not—not—
(Overlapping speakers)
MS. SOGLIN: —would makeup those flow
differences.
MR. BOELK: Yeah. No, I really just wanted to
state facts from the IFC. Again, we're assuming a type
VB construction, and with that assumption, the IFC calls
for a 2,250 gallons per minute fire flow for the
proposed building. Per the flow test by the city water
division, its 1,584 gpm fire flow projegted at that
location. Again, I guess what I was saying was the fire
marshal certainly stated different reasons why they feel
it's adequate based on what a hydrant can produce, what
their truck can produce, and what the water main can
produce, but per IFC, that's what it states based on VB
construction.
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Could You clarify what tvoe VB
181
1 construction —
2 MR. BOELK: I believe its unprotected wood
3 framing.
4 CHAIRMAN BAKER: Unprotected wood, so a brick
5 facade, it would still be considered unprotected wood?
6 MR. BOELK: Yes, I believe so. And others might be
7 able to answer that better than myself too.
8 CHAIRMAN BAKER: All right.
9 MR. LAREW: Brian, would — Brian, do you have an
10 opinion when — when one looks at the building permit
11 and it describes the owners had described In their own
12 permit that this will be wood frame, did that affect
13 your analysis of what this construction might be, based
14 on the drawings and the building pennft and that kind of
15 thing?
16 MR. BOELK: Yeah, I believe that's why we were
17 making those assumptions on the— on the flow
18 requirement, correct Yes. Based on that permit
19 application, yes.
20 CHAIRMAN BAKER: So the fire marshal, the fire
21 official, you all agree on the projected fire flow, that
22 figure of 1584.
23 MR. BOELK: Yeah. Those are results from a flow
24 test, correct.
25 CHAIRMAN BAKER: According to you, the standard
Page 178 to 181
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
should be 2250.
MR. BOELK: Again, based on a type VB co
that's what the IFC calls out.
CHAIRMAN BAKER: All right, thank you.
MR. BOELK: Yes.
MR.CHRISCHILLES: What -- You said the
MR. BOELK: IFC. International fire code, so
MS. SOGLIN: Is a standard the same thing
requirement?
MR. BOELK: That's -- that's a good question
don't know if I can answer that. Thank you.
MR. LAREW: Our next two speakers will Intr
themselves, and they're going to focus on the iss
use classification and indicate how using criteria t
are in the Iowa City Code for determining princip
versus accessary uses. Such an analysis, if it ha
performed, could have resulted in something oth
the City's determination that this was properly
classified as a residential use.
MR. BEFELER: Hello. My name is Dennis
live at 234 Hutchinson Avenue, about a block aw
this proposed location. Sorry we've wasted so m
here tonight. It seems that almost everything that
brought up would have been completely Irrelevant
the correct determination have been made that th
B
not a residence. This facility is designed primarily
be used for entertaining, for recreational uses, or
however you want to describe them.
The -- the proposed structure here is not prim
residence. There's an accessory use, and I think
we can look to the code and find some ways that
things can be measured, and I think that those
measurement tools that are in place were not app
You had cited earlier Code Section 14-4A-2, and I
that's where we'll find some of this analysis.
I'll focus my speaking points on classification
analysis that Is dearly required in the city code
determining the principal as contrasted with the
accessory use of a property. If this analysis had
property performed by the City or performed at all,
would have resulted in the conclusion that the pro
Carlson building, if constructed, will have a princip
entertainment use and only an accessory resident
If properly classified for the reasons I will explain,
this entertainment venue should not have been pe
by the city building officials as a residential
building.
I come to this condusion in part based on my
skills related to my professional education, trainin
and experience, which has involved assessing an
3 aware
ary a 4 type of
that 5 and the
I 6 this Kin
7 and not
lied. 8 is an e
think 9 exterior
10 adverti
11 residen
when 12 are not
13 building
been 14 In
it 15 number
posed 16 can tak
al 17 determi
ial use. 18 Measur
19 space
rmitted 20 each ac
21 been u
22 is prima
23 access
g, 24 standar
d 25 per per
184
Ing spaces for various uses, for a broad spectrum
nis in multiple states for over 20 years. I'm
ly employed by the University of Iowa Hospitals
nits as an audiovisual system consultant to
and oversee the installation of event spaces,
ng more than 30 such spaces at the Children's
at currently under construction here in town.
old a master's degree in theater design and
logy from the University of Nebraska -Lincoln and
achelor's of arts degrees from Coe College. I'm a
AP, Leadership In Energy and Environmental Design
ited Professional, and I've been a member of the
States Institute of Theater Technology. I bring
professional skills and experiences to use in
ng the spaces depicted here by the Cadsons in
ver -evolving building design submitted to the
nd the structure extremely well designed to
u
parties as the primary and principal function
structure. In my professional view, this project
ipally designed for and Intended to be used for
fining, and as such, does not fit the City's
on of a single-family dwelling. What I find
r is in the City's permit approval process, no
ssification analysis Is documented anywhere.
185
I haven't found it was attempted or
ed or even discussed, even though the City was
of the University Heights officials using the same
classification analysis that the law requires,
y have previously classified a smaller version of
nick replica structure as commercial in nature
a single-family dwelling. Concluding that this
ntertainment venue is consistent with the
design. Built to emulate a sports stadium, the
sed use is entertainment and not strictly
tial. Since entertainment uses and event venues
specifically permissible under RS -5 zoning, no
permit should ever have been Issued.
addition to the building's exterior, there are a
of different and objective approaches that one
e when evaluating the facility's Interior to
ne principal use as contrasted to accessory uses,
ing time spent in each activity, square footage of
allotted to the activity, and ease of performing
fivity. None of these approaches appears to have
sed by the City in their analysis of whether this
rily a single-family dwelling or if that's an
ory use to entertainment. Based on industry
ds for banquet seating of 131/2 square footage
son, like most wedding venues or those type of
Page 182 to 185
Board of Adjustment 8-14-16
182
1 design
nstruction, 2 of clie
3 current
4 and CII
5 design
ISC? 6 includi
rry. 7 Hospit
aa 8 1
9 techno
I 10 dual b
11 LEED
oduce 12 Accred
us of 13 United
hat 14 these
al 15 analyzi
d been 16 their e
erthan 17 City.
18 I fi
19 host h
Befeler. 1 20 of the
ay from 21 is princ
uch time 22 enterta
was 23 definiti
should 24 peculia
is is 25 use cla
183
to 1 It -
2 perform
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
activities would use, the main areas of this buildi
and I lost my laser pointer. Oh, thank you.
So as we look at the main areas of this build
we've gat a very large kitchen here and — and so
large open spaces here. If you take the analysis
that 13 1/2 square footage which accounts for ai
that's designed to seat at banquet -style tables a
hundred people. If you factor in this open courty,
here, which appears to be their intention with all
these large openings accommodating flow to the
than flow as a standard residence, you can seat
hundred people there, so we're talking 200 peopl
at banquet -style seating tables.
Now, if we were to do the analysis of standin
only, if we crowd people in and provide presume
here and catering lines here, we can fit 400 peop
this venue. That's just on the first floor. We're n
using their -- their space here, we're not counting
the garage, we're not counting in this exterior sp
You could have massive parties here, and I -- I b
these designs show that clear intent, and I think i
had run the analysis, it would be pretty easy to s
hey, there's a clear use case here.
I've skewed from my notes, I'm sorry.
Alternatively, one can determine principal use ve
Board of Adjustment 8-14-16
186
ng — 1 close t0
2 people
ing, 3 in the
me 4 homes
of 5 feet, a
sles, 6 meals,
bout a 7 It
and 8 upper
of 9 master
m rather 10 assess
another 11 thcusa
e at — 12 their ki
13 venue.
g room 14 project,
bly kegs 15 calcula
le in 16 exercis
of 17 or 24 p
in 18 Wit
ace. 19 for a re
elieve 20 primary
fwe 21 ofthe v
ay, 22 facility
23 all bedr
24 spaces,
rsus 25 and one
187
accessory use by comparing square footage devoted to
each representative use. Square footage is a little
more — Oh, I'm sorry, I skipped over the -- one of the
calculations. So let's look at their stated intended
use. Tailgating time may well average, say, 200
persons. If we have — have those tables In place for
five hours, approximately a thousand use hours, compared
to the owners' stated intent to only use the facility
occasionally as a residence on those weekends, say
Friday night to Sunday morning, or roughly 40 hours
times two people, or 80 residential hours. The
facility, if used as the owners have actually stated
they plan to use It, will be a residence roughly 80 — 8
percent of the time -- not 80, just 8 — as compared to
being an entertainment venue over 92 percent of the use
time.
Alternatively, we can determine principal versus
accessory use by comparing square footage devoted to
each representative use. Square footage is a little
more complicated to calculate as this commercial bar, or
kitchen as they call it, is not practical for food
preparation. The Island referred to in the plans Is a
16 -foot -long bar. This is larger than some of the
commercial bars here in town.
The overall square footage of this kitchen space is
188
500 square feet, which is larger than a lot of
's apartments. The average kitchen I've observed
neighborhood is 100 to 200 square feet, and few
I have seen have kitchens exceeding 350 square
s It is Impractical to prepare meals, family
in such a large space.
would appear that the bedrooms on the third or
floor are intended for guests, as there is a
suite on the main level. One could reasonably
that the average couple finds a
nd-square-foot-home too large to maintain once
ds have grown. Or 11 percent of this overall
But to err on the side of discretion for this
the main residential living area can be
ted as the kitchen, the master suite here, the
e room, and that gives us about 1800 square feet,
ercent of the overall interior space.
h the courtyard factored in and the deduction
asonably lavish kitchen at 350 square feet,
residential space is 13 percent, with 18 percent
enue being guest bedrooms and 69 percent of the
strictly for entertaining. Even factoring in
ooms as residential, all kitchen and all dining
the venue is still split two-thirds event space
-third residential.
189
1 A third measure for analyzing primary use versus
2 accessory use of a facility Involves analyzing how
3 certain activities will be achieved and how people flow
4 through the facility to perform those uses. That is
5 assessing how easy it is to perform certain types of
6 functions. The kitchen is a primary example of the
7 expected use. The layout and size make standard meal
8 preparations tedious and inefficient Distances and
9 angles between appliances are not ideal for typical
to trips between refrigerator, food preparation space,
11 stove, sink, and dishwasher. The kitchen space is
12 designed instead like a commercial bar, anticipating
13 excessive foot traffic and multiple servers pouring
14 drinks.
15 The sheer distance around the courtyard layout of
16 this entranceway with — totally disrupted by these
17 large bathrooms here, intended flow through multiple
18 catering lines in the screened -in porch and the large
19 beverage center here, I — I think it shows a clear
20 effective planning as a large entertainment event venue
21 and not a very efficient residential plan. By any
22 reasonable measure or analysis, this is an event venue
23 first, residence second.
24 The civil Infrastructure on Lusk Avenue in
25 Iowa City is intended to support RS -5 single-family
Page 186 to 189
Board or Adjustment
191
1 documents, It is stated the only analysis to determine
2 single-family dwelling occupancy is if a project
3 contains separate living, sleeping, cooking, and
4 meal -eating areas and consists of a group of adjoining
5 rooms forming a single unit with facilities intended to
6 be used by one household. With this definition, the
7 City is actively contradicting other aspects of the very
8 same section of code as -- as you noted earlier. If
9 this limited definition is our only measure for RS -5
10 zoning applicability, we have opened Pandora's box.
11 The City has essentially declared any individual or
12 group can come and develop RS -5 neighborhoods however
13 they want. As long as you've got a kitchen, a bedroom
14 and an eating area and you meet the prescriptive
15 setbacks, you can build any kind of venue that you --
16 your heart desires. Iowa City zoning code, as we cited
17 earlier, 14 -2A -1.B or -- and 14 — Section 14-4 — I
18 guess I can read this section or you can read it
19 yourselves, Low density single-family residential zone
20 is primarily intended to provide housing opportunities
21 for individual households.
22 The regulations are not intended to create,
23 maintain, and — or they are intended to promote livable
24 neighborhood. The regulations allow for some
25 flexibility of dwelling types to provide housing
9-14-19
192
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,
pattem of the residential development.
City code says nothing about entertainment venues.
They are not allowed in RS -5 zones, period. Now that we
have objectively determined this project is
nonresidential, it is easy to determine the project is
absolutely not compatible with the character, scale, and
pattern of the neighborhood and furthermore, does not
contribute to the livability of the neighbors. I would
further contest that due to the scale and walkable —
walkable flow through this proposed facility,
specifically as you come up from the basement and it's
snowy and your courtyard's closed off and you have to
hike all the way around the building, I don't see this
as being a single-family unit Intended to be shared by
one household.
Some areas are closed off and isolated from each
other. It — it doesn't seem to meet the code in my
eyes. Zoning code includes a table where I do not find
193
1 anything resembling event venue or entertainment
2 facility or recreational uses listed. Since event venue
3 is the clear and principal use of this structure, a
4 variance should have been requested before approving
5 this venue in a residential neighborhood. Instead, our
6 city officials are standing behind them thinking since
7 it's not on the list, it must be okay, when the exact
8 opposite reasoning should have been applied. For new or
9 unusual projects, we should have a public discussion and
10 decide how to amend our codes so they work best for the
11 majority.
12 The variance vehicle is explicitly included in our
13 code so these types of nonconforming instances can be
14 debated in a public forum such as this and decisions can
15 be made publicly about whether a specific nonconforming
16 project is appropriate in a specific location. An
17 entertainment venue guised as a residence should not be
18 permitted at 101 Lusk Avenue. Event venues do not meet
19 any current zoning classification and, therefore, cannot
20 qualify for RS -5 classification. The location is
21 clearly inadequate and inappropriate for this type of
22 use.
23 CHAIRMAN BAKER: Thank you. Quick question.
24 MR. BEFELER: Sure.
25 CHAIRMAN BAKER: That statement that you made, do
Page 190 to 193
190
1
homes. This infrastructure is not designed to support
1
2
200 -to -400 -person parties. There are safety concerns,
2
3
as emergency vehicle access is limited and slow response
3
4
times are likely to this venue. Remember, our entire
4
5
neighborhood is filed with vehicles at the very time
5
6
this venue will be filled with people, and so it's
6
7
really hard to get large vehicles to this location.
7
8
There's not adequate parking for the events this venue
8
9
is specifically designed to accommodate, and there are
9
10
not adequate sidewalks for pedestrian flow to and from
10
11
the venue.
11
12
Restroom facilities are used in a very different
12
13
way at event venues, where often heavy water usage
13
14
occurs in a very short period. Aging Infrastructure in
14
15
our residential neighborhood is clearly not designed for
15
16
this anticipated use. When our city council passed the
16
17
zoning ordinance legislation, it did not recognize
17
18
entertainment-- entertainment venues for RS -6 zones.
18
19
As a result, it would appear our city staff has pounded
19
20
this square entertainment venue peg into a round
20
21
residential hole. Following any normal process, it is
21
22
hard to see how this could have happened. Since it did
22
23
happen in error, that inaccurate classification decision
23
24
needs to be reversed by this board.
24
25
In city staffs response to our initial appeal
25
191
1 documents, It is stated the only analysis to determine
2 single-family dwelling occupancy is if a project
3 contains separate living, sleeping, cooking, and
4 meal -eating areas and consists of a group of adjoining
5 rooms forming a single unit with facilities intended to
6 be used by one household. With this definition, the
7 City is actively contradicting other aspects of the very
8 same section of code as -- as you noted earlier. If
9 this limited definition is our only measure for RS -5
10 zoning applicability, we have opened Pandora's box.
11 The City has essentially declared any individual or
12 group can come and develop RS -5 neighborhoods however
13 they want. As long as you've got a kitchen, a bedroom
14 and an eating area and you meet the prescriptive
15 setbacks, you can build any kind of venue that you --
16 your heart desires. Iowa City zoning code, as we cited
17 earlier, 14 -2A -1.B or -- and 14 — Section 14-4 — I
18 guess I can read this section or you can read it
19 yourselves, Low density single-family residential zone
20 is primarily intended to provide housing opportunities
21 for individual households.
22 The regulations are not intended to create,
23 maintain, and — or they are intended to promote livable
24 neighborhood. The regulations allow for some
25 flexibility of dwelling types to provide housing
9-14-19
192
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,
pattem of the residential development.
City code says nothing about entertainment venues.
They are not allowed in RS -5 zones, period. Now that we
have objectively determined this project is
nonresidential, it is easy to determine the project is
absolutely not compatible with the character, scale, and
pattern of the neighborhood and furthermore, does not
contribute to the livability of the neighbors. I would
further contest that due to the scale and walkable —
walkable flow through this proposed facility,
specifically as you come up from the basement and it's
snowy and your courtyard's closed off and you have to
hike all the way around the building, I don't see this
as being a single-family unit Intended to be shared by
one household.
Some areas are closed off and isolated from each
other. It — it doesn't seem to meet the code in my
eyes. Zoning code includes a table where I do not find
193
1 anything resembling event venue or entertainment
2 facility or recreational uses listed. Since event venue
3 is the clear and principal use of this structure, a
4 variance should have been requested before approving
5 this venue in a residential neighborhood. Instead, our
6 city officials are standing behind them thinking since
7 it's not on the list, it must be okay, when the exact
8 opposite reasoning should have been applied. For new or
9 unusual projects, we should have a public discussion and
10 decide how to amend our codes so they work best for the
11 majority.
12 The variance vehicle is explicitly included in our
13 code so these types of nonconforming instances can be
14 debated in a public forum such as this and decisions can
15 be made publicly about whether a specific nonconforming
16 project is appropriate in a specific location. An
17 entertainment venue guised as a residence should not be
18 permitted at 101 Lusk Avenue. Event venues do not meet
19 any current zoning classification and, therefore, cannot
20 qualify for RS -5 classification. The location is
21 clearly inadequate and inappropriate for this type of
22 use.
23 CHAIRMAN BAKER: Thank you. Quick question.
24 MR. BEFELER: Sure.
25 CHAIRMAN BAKER: That statement that you made, do
Page 190 to 193
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
s
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Board of Adjustment 9.14-16
194 1
we have a copy of that?
MR. BEFELER: I have an affidavit of an earlier
version of this, so I will resubmit what I actually read
here tonight.
CHAIRMAN BAKER: As soon as possible.
MR. BEFELER: And you're welcome to take this copy.
CHAIRMAN BAKER: No, just provide a master copy or
enough copies --
MR. BEFELER: Sure.
CHAIRMAN BAKER: — for the rest of us.
MR. WEITZEL: I have a question too.
CHAIRMAN BAKER: You're welcome. Go ahead.
MR. WEITZEL: Do you have a metric, like a ratio of
living area to entertainment area, and do you have a
comparison to a typical home and do you have a cite in
the code where that comes up?
MR. BEFELER: I can't cite another instance in the
code where this has come up. I guess I use a reasonable
measure of primary versus accessory. Primary would be
over 51 percent and accessory would be, you know, 49 or
less, and so that's kind of a logical conclusion of --
MR. WEITZEL: Okay, thanks.
MR. BEFELER: — you know, one of event venue.
CHAIRMAN BAKER: You use a lot of percentages and
ratios. Do you know, is this standard or is this
195
process part of any city code anywhere? Is it applied
in any code that you know of?
MR. BEFELER: I think these calculations are, I
guess, implied in the zoning section. Do you have that
section? Do you want to read that aloud, the 14-4-1.A?
Or A.2? I don't have it in front of me, I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Okay.
MR. LAREW: I would interject in answer to the
question as well that this email that we have talked
about involving Steve Ballard and Terry Goerdt was
exactly that kind of analysis by percentages, and their
code, residential code, is not that much different than
ours, so I would think that the percentage method is one
that's not unusual.
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Okay. The staff report cites
three specific examples in Iowa City, comp -- what they
claim is comparable to this project in terms of
recreational or entertainment configuration. Are you
aware of their designs and would your — your criteria
render them nonresidential?
MR. LAREW: No, I don't think so, and here's the —
a distinguishing characteristic, and I think which makes
this notable and a concern to the neighborhood as to
what the intent is: Every public statement that we're
aware of indicates that the owners intend to come down
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
196
here for occasional use and for tailgate parties
which -- we tailgate. We get that. That's not a taboo.
If you take a 365 -day -year residential use by a family
and compliment that with other uses of the structure,
you come up with one kind of use analysis.
You come up with quite something different when
you're anticipating short-term stays, episodic stays,
and all them with large numbers of people and devoted
recreational use. That implies quite a different
intent, and I don't know that one tail has to wag the
other dog.
CHAIRMAN BAKER: But hasn't that been resolved by
the fact that the owner -- or the applicant has declared
that this is a single-family residential intent?
MR. LAREW: The owner has declared only allegiance
to the residential zoning code. That's what is so
strange about the affidavit. There's nothing In that
affidavit that any person in Iowa City would not also
have to be responsible for, whether or not he or she
signed an affidavit. We think the document is specious,
and I'm surprised that it's used frequently by the City.
I can't imagine why. If you look at the language of the
affidavit, it simply says, "I will abide by the zoning
code of the City of Iowa City" Why would you have
someone sign such a thing?
197
1 MR. WEITZEL: Just a minute. Doesn't it clarify
2 residential use as opposed to commercial use?
3 MR. LAREW: Those are the only two choices you
4 have, and that's why we're here. If all you have to
5 choose Is residential versus commercial --
6 MR. WEITZEL: Well, I was going to ask this later,
7 but it's come up. Where in the code do we look for
8 another use type?
9 MR. LAREW: We feel that the use classification
10 system is there when sometimes there's a proposed use
11 that is not addressed in the code. This is why we're
12 here. This is why were here, and -- and people — it's
13 possible that people could have intended uses for
14 structures that are not addressed by the code, and what
15 the code says is exactly this. If you were to find that
16 it's not a permitted use, then it means the proponent
17 has to go back and amend the zoning code.
18 MR. WEITZEL: Okay.
19 MR. LAREW: That's — that's the way that it is set
20 up. That's the way that it is conceived. There are
21 possible uses of buildings that are not recognized by
22 the code, in which case the -- this panel says no, you
23 can't do it, but go amend the zoning ordinance and come
24 back and see us and we'll see if it's a permitted use.
25 This is an intended use which is not recognized by
Page 194 to 197
Board of Adjustment 9-14-16
198 1
1 this --
2 CHAIRMAN BAKER: Okay. Can we — Would you agree
3 that we can eliminate the word — the choice between
4 "commercial" and "residential'?
5 MR. LAREW Yes.
6 CHAIRMAN BAKER: Since "commercial" implies revenue
7 generating.
8 MR. LAREW. We think that's a false choice. We
9 think that's a false choice and we don't know anything
10 from Mr. Carlson. Why — why would a person of his
11 stature and distinction charge anyone for anything? We
12 don't know that he would. But that's not the only
13 choices that we have, residential versus commercial.
14 CHAIRMAN BAKER: But It seems that the distinction
15 between commercial and residential is easily judged,
16 verified, proved, researched; but when you use a term
17 like "entertainment" or "recreational" versus
18 "residential," is that a better distinction?
19 MR. LAREW: Well, it — the City uses it when it's
20 to its advantage. How many times did Mr. Boothroy say
21 "recreational"? And he started describing all the
22 places in the house where you could be recreational and
23 it was a laugh. How come 8's -- when it comes to
24 entertainment -- this is the word that we think best
25 fits. Why? Why do people go to the University of Iowa
199
1 stadium to watch football games? Is that commercial?
2 Might be. We would view that as entertainment. We
3 would view that entertainment. So you take a
4 structure — They're signaling to the community this is
5 what we're all about, we're entertainment We're even
6 mimicking the architecture of the largest entertainment
7 facility in the state of Iowa. That's entertainment.
8 CHAIRMAN BAKER: So you're — I'm sorry, go ahead,
9 Tim.
10 MR. WEITZEL: Do you accept that the state code
11 basically gives broad powers to cities to set the types
12 of zones that they have?
13 MR. LAREW: No. Not tothe extent —
14 MR. WEITZEL: You don't accept case law that —
15 MR. LAREW: Well, I don't --
16 MR. WEITZEL:—supported that?
17 MR. LAREW: Well, to what? Can you — can you
18 create the definition for residential use that is
19 contrary to a code definition? I sort of doubt It. 1
20 think there's case law that gives, you know, parameters.
21 But I -- So it would allow-- I don't think that if
22 the — if the question Is would state law preclude
23 the — the City of Iowa City from designating a use as
24 entertainment -
25 MR. WEITZEL: Well, no, I was getting more to
200
1 the -- the power to — given to cities to define what
2 their zones are.
3 MR. LAREW: There's some -- there's some degree of
4 home rule. No two zones are exactly the same. They
5 must have a Board of Adjustment. That's state law.
6 You're here not by a creation of the city council,
7 you're here by state law mandate, so there are certain
8 parameters and you are — The limits of your power are
9 defined by state law, not by city code, except to the
10 extent that it mimics state law, so there are Gear
11 parameters established by state law.
12 The question is could -- could you — if — The
13 question was could you create or could the City of
14 Iowa City create a category of entertainment. Yes, they
15 could. And the alternative thing if you find something
16 that's primarily for entertainment and it's not in the
17 code, then you cannot do it in a residential area.
18 MR. CHRISCHILLES: So --
19 CHAIRMAN BAKER: Go ahead, Gene, I'm sorry.
20 MR. CHRISCHILLES: So am I interpreting this
21 correctly that your point is that as it is now, we are
22 asked to — to make a decision on this based on current
23 city zoning code regulations?
24 MR. LAREW Truly.
25 MR. CHRISCHILLES: And even if we had no other
201
1 category to put this structure into other than
2 single-family residential, you're saying that we
3 shouldn't be deterred by that, we should just say that
4 it's not a res — it's not that, but we don't know what
5 it is?
6 MR. LAREW: That — that could well be where you
7 come to.
8 MR. CHRISCHILLES: And then because of that, force
9 the City to work on its zoning code?
10 MR. LAREW No. It — It forces the applicant to
11 amend the code or come back with something that
12 complies. The -- the zone was quite clear as to what a
13 permitted use Is and what it Is not, and if they came
14 forward --
15 MR. CHRISCHILLES: In order for them to comply,
16 they'd have to have — they'd have -- How would they
17 comply?
18 MR. LAREW: They would amend the code, and that's
19 exactly what the code says that they must do. I believe
20 that the — the law is clear that if you find that the
21 intended use Is not recognized by the zoning code, then
22 you — you must reject it and that the -- the option of
23 the person if they're determined to do it is to amend
24 the zoning code so that it is a recognized use. You
25 can't force-feed it into something that it is not,
Page 198 to 201
Board of Adjustment 8-14-18
202 1
1 and — and in this case, anymore than it would be
2 unreasonable.
3 1 think Mr. Weitzel would say its unreasonable if
4 1 had some view -- based on the fact I'm convinced that
5 its a commercial structure. That wouldn't be based in
6 fact. I wouldn't — that wouldn't — you wouldn't
7 accept that, Why is it ridiculous for neighbors and
8 people who looked at that and said it's not residential,
9 and we've looked at it. Why is that a --
to MR. WEITZEL: I don't think anyone's characterized
11 it as ridiculous.
12 MR, LAREN No. I think it's— Why—why is
13 that incredulous? Why Is it the only option that is
14 considered by the city staff? Because there was no
15 other alternative. There was no classification use
16 analysis, which is something that at least
17 University Heights did. They said this is either
18 entertainment or commercial, but it ain't residential.
19 CHAIRMAN BAKER: Okay. We — Jim, is it
20 oversimplifying to say that you are saying that the
21 design of a project defines the use of the project?
22 MR. LAREN Does the what?
23 CHAIRMAN BAKER: The design of a project defines
24 the use of the project
25 MR. LAREN I would say you start with intent
203
1 because that helps you to understand what the drawings
2 are.
3 CHAIRMAN BAKER: Okay. So does design equal
4 intent?
5 MR. LAREN I think design is one way of evidencing
6 intent, but you start out with intent,
7 CHAIRMAN BAKER: Okay. So here's two quotes from
s the building applicant. "My stepson suggested that if
9 we're going to build a house to tailgate at, it should
10 mimic the stadium. I'm a kind of a theme guy anyway so
11 I thought that was a great idea," first quote. Second
12 quote: 'The inner courtyard is where we tail" — "where
13 we'll tailgate and no one else will see us. We're
14 self-contained. It's a family place to gather and have
15 fun."
16 Are those contradictory, consistent, or how do they
17 define the use as far as intent goes?
18 MR. LAREN. Well, we interpret from the initial
19 descriptions of what the intended use was was for a
20 family to come down on an occasional basis, more likely
21 than not tied to the University of Iowa football game,
22 maybe other events as well, tying that to a large social
23 event, tailgating event, and then to go home and that
24 that was the intent of the — of the structure, and it
25 seems to us that the designs -- and we're sort of like
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
to
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
l8
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
204
the constitutional scholars. What was the original
intent?
The reason why drawings like at
University Heights and the early versions of this,
before they started whitening things out and erasing
things and trying to meet the mood of the community as
they could see it, that's — that's also evidence of
intent. So if you have locker rooms and you talk about
pink locker rooms and you talk about all these other
things that -- and you have a structure that by any
standard says this is just like the biggest
entertainment venue in the entire state of Iowa, those
things mean something to us.
CHAIRMAN BAKER: The original intent as exemplified
by the original design should determine what the last --
what the latest design was. Is that what you're saying?
MR. LAREN No, I -- I think that original drawings
gave us some clue as to the intent. If you want to know
the truth, I don't have any confidence that after this
goes forward that these drawings mean very much. I
think that owners can do and just about do whatever they
want to. They could put in urinals where there's a
bathroom. No one at the City's going to object. It
could come back to what the original intent was, which
is a -- a facility. Where else -- Let me give you an
205
example because these aren't trivial.
How do we make up our mind? When you go to
University of Iowa football game, if you've had much to
drink when you go in, the first thing you're looking for
is the bathroom, and I'll be darned; if you go in the
gate, all kinds of bathrooms, people lining up. Look
at -- look at this drawing. When you go in the front
door off of Lusk Avenue, what's the first thing you —
what used to be called the men's and women's bathroom
was lockers, and all this Is the first thing that you
see.
Where does this happen in a residence? It happens
where you're mimicking a residential or a — an
entertainment venue, so these things mean something.
These are cues. These are -- these are clues as to what
the intended use of these projects are, and you do your
best judgment to be reasonable.
CHAIRMAN BAKER: So the City's position that
bedroom, kitchen, bedrooms, bathroom, if— if certain
basic elements are present, its a residence, and these
elements are all present, it's a residence.
MR. LAREN Yeah, we're talking principal versus
accessory uses. That's what the code says we have to
do. That's what happens all the time. Is it a grocery
store or liquor store? Well, let's look at the sales
Page 202 to 205
Board of Adjustment
9-14-16
206
208
1
tape and decide, not depend on what the store owner says
1
don't have —
2
he's going to do; right? At — at a certain point so
2
MR. BEFELER: Well, I would —
3
what do we — we're taking — We're trying to determine
3
MS. SOGLIN: — to live there full time.
4
what the balance is here, and I don't know that anyone
4
MR. BEFELER: Yeah, I would say a lot of second
5
would say that this looks like a residence on the inside
5
homes are recreational in purpose. I mean if I buy a
6
and a residence only. It looks like something much
6
house at a lake, I'm going there for recreational
7
different.
7
activities. I'm not using it as a residence primarily.
8
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Are you saying that there is no
8
1 think we could place some of those same
9
objective definition of residence?
9
qualifications, and maybe we need to look back at the
10
MR. LAREW: I'm saying a residence has certain
10
code of — and set up this residential and make sure
11
characteristics and so do entertainment venues, and you
11
that areas are zoned recreational versus residential.
12
do the best to sort them out if that's the — those are
12
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Certainly second homes, though you
13
the competing — the competing uses.
13
might not consider them residences, are recognized by
14
MR. BEFELER: If you look back at the code, it
14
the state and taxed accordingly as residence. Just
15
says-- the code says certain things that a residence
15
because they're not living In the home doesn't change
16
has to have and those are included, but it also says
16
the tax classification, the state classification.
17
there needs to be a primary use as a residence.
17
MR. BEFELER: And I would contest that there's a
18
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Okay.
18
primary use here and that's fairly clear.
19
MR. BEFELER: And I think that's the point we're —
19
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Okay. So-
20
we're making here is at some point we've crossed the
20
MR. BEFELER: But I — Yeah, I guess how do you —
21
line of the primary versus accessory use. This is not
21
how do you quantitate it here.
22
intended primarily as a residence.
22
CHAIRMAN BAKER: And so someone who has resources
23
MR. LAREW: And what do we use —
23
and can build a large residence can sort of build
24
(Overlapping speakers)
24
themselves out of the protections of residential
25
CHAIRMAN BAKER: I agree that that's the line we
25
classification, because their basic living
207
209
1
have to figure out.
1
accommodations are a lesser percentage than the social
2
MR. CHRISCHILLES: But where do we — haw do we
2
recreational activities afforded by the structure.
3
determine that line?
3
MR. CHRISCHILLES: Wasn't that the point you were
4
MR. BEFELER: Again, I — I think I've laid out —
4
trying to get to earlier?
5
You know, there's — there's two fairly quantitative
5
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Yeah, its like -- It's just
6
ways, which Is square footage and use time. And then
6
coming in from all sorts of different directions here
7
there's one that's a little more subjective —
7
because we have to figure out if you want us to draw a
8
MR, WEITZEL: But we have other houses that already
8
line — I'm looking for guidance.
9
have a huge amount of square footage devoted to
9
MR. LAREW: We have another speaker on this issue.
10
entertainment that are residential and that's how
10
Maybe she'll help clarify.
11
they're classified, and no one's complained.
11
CHAIRMAN BAKER: All right, thank you.
12
MR, BEFELER: And if you look at those houses, when
12
MS. PARK: Good evening.
13
you factor in use time, you've got a lot of people
13
MS. WALZ: And just to make sure that everybody's
14
spending a lot of time actually living there.
14
recording their name on the sign-in sheet so that we
15
There's -- So there's a big difference between their
15
have a record of everyone, that should be here.
16
intended use, which is to come here occasionally and
16
MS, PARK: Goad evening, members of the Board of
17
have big parties every time they come here versus living
17
Adjustment. My name is Jiyun Park. I live at 20 Rocky
18
in a house and occasionally having big parties.
18
Shore Drive. I'm an architectural designer, and I've
19
MR. WEITZEL: But is that part of the code that we
19
reviewed the proposed plans for the building at 101 Lusk
20
can work with?
20
Avenue. (Inaudible)
21
MS. SOGLIN: They — they define it as a second —
21
Sorry. I'm an architectural designer. I've
22
In one letter they call it a second home, so are you
22
reviewed the proposed plans for the architectural
23
saying that anybody who has a second home, they're not
23
building at 101 Lusk Avenue. I am —
24
using that as a home? All those people when they have a
24
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Excuse me. Could you reidentify
25
second home, they're not — they don't live there —
25
yourself. I didn't hear the first time.
Page 206 to 209
Board of Adjustment 9.14.16
Page 210 to 213
210
212
1
MS. PARK: Oh, certainly. Good evening, members of
1
corridor interior courtyard, are two restrooms with a
2
the Board of Adjustment. My name is Jiyun Park. I live
2
total of three toilets and two urinals. The sizes of
3
at 20 Rocky Shore Drive. I'm an architectural designer.
3
these restrooms, according to OSHA, which is a governing
4
1 have reviewed the proposed plans for the building at
4
body for -- I just misplaced my --
5
101 Lusk Avenue. It is my opinion and belief that the
5
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Can I interrupt you just for a
6
principal use of this structure, if it is built, will be
6
second here.
7
entertainment -related, almost corporate purposes, and
7
MS. PARK: Yeah.
8
that any residential use of the structure will be
8
CHAIRMAN BAKER: You said these drawings, which are
9
accessory to that principal use.
9
what the City approved, include two urinals?
10
1 come to this conclusion based on my background,
10
MS. PARK: Yes. Right there and there.
11
education, training, and experience. I possess over 20
11
MS. SOGLIN: Aren't these the old drawings?
12
years' experience in design and construction of
12
MS. PARK: Well, these were the drawings that I --
13
residential and commercial spaces. I am currently
13
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Because that question was asked,
14
self-employed as founder and principal of Studio
14
and we were told there were no urinals.
15
Involution. I'm working on several books, including one
15
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: They revised this plan
16
on architectural curriculum initially presented at a
16
(inaudible) to one.
17
Bridges conference in Granada, Spain, in 2003. 1
17
MS. PARK: Forgive me, I — These are the drawings
18
graduated from the Cooper Union in New York City with a
18
1 reviewed.
19
five-year degree in architecture after transferring from
19
CHAIRMAN BAKER: That's all right. I'm sorry. The
20
the University of Michigan School of Architecture with a
20
plan that is approved still includes at least one
21
concentration in history of art.
21
urinal. Okay. And if that's not factually correct, I'm
22
1 worked on numerous residential and commercial
22
sure the staff will —
23
projects, including a commercial kitchen. Residential
23
MS. PARK: Please. At any rate, if I could -- So
24
projects include a corporate residential estate in
24
even if I make the modification three toilets and one
25
Scotland and in Boston. The — the estate in Scotland
25
urinal, the sizing of these restrooms, according to
211
213
1
was a sort of corporate residence for juice box heirs,
1
OSHA, which is an acronym for the Occupational Safety
2
and then in Boston, it was for the New Balance
2
and Health Administration, federal guidelines suggest
3
corporation residence.
3
that this could facilitate 81 to 110 people. With an
4
I've worked on projects -- excuse me. I've worked
4
additional full master bathroom on this level, the first
5
on projects raising -- ranging from the Guggenheim SoHo
5
level could facilitate 111 to 150 people.
6
to Harvard Business School. I've taught architectural
6
Additionally, there are three full baths — this
7
design in Boston, where a core practice of my work is
7
is -- There's one, two, three full baths on the second
8
teaching and reading architectural plans, elevations,
8
level and one full bath on the basement level. This
9
and three-dimensional drawings to understand how they
9
amounts to a total of five full bathrooms, which nearly
10
would be built. I've reviewed the proposed 101 Lusk
30
doubles the use including the urinals and toilets up
11
Avenue plans, elevations, and isometric drawings.
11
here to what OSHA would consider over 200 people. On
12
In my professional view, this project expresses
12
the second level, the four bedrooms and three full baths
13
very little of what defines a single-family residence.
13
along a hallway resem — resemble a donnitory layout or
14
Even amongst luxury homes, the layout does not read like
14
a hotel layout.
15
a home; rather, like an event venue or entertaining
15
If you think of any typical single-family
16
hall. The dominant circulation, which when you go to a
16
residence, ifs — it's — it's been known to happen in
17
typical single-family residence, to go through the front
17
luxury architectural homes that the bedrooms would come
38
door. This dominant circulation seemed — this dominant
18
off of a single hallway. However, I wouldn't say that
19
circulation — sorry — flows through three garage doors
19
that's typical of a single-family residence. The
20
to a fourth interior garage door that leads directly
20
average single-family home has two to three full baths
21
into a courtyard adjacent to a covered three -bay patio
21
according to a national census, and this is growing over
22
that houses two closet -sized coolers or counters, both
22
time. It was originally one and a half full baths.
23
with a picnic bench seating, as well as what I thought
23
This proposal has five times more than the average
24
was a commercial -size built-in grill.
24
neighboring single-family residential home in terms of
25
Opposite the garage entrance, across the 57 -foot
25
bathrooms.
Page 210 to 213
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
The kitchen and dining seating adjacent to
covered patio with its three bays approaches lig
commercial -- light commercial or small institute
kitchen dining spaces with three booths -- one,
three -- in addition to a 16 -foot island. A functio
residential island need not be more than five fe
some are six foot six. The Lusk Avenue island
double to triple the size of residential kitchen
islands.
The exterior of this structure's street facade
unlike any single-family residence yet mimics th
largest entertainment facility in the slate of Iowa
University of Iowa Kinnick Stadium. Like attend
going to the football game at Kinnick Stadium,
been designed so that their first stops upon ent
the gates can be the restrooms -- Here's the fro
and there's two sidelights. Those are not thresh
They're not egress, they're just sidelights. The -
a person enters the front door from the street w
there are five urinals -- excuse me, five -- so it's
urinal and three toe -- I don't know how -- anyway
there's quite a few.
Early versions of the design for the building
equipped those bathrooms with lockers rather th
customary coat closet entry fover. There is som
Board of Adjustment 9-14.16
214
the 1 dwelli
ht or 2 more
onal 3 I'm
two, 4 modifi
nal 5 chang
et, yet 6 which
exceeds 7 both p
8 the pla
9 Lusk Av
is 10 and zo
e 11 is the r
, the 12 correct
ees 13 establi
which has 14 A
Bring 15 not be
nt door 16 princip
old — 17 expres
- As 18 Code's
here 19 it stron
one 20 rejecte
, 21 Univer
22 object
23 Th
an a 24 preced
ething 25 C
215
else notable about this presumed entrance on the east
side. It shows only a single door and single sidelights
along the entire 78 -foot eastern facade. So typically,
a single-family residence home would have ample lighting
on the east side, as that's the rising sun. This
poses — This single — single door poses egress issues
should it ever exceed single-family residence.
The west facade resembles a firehouse with three
garage doors flanked by a single — by single doors and
windows. There are no windows on the kitchen plans, not
even one above the kitchen sink. There's the kitchen.
There's the kitchen sink, and there are -- there's no
window above the kitchen sink nor the entire kitchen.
The entire north facade only shows closed niches, so
there's no windows on that facade. There are so few
features of natural light, nor circulation to any yard
or neighboring space. Rather, the spaces seem to focus
on a large central courtyard with major access through
the driveway or garages.
At over 7,000 square feet, this structure dwarfs
the adjacent 1,000 -square -foot Sears Roebuck home. Its
plot or site plan blocks sight lines and air space that
exist throughout the neighborhood. The structure would
be an exception to the entire neighborhood and
neighborhoods throughout Iowa City. Even the multiuse
216
ngs and apartments in the neighborhood have far
air and light space on their site plots.
of the opinion that no series of small
cations to the plans for 101 Lusk Avenue will
e the intended principal use for this facility,
s entertainment. It is both -- It is an intent,
ublicly stated by the owners and clearly shown on
ns. In my opinion, the permit issued for 101
enue should never have been issued, as building
ning staff incorrectly classified the project. It
esponsibility of the Board of Adjustment to
this error before a dangerous precedent is
shed in Iowa City.
200 -person event and entertainment venue should
built at 101 Lusk Avenue. It is not designed
ally as a residence. As proposed, it does not
s the identity, the values stated in the Iowa City
preamble, nor the Iowa City's charter. In fact,
gly goes against all and was already once
d by our neighboring community,
sity Heights, many of whose capable residents
ed to its placement in a residential neighborhood.
ank you for your time and kind attention in this
ent-making decision in the history of Iowa City.
HAIRMAN BAKER: All right, thank you. Are there
217
1 any questions from the board? Tim? No?
2 MR. WEITZEL: No.
3 CHAIRMAN BAKER: Gene?
4 MR. CHRISCHILLES: No.
5 MS. PARK: Jiyun. Oh, sorry.
6 CHAIRMAN BAKER: Becky?
7 MS. SOGUN: No.
8 CHAIRMAN BAKER: Just for some clarification to
9 help me here, the design were looking at here — yes or
10 no -- this is the design that was approved by the City?
11 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I believe it is.
12 MS. PARK: To the best of my knowledge.
13 CHAIRMAN BAKER: Okay.
14 MS. PARK: There — there have been several
is modifications —
16 CHAIRMAN BAKER: Okay. I'm saying --
17 MS. PARK: -- or changes.
18 CHAIRMAN BAKER: Here's -- Obviously by our next
19 meeting, I want the staff to say yes or no and show me
20 the difference between this plan, which your discussion
21 was based on, and the plan that was approved. That's
22 the — Now, the other thing is you talk about the
23 design not really being a family resident -- you know,
* not being designed for family use. The applicant, the
* building applicant, has a family. Has a family in
Page 214 to 217
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
Wa
7
8
9
30
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Board of Adjustment
218
Iowa City, and I don't know for sure but I would suspect
1
that this family also has children. That— Though we
2
can look at this as a very sort of odd design for a
3
two -person household, you put a family with children,
4
does that change your sentiment about this being a
5
family residence?
6
MS. PARK: I think it's — As a design architect,
7
1 would want to allow for the greatest flexibility and
8
autonomy of the owner of any property because that's
9
sort of -- sort of what design does. However, in this
30
case, based on the proportions of what would be
11
single-family residential home based on the context of
12
the other single-family resident homes, based on the
13
other corporate, slash, entertainment venues that I've
14
worked on, this more resembles the projects that I've —
15
where the corporate client had a secondary or third home
16
that they used as a residential, slash — you know, is
17
that sort of that kind of use. So I think the question
18
is primarily one of use.
19
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Okay. But use for any home, any
20
residence, changes with who lives in the residence.
21
MS. PARK: Well, so from a design perspective, 1
22
would say there are in any plan basic readings. So
23
there's sort of this expectation when you go through the
24
front door, there may be a coat closet, there may be —
25
219
You know, there's programatic use of homes that are sort
of standardized use. I fail to see some of those
standardized uses in this particular proposal.
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Okay. All right. Thank you very
much.
MS. PARK: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Doug, John, the next meeting I
want a schematic of the plan that was approved, and if
there are differences between the facts of this versus
what the facts of your approval were, please be prepared
to point those out.
MR. ACKERMAN: My name is Bill Ackerman. I own a
property at 631 Bayard Street. I live at 814 Newton
Road in Iowa City. My wife and I bought the property
that we rent currently and have rented for the last 28
years, in 1988. We maintain the property. We keep it
up. We have very good tenants in there for the last 28
years. The neighbors -- The neighbors, my tenants --
I don't function at this hour. The neighbors, my
tenants, have always enjoyed the quiet and peace of the
neighborhood, the tree -lined streets, the people that
walk the dog, so it's kind of a family -friendly
neighborhood, if you're not familiar with it.
The former owner of the property was Pauline Aspel,
who lived there for 50 years plus. Got to know her
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
9-14-16
220
again in 1988, when we bought the property. She passed
away in January of 2015, a little over a year ago, and
the house sat vacant for a while. In my opinion
probably should have been restored, updated, and kept as
a single-family home. The way things have gone the last
year with their proposal for the Kinnick-style house --
pardon me, structure', I do not believe this is a
house — I believe this will be an entertainment venue
that will be a detriment to the neighborhood.
Not only if it's built will it destroy Lusk Avenue,
the pavement. Just the construction factor alone would
ruin that street and have to have it replaced. The
gawkers, the sightseers, have already been present
driving by. Where is the Kinnick place going to be?
You're out there in the street, you're mowing your yard,
you're bothered by it. Everyone knows where it is, they
all want to see it. It's already happened. If its
allowed to be built, it will continue, particularly on
football weekends when you can't park anywhere close to
our neighborhood.
So I'm saying its an entertainment venue, it's not
a home. The principal use of it is for entertainment,
for parties, not for a home where two people sit around,
watch Gunsmoke in the evening. So another concern I
have is down the line, what happens if this is built.
221
In 15, 20 years, people decide to sell it. What would
happen -- And this is a nightmare. What would happen
if it got sold to the University of Iowa, where you have
no control over what they do. That would be a
nightmare, one we can avoid.
We circulated the petition. Some of the people
here in the group circulated petition over the last two
months. Garnered almost 300 names on the petition
saying we are not Interested in having this in
Manville Heights, for a variety of reasons. People from
the outside of Manville Heights, I'd meet them every
day. Hey, how's that Kinnick thing going? What's going
on? Happened last night again, 30 miles from home.
How's that Kinnick think going? He he ha. I said,
well, we're going before the Board of Adjustment and I
hope that they have — make -- make the right decision
for everybody. Everyone meaning the people of
Manville Heights, Iowa City.
This could have been proposed anywhere in
Iowa City. It could be next door to any of you folks,
anyone in the audience, anywhere in Iowa City, and it
just doesn't fit in. It's neither a residence or a
commercial event. It is a party venue. Thank you for
your time, and I hope you make the right decision.
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Thank you.
Page 218 to 221
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Board of Adjustrnent 0-1449
222 1
MR. ACKERMAN: Questions?
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Thank you. Jim, you said you had
a series of professional witnesses or people talking
specifically to facts related to your objections.
MR. LAREW: The two people who by profession do
venue and site planning, architectural, have spoken.
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Okay. I just wanted to make a
distinction. If your presentation using your witnesses
is done, then we need to open up to the public --
MR. LAREW: No, we —we have at least 12 people
who are here to talk, and the next couple witnesses are
going to give you an account. Chris Rossi will be
speaking and particularly talking about certain
documents that are in the file that we've given you,
this discourse of what's going on within the city when
it was owned by the preceding owner, Mr. Oliveira.
And then Craig Syrop will be speaking. He's the
adjoining property owner on the — on the corner and who
is also — who learned In the course of this in the last
two months that there was this shared sewer line, and
he's going to give you an account of — of that and
describe the situation, so those are our next two -- two
speakers. But the rest of the speakers are people who
are in the -- In the neighborhood and have various
perspectives to give you.
223
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Okay. I just want to make clear
that — that the thing that helps us the most, as you
know, is as much factual information as possible and
more -- more than just a concem, and so when -- when —
I need to know when you are through presenting what you
consider the facts of your case, and then we can open it
up to people to add to those facts. Understand what I'm
saying?
MR.LAREW. You—you— youwillgetfactsand—
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Okay.
MR. LAREW: —you've asked for facts when I have
said in a general introduction that city staff people
knew about this and talked to each other about that.
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Okay.
MR. LAREW And I promised you that there were
people who were prepared to speak about it. That's —
thars what's coming next.
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Okay.
MR. LAREW: And those are facts.
CHAIRMAN BAKER: I just want to make sure that
we're getting as much different information as possible.
MR. LAREW: Yes. You'll get that, I'm sure.
CHAIRMAN BAKER: All right, thank you.
MR. ROSSI: Good evening. My name is Chris Rossi.
I live at 4 Rowland Court with my wife and two small
224
1 children. I received notification from the City that
2 this meeting was taking place because we live so close
3 to the event structure, so I'm one of the fortunate few
4 to actually get a piece of paper.
5 Several months ago, dumbfounded neighbors stood at
6 the corner of Lusk and Bayard and really were scratching
7 their heads about the lack of communication that had
8 been going on resulting in how some people so proximate
9 to this place were seemingly the last people to know.
to And that kind of communication indicates a problem with
11 the City and the -- and the city staff, and I think you
12 have heard some concems this evening about that less -
13 than -perfect stream of transparency and communication
14 that leads to confidence among our city servants that
15 elements are being represented fairly, completely, and
16 openly.
17 So as a measure, by the way, of that concern, the
18 city staff in Informing you about your standard of
19 review apparently tonight has been told by Mr. Parmenter
20 that elements of what you were — what you were told was
21 your standard of review were unnecessary. That was
22 Mr. Parmenters word characterizing the — the first
23 memo. But I actually think that Mr. Parmenter could
24 probably do better by saying there was mistakes made,
25 and that kind of shading of the conversation indicates
225
1 yet again unnecessary lack of transparency with regard
2 to City representatives and the neighbors that we have
3 here.
4 And so that prompted us, under Chapter 22 of the
5 code of Iowa, to do something that since 1960 I'd never
6 actually thought about doing, having been here that
7 long, which would be to petition for an open records
8 request, which Is what the neighborhood did because of
9 this seeming lack of understanding and this dumbfounded,
10 late -breaking, eleventh -hour disclosure of things
11 happening in our neighborhoods, making us, the most
12 proximate, the very last to know. And so we did get
13 some information.
14 I'd like to — I'd ask you please to turn In your
15 booklet to Exhibit 15, where the public record reveals,
16 not completely, but citizens or neighbors — that's what
17 we really are here. There's some people — My wife
18 isn't a citizen. She's a neighbor too. I shouldn't
19 cis —I shouldn't forget my wife. But in any event, a
20 neighbor petitioned the City to help with the
21 clarification of what's going on, and in Exhibit 151
22 unfortunately the public records reveal that the city
23 staff believed its a lose -lose proposition to
24 facilitate discussion among the parties, as if pursuing
25 a guiding light of transparency, openness, and
Page 222 to 225
9-14-16
228
about with this batch right now involves the time period
immediately before the Carlsons purchased 101 Lusk when
it was owned by Prestige Properties, LLC, whose
principal owner is Mike Oliveira, and Mr. Oliveira had
proposed for 101 Lusk that Pauline Aspel's home be
demolished and in its place two modestly sized family
residences be constructed, each of them facing Lusk
Avenue. But his plan was fatally flawed, and the City
raised a host of reasonable objections to Mr. Oliveira,
all of them framed as zoning or building compliance
issues.
So let's start quoting the city staff in their own
tongue. Exhibit 17. The City made demands on the
previous owner before signing off -- that's
(inaudible) -- on the plan. And the record reveals
Doug, presumably Doug Boothroy, will not sign off—off
on the plat unless sewer, water, and turnaround issues
have been resolved.
Exhibit 19. I'm sorry, Exhibit 18. Here city
staff notes that the bigger question is how will water
and sanitary sewer services be extended to the proposed
lots. Those proposed lots were the Oliveira lots on the
southern side of Lusk Avenue, a portion of which has no
infrastructure.
Exhibit 19. Again, city staff noted the proposal,
229
quote, runs through different properties. Staff
concludes I'm not a fan of this proposal. Future
repairs of the private line — the private line — could
get dicey. That to me Indicates there was a — that the
city staff understood that it wasn't simply the capacity
of the line that was a problem, it was quite — it was
quite clearly the qualitative condition of the line,
because future -- future repairs of the private line
could get dicey. Staff asks, as is the case with
similar old sewers in the city, why did the City okay
this? I'm not sure thafs a rhetorical question but it
presents itself in the record as such.
Exhibit 20. Mr. Oliveira, because he was
encountering the due diligence of staff, hires a
consultant. He cc's the City the conclusion. We would
not recommend using the existing service line in its
current condition for single-family homes. The
four -inch diameter cast iron section will impede flow
and possibly cause blockages and backups. The roots
protruding through the pipes may regrow. Many of the
joints are offset from each other. Typical standard
practice for most cities is to require a minimum pipe
diameter of six inches when more than one building is
served by a single service line. He goes on to note
that the typical standard practice for most cities does
Page 226 to 229
Board of Adjustment
1
226
1
1
communication is too much to ask. Why would it be a
1
2
lose -lose proposition?
2
3
Please turn to Exhibit 16.
3
4
MR. CHRISCHILLES: Wait a second. Does this —
4
5
The Number 15, does it read from bottom up?
5
6
MR, ROSSI: Exhibit 15. That would be the tab.
6
7
MS. SOGLIN: You have to read from — Yes, read
7
8
from the bottom up. The -- the email --
8
9
MR. CHRISCHILLES: The trail of email is bottom up.
9
10
MR. ROSSI: Don't know what you're talking about.
10
11
MS. SOGLIN: To read It in chronological order by
11
12
date and time, you would have to start with the bottom
12
13
email; correct? The last email on the page.
13
14
MR. ROSSI: Yes. I — Unfortunately, I -- I don't
14
15
have a copy of —
15
16
MS. SOGLIN: I'm pretty sure —
16
17
MR. ROSSI: Oh, I see.
17
18
MS. SOGLIN: -- the answer is yes.
18
19
MR. ROSSI: We did our best to highlight — I'm
19
20
sorry, I understand your question now, having the
20
21
physical document in front of me, but somewhere in tab
21
22
15 you will see -- and it should be highlighted.
22
23
MR. LAREVV: This is the highlighted.
23
24
MR. ROSSI: Oh, yes, it is.
24
25
MR. LAREW: And this is the question.
25
9-14-16
228
about with this batch right now involves the time period
immediately before the Carlsons purchased 101 Lusk when
it was owned by Prestige Properties, LLC, whose
principal owner is Mike Oliveira, and Mr. Oliveira had
proposed for 101 Lusk that Pauline Aspel's home be
demolished and in its place two modestly sized family
residences be constructed, each of them facing Lusk
Avenue. But his plan was fatally flawed, and the City
raised a host of reasonable objections to Mr. Oliveira,
all of them framed as zoning or building compliance
issues.
So let's start quoting the city staff in their own
tongue. Exhibit 17. The City made demands on the
previous owner before signing off -- that's
(inaudible) -- on the plan. And the record reveals
Doug, presumably Doug Boothroy, will not sign off—off
on the plat unless sewer, water, and turnaround issues
have been resolved.
Exhibit 19. I'm sorry, Exhibit 18. Here city
staff notes that the bigger question is how will water
and sanitary sewer services be extended to the proposed
lots. Those proposed lots were the Oliveira lots on the
southern side of Lusk Avenue, a portion of which has no
infrastructure.
Exhibit 19. Again, city staff noted the proposal,
229
quote, runs through different properties. Staff
concludes I'm not a fan of this proposal. Future
repairs of the private line — the private line — could
get dicey. That to me Indicates there was a — that the
city staff understood that it wasn't simply the capacity
of the line that was a problem, it was quite — it was
quite clearly the qualitative condition of the line,
because future -- future repairs of the private line
could get dicey. Staff asks, as is the case with
similar old sewers in the city, why did the City okay
this? I'm not sure thafs a rhetorical question but it
presents itself in the record as such.
Exhibit 20. Mr. Oliveira, because he was
encountering the due diligence of staff, hires a
consultant. He cc's the City the conclusion. We would
not recommend using the existing service line in its
current condition for single-family homes. The
four -inch diameter cast iron section will impede flow
and possibly cause blockages and backups. The roots
protruding through the pipes may regrow. Many of the
joints are offset from each other. Typical standard
practice for most cities is to require a minimum pipe
diameter of six inches when more than one building is
served by a single service line. He goes on to note
that the typical standard practice for most cities does
Page 226 to 229
227
1
MR. ROSSI: Yes, okay. So the answer to your
1
2
question is yes. And you see the — I don't — I don't
2
3
find it particularly helpful at this juncture. Its a
3
4
public record, but you see the city staff says, "I'll
4
5
leave this up to you but I wouldn't suggest it. Its a
5
6
lose -lose proposition." That was based upon a request
6
7
for some sort of meet -and -greet and — So Exhibit 16.
7
8
Mr. Boothroy's staff informed him there was lots of
8
9
Lusk public comment, that staff also informed him that
9
10
many of the public's questions were directed at the
10
11
actions of the staff. So the City was in the enviable
11
12
position of getting to decide as the judge and juror in
12
13
its own defense whether to facilitate public dialogue,
13
14
knowing full well that the citizenry, the residents, had
14
15
questions about the conclusions that city staff were
15
16
coming to. No dialogue took place. I submit really
16
17
fundamentally, basically, that's why we're here.
17
18
The public record also reveals disturbing
18
19
inconsistencies and errors in the City's actions
19
20
involving 101 Lusk, even before the Carlsons bought the
20
21
property. These errors relate to sewer, easement, and
21
22
fire and safety issues. None of them was resolved
22
23
before the City issued the building permit to the
23
24
Carlsons.
24
25
So part of the record that I'm going to be talking
25
9-14-16
228
about with this batch right now involves the time period
immediately before the Carlsons purchased 101 Lusk when
it was owned by Prestige Properties, LLC, whose
principal owner is Mike Oliveira, and Mr. Oliveira had
proposed for 101 Lusk that Pauline Aspel's home be
demolished and in its place two modestly sized family
residences be constructed, each of them facing Lusk
Avenue. But his plan was fatally flawed, and the City
raised a host of reasonable objections to Mr. Oliveira,
all of them framed as zoning or building compliance
issues.
So let's start quoting the city staff in their own
tongue. Exhibit 17. The City made demands on the
previous owner before signing off -- that's
(inaudible) -- on the plan. And the record reveals
Doug, presumably Doug Boothroy, will not sign off—off
on the plat unless sewer, water, and turnaround issues
have been resolved.
Exhibit 19. I'm sorry, Exhibit 18. Here city
staff notes that the bigger question is how will water
and sanitary sewer services be extended to the proposed
lots. Those proposed lots were the Oliveira lots on the
southern side of Lusk Avenue, a portion of which has no
infrastructure.
Exhibit 19. Again, city staff noted the proposal,
229
quote, runs through different properties. Staff
concludes I'm not a fan of this proposal. Future
repairs of the private line — the private line — could
get dicey. That to me Indicates there was a — that the
city staff understood that it wasn't simply the capacity
of the line that was a problem, it was quite — it was
quite clearly the qualitative condition of the line,
because future -- future repairs of the private line
could get dicey. Staff asks, as is the case with
similar old sewers in the city, why did the City okay
this? I'm not sure thafs a rhetorical question but it
presents itself in the record as such.
Exhibit 20. Mr. Oliveira, because he was
encountering the due diligence of staff, hires a
consultant. He cc's the City the conclusion. We would
not recommend using the existing service line in its
current condition for single-family homes. The
four -inch diameter cast iron section will impede flow
and possibly cause blockages and backups. The roots
protruding through the pipes may regrow. Many of the
joints are offset from each other. Typical standard
practice for most cities is to require a minimum pipe
diameter of six inches when more than one building is
served by a single service line. He goes on to note
that the typical standard practice for most cities does
Page 226 to 229
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
not conform with this practice.
Exhibit 21. Here we have more of our corn
disconnect. The property owner proximate to the
property asked the City this past June about the
condition of the sewer. He was told, quote, 'The
doesn't have any information about the condition
joint private sewer that you share with your neigh
Exhibit 22. That same city staffer on the sa
referencing the same neighbor's request for infor
wrote an internal email to his colleague. My last
recollection was that we were going to require th
development south of the neighbor's property to i
a new eight -inch line. I didn't realize that using t
existing combined four -inch service was going to
allowed. How would you like me to proceed with
contacting the neighbor about his concerns?
Seems like some — some people in the City
get the memo, but in any event, the memo that w
to my neighbor was that memo that you found in
Number 20, which is that they had no — no knowl
the condition of my neighbor's line.
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Can I interrupt just for
I want to go back to Exhibit 22, where you've
highlighted the City doesn't have any information
the condition of the joint private sewer that you s
231
with your neighbors. That's dated June the 29th, 2016.
Correct me If I'm wrong. Is that addressed specifically
in the October 2015 letter previous to that that,
indeed, that information was available?
MR. ROSSI: Well --
(Inaudible)
MR. ROSSI: Okay.
CHAIRMAN BAKER: It was.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Yes.
CHAIRMAN BAKER: But they're telling you it was not
available.
MR. ROSSI: For reasons that we can't quite
comprehend, knowing full well that the consultant gave a
laundry list of problems with that line.
Exhibit 23, please. The City seems to have moved
the discussion of the sewer away from the qualitative
issue of its condition to the quantitative issue of its
technical capacity, even though the public record
clearly Indicates a concern for both issues. Number 3,
assurance the existing sewer line to the site is capable
of providing required capacity for the new home.
Capability speaks to the sewer's qualitative condition.
Capacity speaks to the quantitative factors.
Earlier tonight, I heard a great deal of discussion
about capacity issues. I think the City wants to color
Board of Adjustment 9-14-16
230
1 our un
munication 2 have
Carlson 3 that ar
4 speak
City 5 speak
of the 6 up qu
bors" 7 qualita
me day 8 Ex
mation 9 M
10 assist
e new 11 highlig
nstall 12 made
he 13 so we
be 14 our tra
15 ability 1
16 provide
didn't 17 that pa
ant out 18 being
Exhibit 19 MR
edge of 20 presen
21 of the
a second? 22 you to
23 word a
about 24 Bu
hare 25 prope
232
derstanding of the circumstances because you can
a capacity that is sufficient although elements of
e no longer standard and elements of that only
to a four -inch line, but also, elements of that
to the age of that line which, of course, brings
qua
that the City was aware of regarding the
five condition.
hibit Number 24.
R. LAREW: Let me intercede here because we
ed in creating this document. Exhibit 24 has some
hfing that we didn't do, but when copies were
available to us from the City, it was hard to read
could read pretty well. The page that follows is
nscription and we think to the best of our
s exactly word for word, but we wanted to
that in the event you had a hard time reading
rt that looks to have been blacked out before
provided.
. ROSSI: Yeah, It kind of looks like our
tation here is a little bit turgid, like so much
presentations we've heard so far, but in fact, if
ok on a computer screen, you can read it word for
nd somehow that will have to be dealt with.
t city staff notes in Exhibit 24 the neighbors'
rty Interest. Staff is asked -- Staff asks is
233
1 there an existing easement around the sanitary sewer
2 where it crosses private property. Later in Exhibit 25,
3 staff sounds the alarm again.
4 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Oh, did you — this is -
5 MR. LAREW: Okay, the (inaudible) question.
6 MR. ROSSI: Right. I have that referenced.
7 MR, LAREW: Okay.
8 MR. ROSSI: This is the question.
9 MR. LAREVV: This is the answer.
10 MR. ROSSI: So would you like me to read —
11 MR, LAREW: Yes.
12 MR. ROSSI: So if I may go back to — and you have
13 to excuse me, I'm — I'm not a professional staffer or
14 anything. I just — This isn't even my day job. But
15 I'm going to read this -- I'm going to read — The
16 question is is there an existing easement around the
17 sanitary sewer where it crosses the private property,
18 and the answer is the proposed houses do not have
19 separate and independently built -- independent building
20 sanitary sewers as required in 16.3D.60. It appears
21 that the sanitary sewer that is shown extending from a
22 manhole at the intersection of Bayard Street and
23 Lexington Avenue down to underneath the northern
24 proposed house is a private service line.
25 It is indicated that way in the legend on the
Page 230 to 233
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Board of Adjustment
234
drawing and our maps and plats do not show any sewer in
1
this location. 111 Lusk Ave — 117 Lusk Avenue, 111
2
Lusk Avenue and both of the proposed homes will use this
3
sewer service. I believe that's — is that -- Do you
4
want me to read more or --
5
MR. LAREW: Yeah.
6
MR. ROSSI: Two. The water service for the south
7
home runs two to three feet within the right-of-way and
8
may be hard to maintain without encroaching on the
9
neighboring property to the north. Point three. Will
10
the vacated row become part of the south lot so that it
11
meets the frontage requirements? Point four. Is this
12
right of — If this right-of-way is vacated, then the
13
property across the street will not be able to split and
14
do the same thing, if this matters. The trees indicated
15
to be saved cannot all be saved with the necessity —
16
necessary extension on pavement — of pavement on Lusk.
17
So Exhibit 25. Pursuant to what I said about
18
Exhibit 24, staff notes again and sounds the alarm
19
stating the existing sanitary sewer runs under adjacent
20
property. Staff wonders about damage to private
21
property. Quote, "Is there language in the easement to
22
address repairs under that structure if needed?" Staff
23
also expresses concerns about the configuration, quote,
24
"The layout is obviously less than Ideal and could be a
25
235
concern for the users of the sanitary system." Staff
expresses concern also about the grinder pump, the
pumping system. Staff also notes, quote, "An easement
should also be added for the service line where it
crosses the neighboring property."
Not only that, staff notes a maintenance agreement
of that line would also be needed presumably because the
issue of the quality of the line itself might be
compromised. A maintenance agreement of that line would
also be needed in the easement agreement. And the
previous owner realized that the three other property
owners will need — will need to be receptive to an
easement. Receptivity implies not only conversation and
notice but it implies some sort of meeting of the minds.
Exhibit Number 26. Now, this is staff
summarization of the joint staff opinion, and its
presented as "Our comments are as follows: Our
preference would be to provide new sanitary service out
to Lusk Avenue, the right-of-way eventually connecting
to the manhole at Lexington and Bayard. If you would
choose" -- "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," et cetera.
Poor Mr. Oliveira was really subject to the due
diligence of a staff that we should commend.
s -l4 -le
236
Exhibit 27. 26, is it? No, 27. Here city staff
confirms later in time, very recently indeed, that we
requested the previous owner to install a new sewer.
Elsewhere, city staff again expresses concern about
securing an existing easement, and you've seen this
before. I mentioned the proposed house does not have
separate and independent building sanitary services as
required in 16.3D.60.
Exhibit 28. City staff told the previous owner
that his attempt to split the lot and create
single-family residences would need to remove references
to private sewer connections. Indeed, the previous
owner sought out legal counsel. He secured an attorney,
and he wrote to the City that he will try to nail down
the easement language that will satisfy your departments
and the multiple property owners. He told the City what
the City doubtless knew, what the record repeatedly
records: "I believe the other property owners are going
to be a huge challenge," unquote. Nobody told the
property owners.
Now, here's a curio, and I draw your attention to
it in Exhibit 29A Astonishingly, scantily two months
ago, city staff seems oblivious to the easement Issues.
City staff observes the question being raised now is if
the owner has the right to use the service since it is
237
1 also used by adjacent properties. Staff parenthetically
2 says "legal question." In June — June 22nd of this
3 year, the staff basically having gone all the way down
4 the line with regard to issuing this permit, is
5 scratching its head internally about the legality of
6 what it is doing and also raising the question about
7 whether or not there's a -- there's a right of access
8 use. It's as If they have amnesia. Or its as if
9 they're not tracking or it's as if something else is
10 going on. Who knows.
11 1 turn attention to fire and safety issues, because
12 this is even more of a curio. Public record disclosures
13 reveal that the City protected neighborhood interests by
14 requiring that fire truck turnaround be constructed at
15 the end of Lusk Avenue to assure that emergency vehicles
16 can safely turn around if called to the scene of
17 Mr. Oliveira's proposed two single-family dwellings.
18 CHAIRMAN BAKER: You're on Section 30 right now?
19 MR. ROSSI: Exhibit 30, yes, please. I am at it
20 now. You will see the opinion of Fire Marshal Brian
21 Greer, who earlier tonight gave us what he called a
22 little firefighter 101. I'm not a firefighter. 1
23 couldn't pass that measure, but look what he says in
24 Exhibit 30. It appears that It will be impossible to
25 provide a conforming turnaround to meet the requirements
Page 234 to 237
Board of Adjustment 9-14-16
238
240
1
of the code. The proposed turnaround definitely would
1
its way into the public record.
2
not accommodate the ladder truck and quite possibly the
2
Fire and safety considerations, including the
3
fire engines.
3
turnaround, were supremely important to the City as
4
1 thought I heard the fire marshal this evening
4
applied to the previous owners plan to put up two
5
tell us that really, what he was talking about was
5
modest homes, but they did not register as a factor at
6
something -- the turnaround was related to convenience
6
all after Mr. Oliveira sold the property. Why? What
7
issues, but internally and in memoranda, or a memorandum
7
alchemy did city staff apply to make the old sewer pipe
8
that, you know, no one anticipated anybody else outside
8
concerns go away for the Carlsons? Or the turnaround
9
of the -- of the community of the city staff reading, it
9
issue or the safety issues or the pumping issues.
30
appears that it would be impossible to provide a
10
Tapping into a private sewer line was a real
11
conforming turnaround to meet the requirement of the
11
problem for Mr. Oliveira, as is the idea about
12
code. Now, if the requirement — requirement of the
12
encroaching on private property rights anyway.
13
code I do not think, even though I don't have a degree
13
Notifying and seeking permission from the vested
14
in firefighting 101 -- the requirement of the code must
14
property owners was a real problem for Mr. Oliveira but
15
speak to fire safety, surely. Not simply the capacity
15
not thereafter, and poor old Lusk Avenue is still the
16
of the convenience of a — of a truck.
16
way it ever was. None of the substantive
17
City staff ordered Mr. Oliveira to provide a
17
inhastructural issues of security, safety, easement and
18
turnaround. This was in previous Exhibit Number 18,
18
sewer has changed, but the city staff has created
19
because he was going to put up two single-family
19
numerous distinctions that don't amount to differences.
20
dwellings. Quote: "Lusk is currently 25 feet wide.
20
The City attempts now to normalize Its errant
21
You will need to provide a turnaround"
21
application of the code by circling the wagons, adopting
22
MR. WEITZEL: I believe that's a misstatement. 1
22
a lose -lose attitude with regard to transparency, and by
23
think it was shown earlier that Lusk is 20 feet wide.
23
now claiming standard code development provisions are
24
MR. ROSSI: You recall Exhibit 17, staff said — a
24
aspirational. The City is attempting to maintain this
25
city staff quoted Mr. Boothroy as saying we will not
25
public position now, but let's take one more look at how
239
241
1
sign off on the plat until the issue of a turnaround has
1
the City in its own tongue describes the issue of
2
been resolved. The fire marshal considered it to be an
2
aspiration.
3
impossible turnaround to conform to the code.
3
Exhibit Number 33. A city staffer says, "I was
4
Exhibit 31. Access and turnaround questions remain
4
looking through the single-family dwelling development
5
oblique in the record. The fire chief reviewed, quote,
5
standards and noticed that the purpose statements for
6
'9he access and turnaround proposed," and concluded
6
minimum lot requirements and building bulk standards are
7
seemingly that the impossibility of a conforming
7
uniform in that they seek to," and this is my
8
turnaround had been achieved. "We believe it will
8
editorialization, they don't seek to encourage, they
9
enable our apparatus to tum around if necessary." What
9
don't seek to Inspire, no. They seek to, quote, "ensure
10
Is "it"? What is "it"? Residents asked for a public
10
consistency and compatibility between new and existing
11
record. You got an issue this critical. Nothing
11
development and discourage new buildings that dominate
12
appears in the record to tell us what "it" is. The
12
existing buildings."
13
record does not reflect what this proposed turnaround
13
"And then I wondered," the city staffer continued,
14
constitutes.
14
"is it defensible to take down a home that conforms with
15
Exhibit 32. Somebody's talking about "it." Ain't
15
those purpose statements in order to build something
16
part of the public record that we discerned from what
16
that does not meet those purpose statements." Would we
17
the City gave us in the pile. The City obviously
17
allow construction of a mini arena in Walnut Ridge, for
18
engaged in discussions about safety turnaround. It's
18
instance, where large homes dominate the landscape and
19
not found in the record except for another oblique
19
where lots are so huge that there is more separation
20
reference by the property owner to the east,
20
between homes. And I'll leave it for you to also look
21
Mr. Klinefelter, who, by the way, used to work for the
21
at Article 33 and city staffs response to that
22
City, and Mr. Klinefelter expresses concern about a
22
question. Thank you.
23
turnaround proposal that goes east to his property. It
23
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Thank you. Questions? I'm going
24
would be beneficial to the community if we knew what it
24
to let them finish.
25
was, but it seems that it was important but didn't make
25
(An off-the-record discussion was held.)
Page 238 to 241
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Board of Adjustment 9-14-16
242 1
CHAIRMAN BAKER: We're going to take like a
three-minute break just to stretch, okay?
(A brief recess was taken.)
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Okay. Let me make an
announcement. Jim, I'm closing this meeting at
eleven -thirty, so if you are not finished by then, we
are going to pick it up again next Wednesday, and also
there was a question about the timing. We have an
attorney conflict for five -fifteen, so with staffs and
board's permission, we would do Wednesday at six -thirty.
But eleven -thirty.
DR. SYROP: I've timed this before and it should
take about 15 minutes. Okay? So first of all, my
name's Craig Syrop and my wife, Anne Sadler, and I own
the property two doors down from 101 Lusk Avenue. Our
affidavit's been filed. I also want to thank the Board
of Adjustment members both for your stamina and also for
considering this issue that I feel is of great
importance to us who live out In Manville Heights but
also in Iowa City. We're seeking revocation of this
permit for the following reasons, and IT just sort of
point them out.
First of all, 101 Lusk is misclassified as an RS -5,
no separate and independent sewer. This directly
affects us and I'll go through this, okay? Permitting a
243
shared sewer without easement violates code purpose.
New construction, which fails an extension nonconforming
use, and the City ignored Its own preference of an
available sewer option. Tonight, as a private citizen
who owns a house downstream from the proposed Carlson
sewage, and an association member, I'm seeking
protection of our health, safety, and property by
revocation of this building permit
As you will see, this request is based upon the
misclassification and misinterpretation of RS -5. As you
can see from your — from code, and I know that you all
know this, and I'm not going to belabor it because
Mr. Rossi went through some of this, but I do want to
point out that the purpose is numerated. It's not a
preamble and it says that, in fact, it will be
implemented in a manner that promotes the health,
safety, order, convenience, and prosperity of the
general citizens. Now, this is not a preamble.
Instead, it's a specifically numerated section and It
should be no less important, I hope, than any other
numbered section such as setback requirements, for
example.
You'll also notice in the City's response to our
appeal, this code section has been called aspirational.
I'm sad to hear that a numerated purpose of the code is
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
244
now considered as nothing more than aspirational.
Instead, this statement purpose should empower employees
and others at their task to be performed in ways
consistent with the values of a community and directs
the performance of City employees, especially in times
when their actions are faced with ambiguity or a lack of
precedent. Approval of this permit has strayed from
that core guiding numerated code purpose.
The decisions tonight of the board, and I know this
from reading the memorandum that you all received as
well, you all have the ability, in fad, as board
members that your decision to serve the public interest,
meet the Intent of the title, and be consistent with the
comprehensive plan of the City as amended. So
fortunately, you as the Board of Adjustment are
empowered to render decisions in that way.
So how do I feel that the code was, in fact,
misinterpreted. As you've seen before, and I'm going to
paint out, we've — we've heard tonight about the
importance of definitions, okay? So — And I
apologize, I lost my little laser pointer, but it has to
have a separate and independent building sanitary sewer
for every building. Now, I'm -- I'm confused because
its hard for me to understand how independent and
separate is the same as shared, okay? And that's what
245
1 we have.
2 Tonight we will hear about the importance of
3 definitions, as I said, but first and foremost, the City
4 and the Cadsons, as current owners of 101, have
5 misclassified this on the basis of this. Quite simply,
6 the structure does not have a separate and independent
7 sanitary sewer line as required for RS -5. This is
8 detailed under the section, as we talked about. It was
9 cited previously by the HBK group, which, in fact,
10 because the City said they had no knowledge of that
11 private sewer line, we had to actually hire someone else
12 to video it and get an engineering opinion.
13 And you also heard from HBK that its also used In
14 the Uniform Plumbing Code. So the report by HBK and the
15 City concerning this issue just months before the
16 Carlsons had it made dear that the sewer as proposed to
17 service the Carlsons' new construction is shared and not
18 separate. Therefore, this property fails a critical and
19 basic requirement of RS -5 Code, which invalidates, then,
20 issuance of this permit
21 Please note that in their response to our fling,
22 the City now attempts to dismiss that same statute,
23 which just months before, when the dividing line was,
24 you know, going from north -south to east -west, it dung
25 to during Mr. Oliveira's request. The rationale now
Page 242 to 245
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Board of Adjustment 9-14-16
246 1
offered by the City is that multiple townhouse
condominiums on one lot can share a sewer. That was
their response. So besides wondering if and when two
bad ideas can make a goad one, let me describe how their
analogy is deeply flawed, because this applies to my
property, okay?
Our shared sewer being discussed tonight involves
multiple lots, not one lot, for houses originally
constructed by different developers, not one developer,
They're owned by unaligned people and persons who are
without common walls, owner covenants, contracts, or
specified contributions, which are fees designated which
would cover contingencies for service and repair of such
a system. It's a false equivalency.
Now, I do want to point out, and Mr. Rossi
mentioned this before, is when this email — when it was
corresponded to the Prestige Properties from
Mr. Oliveira, and again, you can say line going this
way, that way; but the bottom line was that, in fact,
they knew it was a shared system. Okay? And let me
also point out that when they talked about the options
that will come up, they weren't talking aboutjust the
house furthest to the south going out to Lusk Avenue,
connecting to the right-of-way. They were going to make
the house that's going to use the same system go out to
247
Lusk through the right-of-way. So it wasn't that they
were going to have them once let one go a different way
and one the other. They were going to require both, and
the one using this system to go cut to Lusk and up the
right-of-way. So indeed, generally when they're asked
about similar older sewers, the question was why did the
City okay this.
So, Mr. Havel March 11, 2015-- and again, I admit
this is for the Oliveira property, okay? But said that
the proposed houses do not have separate and independent
building sanitary sewers. Houses. The one still going
to use this system. Not a separate and independent
building sewer. Now, they also sort of talked at that
time that during this same period, and if it was going
to connect to 101 would conned to a private line shared
by adjacent owners. And in this one, Mr. Havel made it
clear that the City's preference after discussions with
the joint staff, that their preference would be that a
new sanitary sewer service out to the front of the
houses to Lusk Avenue for both houses, not just the one
further to the south, okay? And if you would choose to
tie into the existing private line, we would need such
proof of the ability to do so, such as a proof of
easement.
Now, let's be clear. The City wanted the same
248
1 sewer line, as I mentioned, not just for the south house
2 but also for the north house. Okay? Yet, for the
3 Carlsons' permit, the City now fails to require separate
4 sewer line per code or even address or evidence concern
5 for the easements. Perhaps as a premonition -- I
6 apologize. Going the wrong way. So perhaps as a
7 premonition, Terry Goerdt, who's not here tonight, on
8 the city staff, says to Mr. Zahasky, "Good morning, Al.
9 1 talked to Tim," and I'm -- I'm actually sortof hoping
10 that this was a mistake. "He said he does want you to
11 build the sewer"— "the house and then have sewer
12 problems since the sewer runs through someone else's
13 property." Okay? Now, despite repeated correspondences
14 with Mr. Oliveira expressing clear concern for the
15 ramifications of a shared line and a lack of
16 easements —
17 (Inaudible)
18 DR. SYROP: I know, its — it should say "not"
19 and —
20 (Inaudible)
21 DR. SYROP: I know you wouldn't do that to us. I'm
22 just saying -- So anyway, but again, maybe a
23 premonition of things to come. So despite repeated
24 correspondence with Mr. Oliveira expressing clear
25 concerns for the ramifications of a shared line and a
249
1 lack of easements, it is clear that the City now
2 inexplicably either ignores aspects of existing
3 engineering reports, stays silent, or avoid issues
4 regarding the existence of the shared line location, and
5 the absence of easements. And I'll say this because
6 it's our property, and lack of easement.
7 So instead, this permit focuses now and limits its
8 focus to fixture units and line capacity. So even if
9 the proposed structure was allowed to — to connect to a
10 shared sewer in direct violation of the code that we
11 talked about, even if it was allowed to pass across and
12 beneath others' private property and existing
13 structures, like my driveway that I actually have a
14 shared easement with Anne Lahey about, it will be
15 utilizing a private sewer line whose condition was
16 questioned by outside, independent engineers that could
17 increase — that were concerned it can increase the risk
18 for adjoining neighbors.
19 I'm not going to go into -- it's your Exhibit
20 Number 20. Its the Hart -Frederick report that was
21 obtained from Mr. Oliveira. I won't go through that
22 much. But in issuing this permit, the City ignores its
23 existing documents from an external, independent
24 engineer which expressed concerns about the line
25 condition that you heard before. It also suggests
Page 246 to 249
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Board of Adjustment 6-14-16
250 1
relining the sewer to prevent problems remained
unaddressed In this. But such an action about relining
the sewer line that runs through my backyard would
actually require almost certainly notifying the
neighbors. Instead, this permit process accepted a
sewer service report and utilized a narrow response only
to fluid capacity provided by action sewer to the
building. Ignore the engineer, just focus on the fluid
capacity components of it.
Given the stuff flows downhill, I think its
obvious who bears the downstream risk of an obstruction
when 200 people all flush toilets within 30 minutes of
game time. In addition, it's documented in the City
records that Carlsons' own engineers, MMS -- and this
will be in your pile of papers In Exhibit 7 — raise
still unanswered questions regarding the adequacy of the
slope of the sewer once they move the house further
south. Okay? So there were concerns by — raised by
MMS as to the sewer gravity drainage once the house was
sited further south. And that's from Glen Meisner.
There's no evidence that these issues were further
evaluated, addressed, prior to issuance of the permit.
In summary, there is no separate sewer as required
under RS -5, and the risks posed by the existing sewer
line condition in depth remain a concern. Afterthe
251
City told Bill Ackerman they had no information about
the private sewer, we hired HBK. We confirmed that even
if the proposed structure was allowed to be connected to
our shared private sewer in violation of code, the
course of waste would pass across and beneath our
private property and existing structures. And you can
see that on the poster that's been raised here. I'll
spare you the video that is entitled "A Sewer Runs
Through It" but, in fact, this comes through my — our
backyard, dose to a very old walnut tree, very close to
the back of our house, okay?
Now, recently the City produced, about ten days
ago, to us a city permit from 1927 thafs been mentioned
before. It was obtained from a time when a single
entity owned all three properties. However, that
relationship no longer exists. The City's permission to
attach to a main does not obviate the need for easements
to have been granted when those properties were split
and separated and now for new construction.
As you heard from Mr. Ross[, the concerns and risks
and protection of adjacent property owners were
previously recognized by the City during Mr. Oliveira's
ownership. The City actions were consistent with the
stated purpose of the code when the City set forth
requirements for the prior owner, to either connect a
252
1 new sewer line through the right-of-way or produce
2 evidence of easements.
3 Now, for the Carlsons, the same concerns to balance
4 adjacent property owners' interest, because that's what
5 the purpose of the code's supposed to be, are
6 mysteriously lacking. To be dear, no such easements
7 exist in the abstracts of our — of those owners who
8 only recently discovered this information. This
9 knowledge was asymmetrically held and applied by the
10 City, the builder, and the Carlsons. Either the
11 Carlsons or the City ever informed us of these issues
12 and the risk to our private property. Without any
13 existing easement, the issuance of this permit violates
14 Code purpose. It results in a direct adverse and
15 increased burden placed upon adjacent property owners'
16 safety and finances.
17 Unfortunately, as you also heard, we were the last
is to know this potential burden, so by their actions and
19 their -- and for the new construction, this ungranted
20 easement and use would have occurred knowingly,
21 silently, without a permission, without easement and
22 without remediation of, for example, relining the sewer
23 until, as Mr. Goerdfs email suggests, a problem arose.
24 And then as Mr. Druivenga states, it gels dicey. Do
25 those actions and misinterpretation of code either make
253
1 for good neighbors or good government?
2 Finding revelation of this shared sewer with its
3 ungranted use against adjacent property owners and
4 because we feel cur prosperity and our private property
5 interests were violated by issuance of this permit, all
6 neighbors whose property is crossed by this shared sewer
7 have filed notice of termination of easement denying any
8 real or perceived easement and terminating all access
9 across our private properties from 101 Lusk. And you
10 have that from Mr. Larew before, okay?
11 So Indeed -- And I'm not going to go through this,
12 okay? By termination of any easements, real or
13 perceived, there's no legitimate rite of passage. Not
14 only is there no Independent and separate sewer and the
15 sewer cross must pass to Lusk Avenue through fight --
16 public right-of-way or as previously recommended to
17 Mr. Oliveira. It's unfortunate that we were forced to
18 seek relief from the attempted forced use of our
19 property by the Carlsons, enabled by the City, while the
20 City kept silent and advantaged the private interests of
21 the Carlsons without consideration of our interests.
22 Any arguments that lack of easement is purely
23 accidental is debunked by the presence and documentation
24 within our abstracts of other legal easements which
25 actually precede that 1927 agreement between owners of
Page 250 to 253
Board of Adjustment
9-14-16
256
DR. SYROP: Oh, thank you.
MS. SOGLIN: And—but—
MR. BOOTHROY: It's not in the zoning title. The
sewer code is not in the zoning title.
DR. SYROP: But it's — but it's in the — it's —
When you go to the city website in terms of RS -5 —
MR. BOOTHROY: It's In the city code, yes.
DR. SYROP: Oh, yeah. Yeah.
MR. WEITZEL: But I thought part of the board of --
part of this was, in fact, that our regress was when
there was either misclassification or misapplication of
the code.
MR. LAREW: The misclassification discussion that
we're having is that is the property properly classified
as a single-family dwelling. And the definition of a
single-family dwelling, no matter where we take it from,
includes the fact that it has a sanitary system, that it
has a sewer.
MS. SOGLIN: I just wanted to make sure we had to
make the distinction between a single-family home and
what RS -5 means, because they are different
MR. LAREW: RS -5 is a zone that has low density
single-family dwellings.
MR. WEITZEL: And I want to make it clear, too,
that you're asking us to look at the Title 16 as well as
257
Title 14.
DR. SYROP: Title 16 being the purpose piece or —
MR. WEITZEL: You cited the sewer ordinance under
Title 16.
DR. SYROP: Yeah, building service and connections.
MS. SOGLIN: But if you extend what you're saying
right now currently, then, if -- this concept of a
single-family home must have its own sewer, and
currently either your home or Mrs. Lahey's is not a
single-family home.
DR. SYROP: Well, there's actually -- so here's —
here's a distinction, okay? We — Our houses already
exist. There's no house on this lot now. That lot —
That house was torn down. That use was extinguished,
okay? Our house has an existing sewer. It's already
shared and probably shouldn't be — I mean if — if the
house was tom down, I would expect that probably
this — the City would say you got to build a new sewer
cut through the right-of-way and connect to the main,
have a separate and independent sewer.
MS. SOGLIN: And with these termination of
easements, are you terminating one or the other's use at
this time?
DR. SYROP: So we --
MS. SOGLIN: The two houses being connected?
Page 254 to 257
254
1
117 and 110, which provides for shared driveway under
1
2
which the shared sewer now passes. Further, any attempt
2
3
to invoke nonconforming language and grandfather In this
3
4
shared sewer for new construction is invalid, as I read
4
5
the code, for a couple reasons.
5
6
So because, in fact, a nonconforming single-family
6
7
use may be reestablished and structure re —
7
8
reconstructed, if that structure was destroyed or
8
9
damaged by fire, ex -- explosion, act of God or a public
9
10
enemy. This house was torn down on a voluntary basis by
10
11
the Carlsons prior to issuance of a building permit.
11
12
Further, the code talks about the nonconforming use
12
13
disappears after use is discontinued for over a year,
13
14
and it doesn't -- it says "discontinued." It doesn't
14
15
say "terminated." And as we know from Mr. Ackerman,
15
16
Miss Aspel was out of the house for several years even
16
17
before she died over a year ago.
17
18
So in summary — and I know you're glad to hear
18
19
this, okay? For multiple reasons the Cadsons'
19
20
structure lacks any separate and independent sanitary
20
21
sewer as required by Code. Therefore, it's
21
22
misclassified. Issuance of this permit forces ungranted
22
23
easements across private property and encumbers them in
23
24
their property to health, safety, and financial risk.
24
25
That violates the code purpose. Therefore, I'm asking
25
255
1
that this permit be revoked. As you may have guessed,
1
2
I'm no lawyer, but I think Johnny Cochran would have
2
3
summarized it this way: If the sewer won't fit, you
3
4
must not permit. Thank you.
4
5
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Any quick questions from the
5
6
board?
6
7
MR. CHRISCHILLES: I do. Go ahead.
7
8
MS. SOGLIN: Can you go to your first slide,
8
9
please, Mr. -- Dr. Syrop?
9
10
DR. SYROP: Sure. Yeah.
10
11
MS. SOGLIN: So you're saying this is misclassified
11
12
as RS -5. RS -5 is a zoning —
12
13
DR. SYROP: Right.
13
14
MS.'SOGLIN: — category. You're not using the
14
15
term which — There was a term used earlier, was it
15
16
misclassified as a single-family home. Are you --
16
17
You're saying you're making a different distinction
17
18
here.
18
19
DR. SYROP: So I -- I'm — it's -- it can be -- My
19
20
understanding is to be RS -5 single-family home it has to
20
21
have a separate, independent sewer, and this fails to
21
22
have that and, therefore, it shouldn't be classified as
22
23
such.
23
24
CHAIRMAN BAKER: That the house is not -- It's the
24
25
property that's classified.
25
9-14-16
256
DR. SYROP: Oh, thank you.
MS. SOGLIN: And—but—
MR. BOOTHROY: It's not in the zoning title. The
sewer code is not in the zoning title.
DR. SYROP: But it's — but it's in the — it's —
When you go to the city website in terms of RS -5 —
MR. BOOTHROY: It's In the city code, yes.
DR. SYROP: Oh, yeah. Yeah.
MR. WEITZEL: But I thought part of the board of --
part of this was, in fact, that our regress was when
there was either misclassification or misapplication of
the code.
MR. LAREW: The misclassification discussion that
we're having is that is the property properly classified
as a single-family dwelling. And the definition of a
single-family dwelling, no matter where we take it from,
includes the fact that it has a sanitary system, that it
has a sewer.
MS. SOGLIN: I just wanted to make sure we had to
make the distinction between a single-family home and
what RS -5 means, because they are different
MR. LAREW: RS -5 is a zone that has low density
single-family dwellings.
MR. WEITZEL: And I want to make it clear, too,
that you're asking us to look at the Title 16 as well as
257
Title 14.
DR. SYROP: Title 16 being the purpose piece or —
MR. WEITZEL: You cited the sewer ordinance under
Title 16.
DR. SYROP: Yeah, building service and connections.
MS. SOGLIN: But if you extend what you're saying
right now currently, then, if -- this concept of a
single-family home must have its own sewer, and
currently either your home or Mrs. Lahey's is not a
single-family home.
DR. SYROP: Well, there's actually -- so here's —
here's a distinction, okay? We — Our houses already
exist. There's no house on this lot now. That lot —
That house was torn down. That use was extinguished,
okay? Our house has an existing sewer. It's already
shared and probably shouldn't be — I mean if — if the
house was tom down, I would expect that probably
this — the City would say you got to build a new sewer
cut through the right-of-way and connect to the main,
have a separate and independent sewer.
MS. SOGLIN: And with these termination of
easements, are you terminating one or the other's use at
this time?
DR. SYROP: So we --
MS. SOGLIN: The two houses being connected?
Page 254 to 257
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1s
19
20
21
22
23
24
.Ay
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Board or Adjustment 9.14-16
256
260
DR. SYROP: So actually, Ms. Lahey and I have
1
MS. WALZ: So moved by Chrischllles --
actually discussed sort of what we — because at least
2
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Moved and seconded that we adjourn
now we have the opportunity to discuss how we would deal
3
this meeting to reconvene next Wednesday at -- the 21st
with that easement. I haven't terminated her use, okay?
4
of September at 6:30 p.m.
The -- Because actually, she's terminated the use of
5
MS. WALZ: Right. And what I would suggest is that
the Carlsons. Okay. I'm terminating the use of the
6
there were some materials that the appellants discussed,
Cadsons as well, but we at least have -- are having a
7
your statement and any other statements, that If you
discussion about if --just like our driveway is shared.
8
send those to me, I will relay those to the board. It's
When that driveway went bad, what did we do? We
9
always important when we defer that you be aware that
met ahead of time and said, "How are we going to pay for
10
you are not to discuss with each other, with staff, with
it? How many bids are we going to get?" Same thing in
11
the appellants, with anyone, with the press.
terms of painting the shared garage. We figured out
12
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Absolutely.
what it was and paid for it. When this permit was
13
CHAIRMAN BAKER: And I also want to thank everybody
permitted, that discussion was gone. Relining the sewer
14
here for their patience and civility, and I look forward
or coming to us and saying the sewer needs to be relined
15
to seeing you next week. Did we move on that
would have opened up that discussion. And we're at
16
adjournment?
risk.
17
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: No.
MR. WEITZEL: Could you or Jim address what you
18
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Just voted?
consider a nonconforming use to be?
19
MS. WALZ: I think that was basically —
MR. LAREW: It would depend on context, but to some
20
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Adjourned.
extent a nonconforming use would be something that the
21
MS. WALZ: — adjournment, so we're adjourning at
existing zoning ordinance or particular zone didn't
22
eleven -thirty,
recognize as a normal use, but it was allowed to come in
23
(Meeting adjourned at 11:30 p.m.)
either because It was preexisting or it was
24
nonconforming, somehow or other got there with some
25
259
261
permission granted, special use, or variance. I would
1
CERTIFICATE
call that a nonconforming —
2
I, Julie M. Kluber, Certified Shorthand Reporter in
MR. WEITZEL: How does that relate to Title 16, if
3
the State of Iowa, do hereby certify that I was
you will?
4
authorized to and did transcribe in shorthand the above
MR. LAREW: I don't have an opinion about that
5
and foregoing proceedings from a digital audio
tonight.
6
recording; that said shorthand notes were reduced to
DR. SYROP: So I guess if you're asking if -- if
7
computer-aided transcription under my direction and
somebody wanted to tie onto a separate and — I mean
8
supervision; that the foregoing 260 pages are a full and
a — a shared and dependent sewer system, I would
9
correct transcript of the shorthand notes so taken, to
imagine by that they would have to actually go and seek
10
the best of my ability under the situation presented;
a variance somehow. I'm not an expert in that.
11
that I am a disinterested person to the said action.
MR. WEITZEL: Okay.
12
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, 1 have hereupon set my hand
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Thank you very much. Jim, thank
13
this 29th day of October, 2016.
14
you.
15
MR. LAREW: We'll have no -- We have other
16
speakers, but we know the time limit and we're done forCertified
Shorthand Reporter
the night.
17
CHAIRMAN BAKER: We're going to call it a night.
18
We're going to adjourn. Is there specific language 1
19
have to use, Sarah, to adjourn and meet again Wednesday,
20
the 21 at, at 6:30 p.m.?
21
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: (Inaudible) a motion and
22
second.
23
MR. CHRISCHILLES: I so move.
24
MR. WEITZEL: Second.
25
Page 258 to 261
Board of Adjustment 9-21-16 9 Rr,'
o
CONTINUED MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
SEPTEMBER 21, 2016 6:30 p.m. to 11:30 p.m.
EMMA HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL
IOWA CITY, IOWA
Members present: Larry Baker, Gene Chrischilles, Connie
Goeb, Becky Soglin, Tim Weitzel
Members absent:
Staff Present: Doug Boothroy, Susan Dulek, Tim
Hennes, Roger Jensen, Sarah Walz,
John Yapp
Others Present: Mark Parmenter, James Larew, Frank
Weirich, Dina Janzen, Patricia Koza,
Catherine Erickson, Chris Rossi,
Joanne Madsen, Anne Lahey, Karin
Southard, Dennis Befeler, Brian
Fagan, Reed Carlson, Sandy Carlson,
Gary Klinefelter
The following is a transcript of the meeting held
at the above date, time, and place and was transcribed
from the digital audio recording made at such time.
Julie M. Kluber, CSR, RMR
3515 Lochwood Drive NE
Cedar Rapids, IA 52402
319-286-1717
866-412-4766
Page 1 to 1
Board of Adjustment
2 1
1 PROCEEDINGS
2 CHAIRMAN BAKER: I'd like to call this meeting to
3 order. This is a continuation of an appeal — a
4 discussion regarding the appeal of a decision by
5 Development Services to issue a building permit for
6 residential use on property located at a low density
7 single-family RS -5 zone at 101 Lusk Avenue alleging an
8 error in the classification of the property as a
9 residential use, wrongful approval of a site plan, and
10 other zoning code applications.
11 Before we start tonight, I'd like to lay out some
12 procedural guidelines for what you can expect tonight.
13 And I do this because I want to be fair to the
14 appellant, the applicant, the staff, and I also want to
15 be fair to the board itself, and for that reason, I'm
16 setting a four-hour time limit on the meeting tonight.
17 If at ten o'clock it looks like we might be able to wrap
18 it up with a little extra time past ten -thirty, we can
19 certainly do that.
20 But if necessary, to be fair to everyone, because
21 we've given substantial time to staff and will have
22 substantial time for the appellant, we need to have
23 substantial time for the applicant and the public in
24 both sides. To be fair, we would have to reconvene at
25 another meeting at a date convenient for everyone
3
1 involved, but it would be only for the purpose of
2 finishing this discussion. So we want to have the
3 continuation of Mr. Larew tonight, then we'll have some
4 time for members of the public who support the appellant
5 talk, and then we'll turn it over to the applicant, and
6 then we'll have time for the applicant's supporters to
7 talk with some guidelines which I'll set out then. And
8 then the applicant, the appellant, and the staff will
9 have the opportunity to respond to each other's
30 presentation shortly.
11 I'd like to keep those as brief as possible, but,
12 for example, the staff can respond to Mr. Larew, the
13 applicant can respond to Mr. Larew, vice versa. But we
14 give all three sides a chance to respond to the others.
15 At the end of that, the board will do whatever follow-up
16 questions it wants with the three sides. The end of
17 that, we'll have a brief discussion from the attorney
18 again about the legal parameters that we're governed by,
19 and if we can do all that and be finished by ten -thirty,
20 1 will be both pleased and surprised. So we will set a
21 date to finish this discussion.
22 That being done, at the end of that, at the end of
23 all sides and all input, we will also adjourn the
24 meeting for a decision to be announced at a subsequent
25 meeting in very short order. You are not going to get a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
ff'J
5Rl
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
9-21-16
4
decision from this board the tonight at the end of all
the discussion. As you know, we've had to absorb a lot
of information, and I think the board deserves the
chance to sit and put together their thoughts to explain
their decision and then we will have the meeting just
for that, no public input. That will all be discussed
subsequently.
So, Jim, we're going to turn it over to you first,
but with those constraints in mind.
MR. LAREW: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me tell
you where (inaudible). Thank you. I thought I would
alert the board to where we think, at least as the
appellants, at least the part of the presentation where
we have organized ourselves with the goal of being as
efficient as we can be in the presentation of evidence,
will — will go today, knowing that members of the
public may have something in addition to say to our own.
I will list a number of speakers who will be speaking
and give you a — a brief sense of the core of their --
of their message.
One, first— the first speaker will be Frank
Weirich, who is a University of Iowa professor of
engineering. He's not officially a part of our group
but lives in Manville Heights and has studied issues
that related to sensitive slopes ordinance that appear
5
1 to us to be very apropos.
2 Dina Janzen is a nearby homeowner with her husband
3 and family and is going to speak on safety issues from
4 her perspective. Catherine Erickson and her husband
5 live nearby and are actually two of the named appellants
6 and will describe their concerns as parents of young
7 children in the neighborhood. Joanne Madsen is a
8 resident of Manville Heights and has been an active
9 member of our group in terms of thinking about our
10 appeal and has reviewed carefully past decisions of this
11 board and -- and would like to say a thing or two about
12 some findings that she has.
13 Trish Koza will be speaking, as will — she may be
14 there at the same time that Dina Janzen is speaking, and
15 she's an immediate neighbor right across the street and
16 also is the treasurer of our -- of our group. Anne
17 Lahey is an assistant Johnson County attorney who owns a
18 property immediately to the north of the Carlsons'
19 property and will share some thoughts that she has. And
20 Karin Southard is the president of the neighborhood
21 association that makes this appeal and has some -- some
22 thoughts to share.
23 Two speakers who won't be speaking but — materials
24 I'm hopeful, one never knows from this side of the — of
25 the bench what, in fact, is helpful; even when we try to
Page 2 to 5
Board of Adjustmi
6
1 be helpful, I'm not sure that we are. We presented both
2 of the exhibits and numbered them in hopes that that
3 would be of help, and I had two documents that I wanted
4 to supplement before we went, and I'll describe them and
5 with Mr. Parmenter's permission approach the members and
6 hand them to them.
7 I'll tell you what the first one is, or if you'd
8 like to pass them out. I'll tell you and I'll have --
9 share them with counsel. The -- the first is a brief
30 amendment to the HBK study, and it — Because of the
11 calendar of events, they were here and stayed late along
12 with the rest of us after presenting their report, but
13 because of the — because of the scheduling of tonight's
14 meeting couldn't come, and there -- we asked them to
15 answer a question. Can you — We might need the lights
16 down because I'm going to share a couple of these
17 documents with the board.
18 You will see that this is one of the options in the
19 initial report. It was the conclusion of the HBK that
20 amendment D to the International Fire Code was
21 implicated. The City of Iowa City has adopted
22 International Fire Code and Exhibit D, attachment D, to
23 the International Fire Code has been expressly
24 incorporated by reference. And to the extent that it
25 was helpful to the board, the last page of the exhibit
7
1 we just put in, the goal was that you could simply put
2 that in under Exhibit 1 if it was helpful to you.
3 But this is language -- The last page is the
4 express language from the code saying that the
5 appendix — they call it an appendix, a list of
6 appendix — and they expressly incorporated the Appendix
7 D, and D is the one that says that the International
8 Fire Code provisions having to do with turnarounds apply
9 where you have a street that is longer than 150 feet.
10 Lusk Avenue, they took a measure and they found it to be
11 155 and -- and a half feet long, and so they — their
12 opinion was that this was implicated.
13 Well, what does that matter? Well, to them you go
14 to the fire code and it tells you what kind of
15 turnarounds you need so that fire trucks can turn
16 around, and they were using by example in options 1 and
17 2 the two kinds of turnabouts that might be used. These
18 are not made up by HBK; these are required by — by law
19 as examples. Two of them, one was an anvil -shaped and
20 the otherwas semicircled, but the -- the question that
21 we had since it was just by example, what if, in fact,
22 the Carlsons, as the persons wishing to build the
23 building on the westerly side of the street, what if, in
24 fact, they were the ones that were to absorb this --
25 this requirement as opposed to assuming that a
nt
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
30
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
9-21-16
8
neighbor's land would be condemned in order to
convenience the Carlsons.
So you have to scale a drawing and we had option 1
and option 2, which externalized the burden of this
ordinance provision and requirement to the neighbors to
the east. In this case, if the semicircular drive is
there on the City's side, what you're going to do is be
taking out a series of mature oak trees. You would have
to extend Lusk Avenue, we assume at a considerable
expense, but it would also and importantly encroach upon
the very design of the building that the Carlsons
have — have proposed.
The second one where you have the anvil shape,
which is called Exhibit — or option Number 4, but if
you look the anvil approach for the turnaround and again
assume that the Carlsons and not a neighbor would have
to absorb the space and commitment to it, you can see
how — how that lies. At the very least — at the very
least, it would not allow for the size of the building
that when you take setback requirements and others. We
believe that on that requirement alone, the building
would not be allowed.
And when we talk about an objection to the site
plan, we understand the code says they're not required
for a site plan, but once a site plan is proposed, it
9
1 ought to be accurate. It ought to take into account
2 required provisions of the code and it ought to be
3 thought through. How do we accommodate the proposed
4 project with the requirements of the — of the code, and
5 we don't see exemptions in the language from the fire
6 code as to can an owner simply not — not comply with
7 this, and the City decide if it's longer than 150 feet,
8 can they simply not comply with fire code. We haven't
9 heard any reason why that should be the case, and our --
10 and our argument is that any kind of proposal ought to
11 take this into account.
12 So what you have in the appellants' Exhibit 1A are
13 the two separate options 3 and 4 that we've just
14 discussed. The next page is the language right out of
15 the Appendix D to the International Fire Code, and then
16 the last page is that part of the Iowa City Code of
17 Ordinances which expressly adopts Appendix D as a part
18 of the city Code of Ordinances. Those were excerpted
19 and — and pieces of those were included in the initial
20 report, but I thought you might want to see what the
21 original language was in the original code provisions
22 that are a part of Iowa City's law.
23 So Exhibit 1A is one that we would propose and
24 if — if HBK were here, they would be certainly willing
25 to provide that, but they simply couldn't because of a
Page 6 to 9
Board of Adjustment 9-21-16
10 1 12
1 conflict.
2 The second document that I wanted to add was a
3 demonstrative exhibit. Dennis Befeler, who is — is the
4 person who is so competently doing what I cannot do,
5 which is show slides well, and he had in a script form,
6 in a narrative form — no doubt you may recall, members
7 of the board, that we believe that when a use is
8 disputed in — in a proposal for a building that as to
9 what is the primary use versus an accessory use or is it
30 a recognized use at all, that the city code requires in
11 certain language that a — a use analysis be performed.
12 And we had two witnesses. Dennis was one, and a
13 second also gave their analysis and their professional
14 opinion as to why, in fact, a residential use was
15 accessory to a principal use which we have called
16 recreational or entertainment, and we don't think it
17 comes into the category of primary, a residential use
18 for entertainment or recreation. That is something else
19 by intent and by design. And then we have also argued
20 that the code itself, it's not a simply binary decision,
21 is it residential, is it commercial.
22 In fact, the code — it could have done a number of
23 things. The city council could have said, you know,
24 Board of Adjustment or city staff, if you're not sure
25 what it is, lust get as close as you can and move
11
1 forward. It's quite the opposite. It says if you can't
2 find a use that's clearly recognized by the code, you
3 can't do it. Its not permitted. And then a person who
4 wants to go forward with a use that is not permitted,
5 they have the option of politically working with the
6 council to amend the code.
7 So what we did in this instance was to basically
8 square up. We had decisions in Mr. Befeler's initial
9 narrative report and a copy was provided which showed
10 his — at least in his own opinion what — and the
11 reasons for it, why the breakout was the way that it was
12 and assigned to what use. But then what in this case
13 went to the actual language of the code, which is what
14 we believe the City must do and must show work that it
15 has done so, and — and we — we said in our opening
16 arguments that in all the pages of documents that we
17 went through, there was no such analysis performed and
18 that the kind of conclusory analysis that the City
19 offered was not the kind of analysis that— that is
20 required.
21 So those are the two exhibits. They're listed
22 sub — sub A in each instance because they're intended
23 to amend a preexisting exhibit. We'll have a couple
24 more exhibits as we go forward tonight, but they'll be
25 numbered such that if its useful to you and you want to
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
put it into your exhibit book, it will fit right in and
it's in a sequential order and — and all the rest. But
for now, what I'd like to do is have our first
speaker—
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Jim?
MR. LAREW: Yes.
CHAIRMAN BAKER: I'm sorry, but I have to ask you a
specific question here.
MR. LAREW: Yes, please.
CHAIRMAN BAKER: You used the word "recreational."
MR. LAREW: Yes.
CHAIRMAN BAKER: And in the zoning code there is no
definition of recreational. I looked through. I could
not find a definition for recreational use. That's not
my question.
MR. LAREW: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN BAKER: My question is how can you
reconcile what the code does say? Let me quote from the
code. The principal use, the primary use of land or a
structure is distinguished from an accessory use. For
example, a dwelling is a principal use on a lot in a
residential zone while a garage or pool is an accessory
use. That's the definition of principal use. The
definition of dwelling, a building, which is referred to
in the first definition. Dwelling, a building wholly or
13
1 partially used or intended to be used for residential
2 occupancy. It— The language is circular, but it
3 seems fairly clear that they only have to establish
4 partial use to be defined as a residential use.
5 MR. LAREW: I don't think that's true. I don't
6 think you can escape the requirement and the intent of
7 the code to assume that for a residence or something
8 that claims to be a dwelling that its principal use must
9 be used as a — a dwelling or we could have — we could
10 have gas stations put in the middle of a residential
11 area with a bunk bed in back and say we've got — we've
12 got a kitchen facility, we've got a couple bunk beds.
13 That — that complies with that language. It may look
14 like a gas station to the rest of you, but to us it's
15 home. I think we have to use some common sense.
16 Second, I don't think that the definitions that you
17 use go quite far enough, and this is a part of our other
18 argument, that it is a part of the definition of a
19 dwelling. It— it lists a series of things that you
20 must have and that's in the International Residence
21 Code, the IRC. It also includes sanitation, and so
22 we're going back to definition. One is use. What is
23 the primary use; and two, does it have all the elements
24 that you must have for a residential structure, and if
25 it doesn't, then it doesn't — it doesn't comply either.
Page 10 to 13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
30
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Board of Adjustment
14 1
So whether it's recreation, we've called it
entertainment. Why we've called it entertainment,
because we — we look at the University of Iowa football
field as being — Kinnick Stadium as being an
entertainment facility. It might be recreation for
some, entertainment to others. This purports to
replicate a building that is an entertainment facility
and purports to invite people for entertainment
purposes.
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Okay. I just wanted to gel your
succinct response to that because it will come back in
later discussions with the staff. I have some questions
for them as well on this same issue. Now, before you
introduce your next speaker, just from the summary you
gave of what you intend to present, I don't think we're
going to make the ten -thirty time limit, but the more —
and 1 certainly want to hear from all those people,
assuming they bring factual slants to this issue which
we have to deal with, but it is going to allow me to
grant the staff and applicant much more time as well. I
just want to let you know that —
MR. LAREW: I think that they should have as much
time as they want, and I think they have so far had
plenty.
CHAIRMAN BAKER: I just want everybody to have the
16
same time if they want it.
MR. LAREW: Well, I —
CHAIRMAN BAKER: So use what you can, but I just
want to let — Maybe I'm just letting the public know
that this will affect possible future discussion as
well.
MR. LAREW: The —the first speaker that we have
is Frank Weirich, who will introduce himself and has, I
know, an exhibit to share with you.
(An off-the-record discussion was held.)
MR. WEIRICH: Good evening. 1 — I do not have
slides. What I do have are some handouts which I think
will become exhibits, and so -- I don't know who they
go to. There are multiple copies there. In the
interest of expediency I will try to be very efficient
with my comments. I apologize. This is not a slide
presentation, so you're going to be just observers to
the process, but the board has it.
Okay, lel me first begin by — try to provide a
very quick summary of where Vat going with this, okay.
I have — Sinking fast here. Okay. Okay, if I can
scale.
Okay, it's my opinion that the City erred in not
requiring specific slope and woodland grove requirements
that are specifically included in the sensitive lands
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
30
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
9-21-16
16
and features requirement of the Iowa City Zoning Code.
They either did not consider those or they don't address
them, and they weren't addressed by the property owner
either.
My second point, and I'll be going through this
quickly. The property owner erred by not complying with
the requirement to evaluate the same zoning codes prior
to or as part of their application for a building
permit. Third, based on a review of the relevant slope
and woodland grove requirements, a swath of land
consisting of a minimum of a 50 -foot buffer on the
northerly side of the Carlsons' south property line
shared with the CRANDIC railway right-of-way must be
established and nothing should be built upon it.
The bottom line is there should be a 50 -foot buffer
on that property adjacent to the CRANDIC right-of-way.
That's where I'm going with my comments.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Is that on the south side?
MR. WEIRICH: It's on the — on the railway side.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: South side.
MR. WEIRICH: That's what I'm going to be trying to
say. A little background to the context of this whole
discussion. My name is Frank Weirich. I reside at Park
Road and I'm in the general Manville area. I'm not a
member of the homeowners group that has brought this
17
1 action, and I'm acting only as a concerned citizen and a
2 member of the community. I attended the first half of
3 the meeting last week and also reviewed the materials
4 that were put online. Following the meeting last week,
5 this past weekend I visited the general area of the site
6 and specifically looked over the situation and visited
7 the site again yesterday.
8 While I'm a resident of the area, I am also a
9 faculty member of the Department of Earth and
10 Environmental Sciences, a research engineer in the
11 Hydraulics Institute, and I hold a position in the
12 Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering here
13 at the University. My specialties encompass hydrology
14 and geomorphology, and I do research, leach, and on
15 occasion have advised cities and communities on issues
16 such as drainage, stormwater, slope stability, land
17 slides, and related environmental issues. On occasion
18 in the past as a public service, uncompensated, I have
19 also worked with the City of Iowa City to help address
20 those kinds of issues.
21 On that basis I'm coming to you today to provide
22 hopefully some use input, and so if we go through the
23 documents that I've assembled for you, what I'm
24 specifically working with is the part of the zoning code
25 that relates to sensitive lands and features. I have an
Page 14 to 17
1
z
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
fk1
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Board of Adjuslme
18
entire copy of that section here to give you as well, if
you wish. What I'm going through are exempt pages from
that, but I could give a complete set of that entire
section. It's 22 pages and I have that as well. 1
could give it to the clerk, okay.
So where are we going with this? First of all, the
question is does sensitive lands and features
requirements apply to this situation. There are a
number of exemptions in the code that say you don't have
to follow these rules. I boxed out for you the third
exemption. The third exemption specifically directed at
single-family homes and two-family residential use, and
it says those places are not required to follow what I'm
about to say, except for the following provision: If
the property doesn't exceed 20,000 feet — 20,000 square
feet in area, no problem. And provided there is no
encroachment by said activities into a jurisdictional
wetland, a designated sensitive area conservation tract,
or protected sensitive areas.
It will be my contention that that is the case
here, so this exemption should not apply. That, in
fact, even though this is a single-family dwelling,
because of that rule, these rules I'm about to go
through do apply to this piece of property. There are
specific pieces of the code that deal with specific
19
issues. The two we're going to deal with tonight are
regulated slopes and the rules regarding wooded areas.
Regulated slopes are anything over 18 percent. They are
then broken down into subsets, which we'll talk about in
a moment, so if you're on the — the next page —
sorry — page 311 in the code, that's what I'm referring
to at this point.
And the two things, again, are regulated slopes are
an issue that come under the sensitive ordinance, and
wooded areas come under the — and wooded areas are
broken down into two categories. Anything over two
acres in size that constitutes a woodland, and I'll show
you the definition in a moment, and groves of trees.
They're both covered by this. So slopes and wooded
areas are part of this dynamic.
If you go to the next page, I'm focusing on
regulated slopes, okay. Regulated slopes are defined in
a set of categories which is common in studying
landslide and slope stability issues. The two ones that
are relevant here are section — are Number 3 and 4. A
critical slope, Number 3, is a slope of 25 to 40
percent. A protected slope is any slope over 40 percent
or steeper. Okay. If you have such slopes,
particularly protected slopes, you are required to
provide a buffer, and I boxed out what the buffer
nt 9-21-16
20
1 requirement is. A buffer will be required around all
2 protected slopes. Two feet of buffer per foot of
3 vertical is the requirement. No development activity,
4 including removal of trees and other vegetation, will be
5 allowed within the buffer zone. Okay.
6 If you go to the next page in this sequence, it is
7 simply a map, GIS map, of the property from the City
8 site, and what I have marked out on it is not the
9 property alone but the slope below the property toward
10 the railroad. I went out on Sunday and I was out again
11 yesterday, and I measured those slopes and I do this for
12 a living, okay? While the property itself does not have
13 a sensitive slope — the slope on the property worse
14 case is 10 percent, but the property next to it,
15 immediately adjacent downslope is, in fact, a
16 combination of a protected slope and a critical slope.
17 The lowest part of the slope, the part where the
18 railway runs, parts of that slope are 100 percent.
19 They're 45 -degree slopes, okay? And then just above it,
20 it shallows out. You combine those, you have at least
21 critical slopes and you have protected slopes. When you
22 have those kinds of situations, there's a great deal of
23 concern with stability. The vegetation is an inherent
24 part of the slope stabilization process. There's also
25 great concern with drainage.
21
1 1 heard in the last — the first— the meeting
2 last week, the first half, that the City was explaining
3 that any drainage issues would be handled by the City
4 after the fact. I disagree with that. I've been
5 involved in situations in the city. You don't solve
6 drainage after the fact, you solve it before the fact.
7 You have to be proactive. Now, while the zoning code
8 here specifically deals with the drainage, it's still a
9 question, and the real problem is you're dumping water
10 onto critical and protected slopes. That water goes in
11 the hill. You — If you want to just throw riprap on
12 that surface, that's not going to solve your problem
13 because you're going to load the slope.
14 If that slope when it's overloaded starts to fail,
15 where's it going? It's going down onto the railway
16 tracks, okay, and those slopes right at the track are
17 literally at 100 percent. They're oversteepened slopes.
18 Those slopes are held together by the vegetation. So if
19 you're going to pump water that way, you have to look at
20 the consequences of what that will be in terms of slope
21 stability. I literally lectured to a class of students
22 yesterday about slope stability and trees and the role
23 of vegetation in stabilizing slopes, so this is not a
24 minor question. It's not a question just of protecting
25 trees or habitat. It comes down to safety issues about
Page IS to 21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Board of Adjustmi
22
the stability of that slope, both downslope and actually
upslope consequences.
Okay.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Shall I raise it back up?
MR. WEIRICH: Why not. Okay, if you go to the next
page, I go on to the question of wooded areas. There
are an entire set of requirements for environmental
evaluation of sensitive areas. You have to do a
development plan. There are steps in the development
plan. All of that is kicked in if you're dealing with
wooded slopes or wooded situations. And for wooded
situations — I'm not going to go through all the
development requirements and review process, which in
reviewing all the materials, I saw no such evaluations
had been done either by the City or by the property
owner to look at that question and determine what could
be done or what the situation even was.
If you look at the bottom of that page, and again,
I'm sort of on the wooded area one, you'll note it
requires a 50 -toot buffer for a wooded area, and that
has to be 50 feet outward from the trunks of the trees
that have to be protected or preserved. This buffer is
intended to protect within the specified retention area
such trees within the buffer substantially deal with
flood and other issues that go with it.
23
Okay. Now, what kind of woodland do we have? Do
we have a woodland? Do we have a grove? The next page
is right from the same ordinance. It's a definition of
a grove of trees, so that there's no ambiguity here. So
it's the next page. It just says grove of trees blocked
out. A grove of trees is ten or more individual trees
having a diameter of at least 12 inches and whose
combined canopies cover at least 50 percent of the area.
I went out and I measured and counted the trees.
In the area immediate downslope of the property, not on
the property, but downslope, there are at least ten
trees that qualify for this grove status. If you go to
the next page in the definitions, there's something that
talked about woodland and woodland areas. Again, it's a
definition. Awoodland area is defined as anything with
more than two acres of size and more than — or
containing no less than 200 trees per acre. The acreage
along the road — the railway, that whole area is at
least three acres in size. I'm going to show you what
it looks like in a moment, okay. So there's a grove
right below and there's a woodland adjacent. The whole
area is in that category.
If you go to the next page, there's something that
says "Design standards for wooded areas," and this is
important because it brings the slopes back into the
nt
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
30
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
9-21-16
24
conversation. I'm reading the second bullet. I've
highlighted it. It's — It looks like this, okay.
It's one page before a map. "When other environmentally
regulated sensitive features are present in combination
with a regulated woodland, the regulations related to
all the sensitive areas contained on the property will
be considered with the most stringent regulations
applying." The woodland and the slopes go together.
Either one could trigger requirements. The woodland
supersedes because it requires at least a 50 -toot
buffer.
If you look at the map that I've provided next,
it's just a Google map. What I've done is use some
software, Google Pro. It's sort of conventional. It's
this one here, okay. What it kind of looks like. I
simply took the area along the railway between the
railway and the properties along the — the edge of
Manville. There's at least three acres of wooded area
there, 50 percent coverage, lots of trees, and right
below the Lusk property downslope is, in fad, a grove
which is part of the overall woodland landscape
situation.
The bottom line is that requires a 50 -foot buffer
to be placed at the minimum from the edge of the
Drooertv inland. and that occupies something on the
25
order of 8,000 square feet of the lot. I looked at the
entire bluff along there.
Several comments. One, the original house which
was on the property complied with this requirement.
Even though it was built in 1917, people knew not to
build houses near the edge of the bluff. In looking at
the adjacent homes, I didn't measure every one, but in a
cursory examination, virtually every home complies with
the buffer requirement to that slope. Slopes don't read
property boundaries. Slopes are natural situations.
They find their own method of operation. The entire
edge of that bluff is a boundary to — requiring a
buffer zone above it onto the land, okay. So there's a
concern with that.
Final comment on the page and then I'm going to
quickly go through my conclusions, which I tried to
summarize in the last page, so the second -lo -the -last
page goes back to the very first page. It talks about
applicability, and it says that properties containing
any of the following environmentally sensitive features,
and obviously the slopes and the woodlands are part of
it, okay, are — are part of this discussion. Then it
goes on to say, "The sensitive areas inventory map may
be used as a tool to determine the location of
potentially environmentally sensitive areas," okay.
Page 22 to 25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
1110]
fkl
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Board of Adjuslme
26
Now, on the map, these areas are not designated. It
doesn't matter. Read the next part. "However, it is
the applicant's responsibility to investigate and fully
delineate any such potential sensitive areas in order to
determine whether the sensitive area or feature is
subject to the regulations of the article."
So its not about their property per se, it's where
their property sits. Their property sits against these
areas, those areas have to be protected, and that
requires a buffer, and it was their responsibility to
evaluate that situation in — in considering all of
this. Okay.
Go to the last page. These are my sort of summary
conclusion, then I will -- I will stop. One, based on a
review of the HDK [sic] report, I find myself in
agreement with the findings of that report with respect
to increased drainage and flow path problems or
concerns. I am troubled by the fact that there is no
clear plan to deal with the increased drainage that will
be directed toward critical and protected slopes, and no
plan to mitigate the impact of that increased flow both
on neighboring problems and the slopes themselves.
Conventionally I would expect that such issues would be
addressed as part of the planning process, not after the
fact. Whether that's in the zoning code you're dealing
27
with, I believe that to be absolutely true,
operationally, and I've done it many times.
Secondly, in reviewing the HDK report, I note that
they indicated there were no sensitive land issues on
the property. As I said before, in reviewing the other
materials and the comments by the City and city staff
both in the presentation and a response to letters and
inquiries, while that may in general be correct with
respect to the parcel itself, it does not mean, in my
view, that there are not several significant sensitive
land and feature issues which have not been addressed.
Moreover, in my view, these are issues which are
specifically required to be addressed as part of the
zoning code, and as such, would seem to fall within the
purview of this board.
Third, specifically with respect to sensitive
slopes, the parcel is directly adjacent, even part of a
critical slope protected slope area. Both the required
buffer requirements and associated sensitivity analysis
requirement have apparently not been either addressed or
even considered by the City or the property owner. I
see no evidence of that. In fact, the one thing I saw
was a letter from one of the homeowners, I don't
remember the name, asking about woods and being told
they don't count. They're not important in this
nt
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
9-21-16
28
situation. They're not relevant.
Fourth. Specifically with respect to grove and
woodland requirements in a similar manner, the specific
requirements in the zoning codes related to protecting
groves and woodland areas, groves and woodland areas
that directly are adjacent to and even encroach upon the
property have not been either considered or addressed,
and particularly as I noted the requirement that a
50 -foot buffer is required. It seems to have been
completely ignored in any consideration of this
situation.
These failures to consider, my fifth point, and
incorporate these requirements in both the approval
process and the actual building plan approved by the
City seem to constitute in some way errors by the City
in review and the approval process and perhaps
ultimately the failure of the property owner to consider
and address and incorporate these requirements in their
proposed plans for the property as required in the
zoning code.
Finally, based on the language in the zoning code,
it would appear to me that ultimately the responsibility
to evaluate and comply with the code with respect to
sensitive features rests with the property owner. The
code says whether its in the map or not, it's the
29
1 owner's responsibility to make those determinations, or
2 their agents, whoever is assessing that property. They
3 do not appear to have met those coding —those zoning
4 code's requirements. That's sort of the summary of
5 my — my view of the situation. I'll stop there in
6 order to be more efficient with the whole timeframe.
7 MR. WEITZEL: So what size are you evaluating the
8 property at?
9 MR. WEIRICH: Whatsize?
10 MR. WEITZEL: Yes.
11 MR. WEIRICH: I believe the planning has it like
12 16,800.
13 MR. WEITZEL: And the trigger was 20,000?
14 MR. WEIRICH: No, the trigger is 20,000 or the
15 environmental requirements that we're discussing, and 1
16 said in my comments its less than 20,000. That's not
17 the problem. The other part of it is the problem.
18 MR. WEITZEL: And this is the responsibility of the
19 homeowner, so how does this work for the timing of the
20 decision made by the building official?
21 MR. WEIRICH: That — that responsibility in the
22 code is supposed to have been done as the process of
23 application took place, so it was — from what I can
24 read in the code, it was the homeowner's or property
25 owner's responsibility as part of their preparation for
Page 26 to 29
Board of Adjustment 9-21-16
30 1 32
1 their application to consider those issues in their
2 application to the City, and the City at the same time,
3 1 believe, you know, didn't catch those things for
4 whatever reason. But as I note in my final comment, 1
5 think the ultimate responsibility, as the code
6 specifies, rests with the property owner. Its their
7 job to figure this out and show that they're following
8 the rules.
9 And, in fact, there are, I'm sure, many areas
10 where, you know, the map doesn't show it, but if you
11 look at it closely or try to do something, that's when
12 you do the detailed environmental assessments,
13 environmental evaluations. That's why my bottom line is
14 where there is areas on — errors on the City's part, 1
15 think ultimately it goes back to the property owner's
16 obligation based on what the zoning code specifies.
17 MR. WEITZEL: And you don't have any mitigating
18 suggestions other than the 50 -foot buffer.
19 MR. WEIRICH: Well, the problem is when you deal
20 with that situation, if you take out— Well, first of
21 all, you can't take out the trees that are at issue here
22 because they're not on his property, okay? They're —
23 they're on CRANDIC and whatever property there is
24 offsite, okay. So you can't touch those trees. If —
25 You can touch trees on the property perhaps and take
31
1 some of those out, although you're not interfering with
2 the grove; and when I did this 50 -foot calculation, 1
3 made the most conservative assumption with respect to
4 the property owner. I assumed that — that the trees
5 don't extend onto his property, which they do. I said 1
6 just went to the property line and said, okay,
7 everything outside that is out of the bounds for sort of
8 tearing out. Okay.
9 Now, you're asking about mitigation. You can
10 mitigate anything, but it's a very expensive and complex
11 process, especially because what you have at the bottom
12 of the slope is the most dangerous situation of all.
13 Because the slope is shallower here and then deeper
14 here, if you get water in that slope, that's where it
15 pops out, okay. So what will happen? You're not going
16 to have a massive landslide take place, probably. What
17 you'll have is sloughing, where you'll get sections of
18 dirt. Sloughing is like smaller parts go down, maybe
19 len or 15 cubic yards. But they'll slide down onto the
20 tracks.
21 And, okay, the railway can come and clean it up,
22 but what happens if a train's coming? That's why
23 stabilizing those slopes is such a big deal. Anything
24 that changes that stability is a zoning issue and its a
25 safety issue, so I'm not saying this just because, oh,
1 my goodness, I like trees. I teach environmental
2 science. I'm not into the business of destroying
3 habitat. That's not what's at stake here alone. And
4 you all have the problem of the slope itself. If you
5 take those trees out, you run the risk of starting to
6 destabilize the slope, and that affects -- You don't
7 build a house to the edge of a slope unless you put down
8 footings to bedrock. Unless you put all kinds of
9 pilings down and do all kinds of very complicated things
30 that require very sophisticated geotechnical analysis,
11 which I've been part of in the past, and all kinds of
12 other mitigation strategies.
13 But the standard approach to something like this is
14 to say don't build near the slope. Stay away from the
15 slope for all the reasons that I have indicated, and
16 that's why the zoning codes and slope stability codes
17 are so adamant about this sort of thing. So the answer
18 is yes, you could. You could build a concrete wall 50
19 feet high and put that there, but to do that, you're
20 going to be going onto other people's property in order
21 to pull that off, and I'm not sure who would agree to
22 allow that to happen down the road. But certainly, none
23 of that was considered in looking at this application
24 and none of it was considered by the applicant in
25 preparing the application.
33
1 And so I believe that -- that the process was
2 flawed. Whether you want to talk about down road
3 massive mitigation or not, it was wrong from square one.
4 Step one was not properly handled. That's really the
5 most important consideration here, among all the others
6 that I will use. I will be honest with you, this is a
7 public process. I'm going to use this in my classes.
8 No, no, I don't mean it negatively. This is a perfect
9 example of the kind of issues we deal with in
10 environmental science and environmental engineering. I
11 teach both engineers and I teach environmental
12 scientists, and — and how to handle these situations is
13 such an important part of their education and teaching
14 them, okay, how do you solve these problems? And how do
15 you avoid these problems?
16 In this case, my simple suggestion is to avoid the
17 problem, build a smaller house. Stay away from the edge
18 of the bluff. I'm not questioning the home, the
19 architecture. That's out of my league. All I'm talking
20 about is mud and water and green stuff. That's —
21 that's all I know about in any official or professional
22 capacity.
23 MR. CHRISCHILLES: So what you're saying is once
24 the sensitive slope area is designated as such and is
25 involved, then the buffer zone becomes a requirement?
Page 30 to 33
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
P41
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Board of Adjustm
34
MR. WEIRICH: That's what the code says. The code
says —
MR. CHRISCHILLES: And nothing can — and one —
and that buff — and the — the buffer zone does —
there's no development at all allowed in that or no
what? Just you have — You can't do anything inside
that zone or—
MR. WEIRICH: You're not supposed to mess inside
that buffer zone with any construction. If you want to
take things out of that buffer zone, you're going to
have to go through all kinds of mitigation strategies to
compensate for the trees you're removing, but that's
more of an environmental compensation. The more
important question is how are you going to ensure the
stability of those slopes going down the road. And
again, you could engineer those solutions. They are not
inexpensive, and there are no normal patterns to sort of
deal with that.
The code does not offer a lot of options with
respect to that. You can do things on your property,
but you have to go off the property to do what you're
suggesting because the buffer is extending into your
property, so you can't mess with that because those
trees are there or you start taking out the woodland,
then you've got stability issues all the way down to the
35
road. That's the problem.
MS. SOGLIN: Could you go back to the C-3
exemption —
MR. WEIRICH: I'm sorry, where?
MS. SOGLIN: — description. It's page 3 of what
you handed to us.
MR. WEIRICH: The very — Page 3 from the
beginning?
MS. SOGLIN: Page 3 at the bottom you were citing
the exemption language, and — right, the very bottom
there.
MR. WEIRICH: Okay.
MS. SOGLIN: I think, it says —where it says,
"Construction of single-family or two-family residential
units." It's Article 1.
MR. WEIRICH: I'm not sure I'm on the same page,
I'm sorry.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Page 311 on — it says at
the bottom.
MS. SOGLIN: Yeah, thank you.
MR. WEIRICH: Okay. Right, but that's actually —
MS.SOGLIN: Okay. So—so—
MR. WEIRICH: But actually that's what—that's
what you're looking at, that piece on 311 is what I
highlighted on this —
.nt 9-21-16
36
1 MS. SOGLIN: Right, right, and I have a question
2 about that.
3 MR. WEIRICH: Okay, go ahead.
4 MS. SOGLIN: So— Okay. So when you first were
5 answering Tim's question, the very beginning of your
6 response, you —you used the conjunction "or." You
7 said it says, you know, "the development activities do
8 not exceed a maximum of 20,000 square foot or there is
9 no encroachment," but the language here is "and." It's
30 not and/or.
11 MR. WEIRICH: Okay. But when you say "did not
12 exceed maximum" (unintelligible) "in area and provided,"
13 so it doesn't have to exceed 20,000. "And provided."
14 So it doesn't exceed 20,000, but even if it doesn't, it
15 says if the — it doesn't exceed 20,000 and provided
16 there is no encroachment. Those are joint— They're
17 not or, okay. Let me read it again.
18 MS. SOGLIN: But are you suggesting that we would
19 have to interpret it as "or' in order to just have the
20 one — the one part of it hold true? The other part
21 doesn't hold true.
22 MR. WEIRICH: No, no, not at all. What it's saying
23 is you can do single- and two-family dwellings except
24 for this situation, okay? And it says, "if the
25 development doesn't exceed 20,000 square feet." They
37
1 meet that requirement. They're 16,8. But then it goes
2 on, "and" — "and," an additional requirement, "provided
3 there is no encroachment, and by said activities into a
4 jurisdictional," blah, blah, blah, the rest of it.
5 So under 20,000, check. You're good. But you
6 still have to deal with the other part of the statement.
7 It's not or, it's and. You're under 20, you succeed.
8 But you also have to meet this other thing, which is you
9 can't be messing with these environmental areas without
10 all kinds of things being done, none of which were done.
11 But it's not or. The 20,000 requirement is met. They
12 are not 20,000. Sixteen eight, sixteen five, whatever
13 you want to do. But even with that having been met, it
14 also goes and you also have to deal with this
15 environmental stuff.
16 MS. SOGLIN: And that consideration goes to an
17 adjoining parcel; you're saying it's not just what
18 happens on the parcel. That that "and" part applies
19 to —
20 MR. WEIRICH: No, because environmental processes
21 aren't restricted to the parcel.
22 MS. SOGLIN: Right, and I know the environmental
23 process isn't, but you're saying the way the —
24 MR. WEIRICH: Well, because —
25 MS. SOGLIN: —the ordinance is written
Page 34 to 37
Board of Adjustment 9-21-16
38 1
1 protects — protects it as such.
2 MR. WEIRICH: Yes. It would make no sense to say
3 you have to have a buffer on your property if you have
4 these things but you don't have to have anything above
5 it because, in fact, the definition of the slope top is
6 the top of the slope, wherever it is. So, no, you're
7 extending — the buffer has to extend beyond the slope
8 edge and beyond the property line. The wooded
9 requirement extends beyond that as well. It has to. I
10 mean otherwise, the whole environmental process makes no
11 sense at all. So, yes, I'm fairly comfortable that
12 buffer — that buffer goes where I'm suggesting it has
13 to go.
14 MS. SOGLIN: Okay.
15 CHAIRMAN BAKER: All right. One question, please.
16 And I apologize if you've said this and it slipped past
17 me, but I want to get a clarification on some language
18 here. In that same stanza, this is on the — under
19 exemptions, Number 3, "provided there is no encroachment
20 by said activities into a jurisdictional wetland, a
21 dedicated sensitive areas conservation tract, or a
22 protected sensitive area." Those sound like
23 designations of record somewhere, or is it the fact that
24 anybody that builds has to go determine whether these
25 things-- these areas ft that classification?
39
1 MR. WEIRICH: That's what the code says.
2 CHAIRMAN BAKER: Okay.
3 MR. WEIRICH: I mean I believe —
4 CHAIRMAN BAKER: But I want to understand this
5 concept of jurisdictional wetland. There is a
6 definition —
7 MR. WEIRICH: Its very important. It puts the
8 onus on the property owner to ensure they're complying
9 with the environmental zoning code.
10 CHAIRMAN BAKER: Okay.
it MR. WEIRICH: And that's fairly explicit.
12 CHAIRMAN BAKER: But it does seem like wouldn't
13 someone have to have designated sensitive areas or a
14 jurisdiction — Someone has to have that designation
15 before it can be applied.
16 MR. WEIRICH: Not at all.
17 CHAIRMAN BAKER: Okay.
18 MR. WEIRICH: The designation is self-fulfilling in
19 that if you look at a piece of land and you look at the
20 requirements and it meets the requirements, then it
21 meets the requirements. You don't have to have a line
22 drawn that says — Because there are — I could show
23 you many areas in the city that are not on the map which
24 would meet these requirements and would, I'm sure,
25 require that consideration. That's why the language was
40
1 written, that the property owner has to ensure they're
2 meeting it, even if it's not on the map. It's — 1
3 think it was quite clear in the —
4 CHAIRMAN BAKER: Yeah, point me to that, please.
5 MR. WEIRICH: Okay. I repeat that. The sensitive
6 areas inventory map, phase one, may — not required --
7 may be used as a tool to determine the locations of
8 potential environmentally sensitive areas. The next
9 part's the key. However, it is the applicants'
30 responsibility to investigate and fully delineate such
11 potential sensitive areas. Doesn't have to be on the
12 map.
13 CHAIRMAN BAKER: So the applicant has to find that
14 information on property that is not his property.
15 MR. WEIRICH: In this particular case, yes. They
16 have to look at the land around them. They have to look
17 at the context in which their property sits.
18 CHAIRMAN BAKER: So is that true for every
19 applicant for a single-family home? To build a
20 single-family home in Iowa City?
21 MR. WEIRICH: If they are near a sensitive area,
22 that's what it says. Yeah. That's what the code says.
23 CHAIRMAN BAKER: So I see where you're going with
24 that.
25 MR. WEIRICH: Yeah. So --
41
1 MR. CHRISCHILLES: Larry, are you saying that -
2 how — how does — how are these areas defined or how —
3 how does a person go — go about knowing if they have --
4 MR. WEIRICH: Okay, look.
5 MR. CHRISCHILLES: — if they've mel the
6 requirements?
7 CHAIRMAN BAKER: Right.
8 MR. WEIRICH: Well, look, if I buy a piece of
9 property and it has a lot of trees near it or it has a
10 slope and I — You know, the first thing I do is, okay,
11 do I have any problems with this. How am I — Is that
12 going to impact me? Am I going to impact it? The same
13 way that people when they buy a piece of property look
14 at drainage. Are they on the floodplain? Do they need
15 FEMA issues to deal with? You know, it is on the
16 homeowner or the property owner's responsibility to
17 decide what issues they need to deal with when they buy
18 a piece of property or choose to change a piece of
19 property. It's not just a matter for commercial use,
20 it's — the code is not written that way. It's specific
21 about that requirement.
22 CHAIRMAN BAKER: It requires the landowner.
23 MR. WEIRICH: That's what it says.
24 CHAIRMAN BAKER: Okay. Wouldn't that, then, be
25 part of the building permit process that the City would
Page 38 to 41
Board of Adjustment 9-21-16
42 I 44
1 require the developer, the applicant, to make those
2 determinations in every case?
3 MR. WEIRICH: Yes. 1 mean that's the way the
4 language is written, that -- that you as an owner coming
5 forward with an application to do something on a piece
6 of dirt, in this case you're required to assure the City
7 that that activity will comply with these particular
8 sensitive land ordinances.
9 CHAIRMAN BAKER: Okay.
10 MR. WEIRICH: Yes. That's what it says.
11 MR. CHRISCHILLES: So what you're saying, the link
12 between the applicant and the owner and the City is —
13 it is the owner's responsibility to investigate these
14 areas or these —
15 MR. WEIRICH: Situations.
16 MR. CHRISCHILLES: --situations.
17 MR. WEIRICH: Sure.
18 MR. CHRISCHILLES: And its the city's
19 responsibility to make sure that that is included before
20 a building permit is issued.
21 MR. WEIRICH: Absolutely.
22 CHAIRMAN BAKER: Okay. We'll obviously hear from
23 the City in response to that.
24 MR. WEIRICH: I'll be surprised if you don't.
25 CHAIRMAN BAKER: All right, thank you.
43
1 MR. WEIRICH: Thank you very much. I do have full
2 copies of that entire — you can look that up as well.
3 That okay? All right. Thanks.
4 (An off-the-record discussion was held.)
5 MS. JANZEN: My name is Dina Janzen. My husband
6 Jim and I raised our children at 612 Bayard Street,
7 which is about 200 feet from the proposed Carlson
8 structure. I want to talk about safety. The city's
9 joint responsibilities to prioritize public safety while
10 following existing code provisions were compromised when
11 a site plan and building permit were approved for 101
12 Lusk Avenue. I would like to ask the Board of
13 Adjustment to look at the facts, to examine the whole
14 picture, and to make the right decision to determine
15 that this structure cannot be classified as a
16 residential structure and revoke the site plan and the
17 building permit.
18 The Carlsons voluntarily demolished an existing
19 house prior to obtaining a building permit. In granting
20 this permit within the timeline laid out by Mr. Boothroy
21 for ABC News, the City utilized a fatally flawed site
22 plan that ignores basic realities of existing public
23 infrastructure, errors that even 1 can clearly see. The
24 site plan dated March 15th of this year, the one in
25 effect when the building permit was issued, shows a
1 completely paved Lusk Avenue where, in fact, only a
2 little more than 155 feet of it are paved. That site
3 plan also ignores the fact that the structure's
4 driveway, now placed on the north side of the lot, runs
5 right over a fire hydrant. The site plan also makes no
6 provision for the flow of stormwater.
7 His series of oversights on the one-page revised
8 site plan, the submission and approval of which the City
9 mandated before it would issue a building permit, is a
10 big problem. We are deeply concerned that building
11 officials failed to consider compliance with either the
12 International Fire Code or the sensitive lands and
13 features provision of the Iowa City Code before rushing
14 to issue the building permit. Had the City considered
15 these codes, we believe that there is no way that the
16 site plan and associated building permit could have been
17 approved, particularly for a proposed building of this
18 size and intended use.
19 According to the 2015 International Fire Code,
20 which is utilized by Iowa City, streets over 150 feet in
21 length require turnarounds for fire equipment.
22 Measurement of Lusk Avenue by HBK has shown it to be 155
23 feet 5 inches in length, and it dead ends with no
24 turnaround. With the board's permission, I'd like to
25 have Trish Koza place an exhibit on the floor in front
45
1 of you which should demonstrate the challenges facing
2 the fire department on Lusk Avenue.
3 MS. KOZA: (Inaudible) the point is we realize that
4 it is almost —
5 CHAIRMAN BAKER: Just a second.
6 MS. WALZ: If you're going to speak, I'll just have
7 to have you speak in the microphone, so why don't you
8 roll that out and then —
9 MS. KOZA: It is very difficult to envision just
10 exactly what we're dealing with here. This is to scale.
11 One inch equals two feet. This is Lusk Avenue. This is
12 20 feet wide. There's the Syrop/Sadler property, the
13 Lahey property, and this is just the beginning of the
14 Carlson property. We kind of ran out of room. The
15 representative from the fire department said that he
16 didn't really think that there needed to be a
17 turnaround. He did say that at any structure fire they
18 would send five vehicles. We have created cardboard
19 images here of the five possible configurations for this
20 street.
21 This command vehicle goes to every structure fire.
22 This is a picture of it, this is the size of it. The
23 City owns four Impel pumpers. I'm sure it won't send
24 all four. It should — It owns a Quint Velocity
25 pumper, which we couldn't get the exact dimension of but
Page 42 to 45
1
2
3
4
5
6
WA
■a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Board of Adjustmi
46
we estimate it to be 40 feet long and 10 feet wide, and
an aerial platform pumper, which — and ladder truck
which is 48 feet long and 10 inches wide, and these
include an additional 18 -inch bumper probably on both
sides, but we've only allowed for one side.
(Inaudible)
MS. KOZA: Sorry. I would invite you to come and
see just how many of these vehicles — what combination
of five vehicles can get onto this street and fight a
fire. Oh, and the ambulance. No room for the
ambulance. We have one more thing to show you. They
said they would have no difficulty reaching the Carlson
property from any of their vehicles with their hoses.
(Indiscernible) house should be a couple of inches wider
because I didn't have them wide enough. This is the
kitchen, a likely source of fire.
MS. JANZEN: Thank you, Trish. Is thatworking?
She also failed to mention that there's parking allowed
on one side of that street. Construction of a code -
compliant turnaround will require the City to acquire
additional private property either from neighbors or the
Carlsons. Since there is nothing in the record to
suggest that neighbors have agreed to contribute their
own property to this project, we think it fair to assume
that the emergency vehicle turnarounds will be taken out
47
of the Carlsons' own property. Both options to achieve
code -compliant turnarounds require a massive 96 -foot
turnaround or a hammerhead configuration.
The amendments that HBK made to their own report
depicts how much of the Carlsons' land that would take
and how it overlaps with the large entertainment
building that they propose to fill — build. The
effects of this land acquisition on residual lot size
should have been factored before granting the permit.
Construction of a turnaround will result in destruction
of beautiful century oaks currently on public property
which are a hallmark of this neighborhood and which
provide a significant wildlife habitat.
Further, as HBK has shown, by code a structure of
this size requires two fire hydrants within 400 feet and
the hydrant flow rate of over 2250 gallons per minute.
If this board allows the wrongful classification of
this building as residential and affirms the building
permit, you can expect the following consequences that
will impact City budgets, pose a burden to taxpayers,
and damage the public's interest in protecting sensitive
areas: A yet to be authorized public expenditure for
street widening and signage; construction of a
code -compliant turnaround at public expense; loss of
public street parking, a valued public asset,
.nl 9-21-16
48
1 particularly on game days; and irreparable damage to
2 land and slopes expressly protected by code. All of
3 this to subsidize a private building for which no proper
4 classifiration exists in the Iowa City Code for the RS -5
5 zone.
6 Incredibly, the public safety code requirements as
7 set forth in the International Fire Code were overlooked
8 or ignored by city staff in order to grant a building
9 permit. The Carlsons' failure to comply with the
10 sensitive lands and features provision of the city code
11 and Mr. Boothroy's failure to insist on such compliance
12 before approving site plan and building permit cannot be
13 the result of the City, in Mr. Boothroy's words, getting
14 it right. Current city code requires these safety risks
15 be mitigated before new construction can be allowed. No
16 permit should be issued to new construction at this
17 time.
18 The burden of mitigation extends well beyond the
19 Carlsons' lot lines. It should require acquisition of
20 others' private property -- it could require acquisition
21 of others' private property, and it will be felt by the
22 taxpayers of this city. In approving the Carlsons' site
23 plan and building permit application, we believe that
24 city staff ignored or misapplied city code requirements
25 legislated by the city council, thereby sacrificing
49
1 public safety in favor of the Carlsons' personal use.
2 Only the Board of Adjustment, by reversing those
3 actions, can avoid the incurrence of risks and losses
4 and expenses to the City and to others. To be
5 consistent with the stated purpose of our city's code,
6 to avoid setting an extraordinarily poor precedent,
7 please prioritize public safety and reclassify this
8 proposed structure as something other than residential
9 and revoke the building permit issued to the Carlsons
10 for 101 Lusk Avenue.
11 CHAIRMAN BAKER: Thank you, ma'am.
12 MS. JANZEN: I have to write my address down.
13 MS. ERICKSON: First, let me thank you to the Board
14 of Adjustment and to the work that you do —
15 CHAIRMAN BAKER: Would you identify yourself?
16 MS. ERICKSON: Yes, sorry. My name is Catherine
17 Erickson. I live at 11 Rowland Court, and I live there
18 with my husband and two children, ages five and six, and
19 1 am here today to speak as a parent of young children
20 with concerns regarding the safety of the citizens of
21 the neighborhood should this tailgate venue on Lusk
22 Avenue be built. The zoning ordinance provides that the
23 RS -5 zone is primarily intended to provide housing for
24 individual households and, quote, "shall create,
25 maintain, and promote livable neighborhoods." While
Page 46 to 49
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
W
Board of Adjustment
50
their regulations allow for some flexibility to provide
housing opportunities for a variety of household types,
a party house is not a household.
Esthetics aside, building a 7500 -square -foot
replica of a football stadium to serve as a tailgate
venue in the Manville Heights neighborhood will
fundamentally change the character of the neighborhood,
and it will make the neighborhood less livable for
families of all kinds, especially those with children,
just like mine.
Manville Heights is an attractive and desirable
neighborhood. My family and I love our neighborhood and
all that it has to offer. Our kids go to one of the
very best elementary schools in the district. Its very
family friendly, and it's a quiet neighborhood for
raising a family. My kids can play in the front yard,
they can play in our driveway, and they can safely cross
the street to visit neighbors without fear. It's for
those many reasons that my husband and I decided to move
to Manville Heights from Olive Court in
University Heights over five years ago. Olive Court was
once a family friendly street. Tailgating has taken
over there and it no longer is.
The venue at 101 Lusk Avenue will make the
neighborhood unsafe for residents and children, and not
51
just the eight days a year when home football games are
being played, but also the nights and weekends when
events are held at Carver Hawkeye Arena, which totals to
over 50 events there each year. That means on average
there will be more than one event per week year-round
when the 101 Lusk Avenue venue may be used for pre and
post game partying. We heard last week from Dennis
Befeler, who stated that the venue will host over 200
people, for events with upwards of a hundred additional
cars coming to the neighborhood, car traffic and foot
traffic will dramatically increase.
I ask the board to consider if the Manville Heights
neighborhood can withstand the addition of a hundred
additional cars and 200 people on days when the streets
are already congested. Where will these party -goers
park? How will they get to the game? There isn't a
sidewalk on Rowland Court and portions of Bayard, so
people walk through the middle of the street or they
walk through private property. I know this because I
witness this during every single game and every single
event.
1 can also tell you based on personal experience
what most people will do with their car. They'll drive
easterly down Bayard past Lusk Avenue to Rowland Court.
Here they find a dead end. They effectively then use
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
9-21-16
52
our private driveways as public tumaround spaces, but
our private driveways are not safe public turnaround
spaces. These are places where my children play. They
play basketball, they draw with sidewalk chalk, they
play catch. These are not safe public turnaround places
for cars. Many drivers are already confused by the
narrow dead-end street. They drive erratically and
children are put in dangerous situations.
Just last Saturday, September 17, 1 observed a
car -- and you can see from the photo -- I observed a
car making what can only be described as a 12 -point
tumaround in the middle of Rowland Court literally mere
feet from where my children were playing. This is
unsafe and its not uncommon. In an already congested
area, the situation will be worse and even more
dangerous with additional cars and people. On game days
this driving behavior is already a concerning
inconvenience for the entire neighborhood. However, if
the proposed tailgate venue is built, it will be a
public safety hazard for all children and residents who
currently live and play in this neighborhood.
I'm also concerned with how the City plans to deal
with dangerous and illegal activities. Parking is a
well-known problem in this area, as is the city's
selective enforcement of oarkino laws. Here's a photo
53
1 of illegal parking right on the Lusk Avenue right-of-way
2 by vehicles associated with the Carlsons' contingent
3 during the Iowa -Iowa State football game on Saturday,
4 September 10th. The situation gives you an indication
5 of the par — excuse me, parking problems residents are
6 facing even before the party venue is built. The
7 authorities were contacted regarding the illegal
8 property -- excuse me, regarding the illegal parking.
9 Police surveyed the cars and then they left. The
30 complaint resulted in nonenforcement. No tickets were
11 issued for this illegal parking.
12 Last Wednesday, Mr. Boothroy repeatedly stated that
13 any violation by the Carlsons or their guests would be
14 ticketed or fined, but how are we to believe that any
15 nuisance violation, any illegal tailgating, or illegal
16 parking will be ticketed by the City when the City has
17 repeatedly proven that the citations are subjective at
18 best. How does that discourage future illegal behavior?
19 How does that help keep our neighborhood safe?
20 The instructions provided by the board — excuse
21 me, provided to the board by Mr. Parmenter said one of
22 the roles of the board was to, quote, "provide extra
23 scrutiny to City decisions," and that, quote, "the
24 decisions should serve the public interest and be
25 consistent with the comprehensive plan of the City."
Page 50 to 53
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
fp
fit]
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
LY
91
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Board of Adjustmi
54
The proposed venue at 101 Lusk Avenue is not consistent
with the comprehensive plan of the City. It is not a
single-family home.
The Carlsons themselves have stated as such. They
have said that it will be used for tailgating and will
not be lived in. To allow a party house to be built in
the middle of a quiet residential neighborhood is
entirely incompatible with the objective of the RS -5
zoning to create, maintain, and promote livable
neighborhoods. The venue and the congestion of
additional cars and people make the neighborhood unsafe.
I ask the board to make a decision that considers
the citizens of Iowa City and specifically its youngest
citizens. Please keep our neighborhood safe and right
this wrong. Thank you very much.
MS. SOGLIN: I have a question, please. The slide,
you were saying where you said those vehicles — How
did you know those vehicles were from the Carlsons
and/or their --
MS. ERICKSON: This — this photo doesn't refer to
the Carlsons.
MS. SOGLIN: The other one.
MS. ERICKSON: This one? It -- it was my
understanding that they identified themselves as such.
They had asked some neighbors about -- Actually —
55
actually, if Mr. — if Chris could speak to it, he
was — he observed this firsthand and --
MR. ROSSI: Chris Rossi. I was here last week.
The white van there has the -- is identified as a
vehicle from Mr. Carlson's business, and I witnessed the
red vehicle and the -- the tan van as well parked there,
and they identified themselves as -- with a note on that
white truck saying you're -- you're illegally parking
and -- you're parking -- you're obstructing our
driveway.
Then someone else came who identified himself with
the Carlton -- Carlsons' contingent, and the woman was
calling the Carlsons wondering where to park because
they couldn't figure out, so the fellow left the car and
then asked if he was going to get towed and then knocked
around on doors to see if he could park legally. He
left. But in any event, there's other photographs of
that vehicle that clearly identify it as a Carl — as a
Carlson vehicle.
MS. SOGLIN: And what do those signs say
specifically, the one — the two that you can see, the
two parking -related signs? Or presume — the two white
signs? What's the language on those?
MS. ERICKSON: Its no parking Monday through
Friday, is it 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. or 8 — 8 a.m. to --
nt
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
30
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
38
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
9-21-16
56
eight to five.
MS. SOGLIN: But this is a Saturday, right?
MS. ERICKSON: Right. So the cars that are parked
along the street are, as far as I can tell, I think
legally parked. The cars at the very end of the street,
those are illegally parked on City —
MR. ROSSI: They're in the middle of the
right-of-way.
MS. ERICKSON: City right-of-way.
MR. ROSSI: You recall Mr. Boothroy's comment last
week that he was going to barricade this street because
if people hadn't already started parking illegally on
it, he wouldn't be surprised if they would park
illegally on it. Had he known that people already were
parking illegally on it, as we all do know this because
we live here, then he might have moved forward with
barricading that street even earlier.
MS. ERICKSON: One of the cars was also parked
illegally in front of the fire hydrant that's located
right there.
MS. SOGLIN: And aside from this particular
Saturday when you called the police and you say then no
tickets were issued, over the last, I guess, time since
you've lived there, what interaction have you asked the
City to do or gotten together with your neighbors to ask
57
the City to do about any of the parking or pedestrian
issues you're concerned about?
MS. ERICKSON: I personally haven't been involved
in them. It's — it's more neighborhood conversation
I — I would hear. What we — what we see is we see
illegal parking. It's along here, it's along Bayard and
we — and it's a public nuisance.
MS. SOGLIN: But you had not called them those
times, you -- you personally or --
MS. ERICKSON: Not me personally. I've seen other
people or, you know, heard from other neighbors that
they have called and —
MS. SOGLIN: And asked.
MS. ERICKSON: And asked, yeah.
CHAIRMAN BAKER: I want to make sure 1 understand
something that you said. You called the police. No
citations were issued. The police came out, they saw a
car parked in front of a fire hydrant, and there was no
citation issued.
MS. ERICKSON: Is that correct, Chris?
MR. ROSSI: I saw it happen. It wasn't a police
car, it was the community -- it was a community police
car. Came out, surveyed the situation, and turned
around, didn't do anything.
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Okay.
Page 54 to 57
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Board of Adjustment 9-21-16
58 1 60
MR. ROSS]: And actually, there's other people who
can speak to veracity of the statement about whose cars
those are.
CHAIRMAN BAKER: No, that's all right.
MS. ERICKSON: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Thank you.
MR. WEITZEL: Oh, I had one question. Either you
or Mr. Larew, could you point us to a section of the
comprehensive plan that you've just referenced?
MS. ERICKSON: For the — the RS -5 zone? Or --
MR. WEITZEL: Well, you said it doesn't apply to
the — it doesn't conform to the comprehensive plan, so
could you give us a specific place? It's a big
document, so —
MS. ERICKSON: Yeah.
MR. LAREW: We can certainly do that.
MR. WEITZEL: Okay.
MR. LAREW: You should know, just for your own
information, people who are speaking to you prepared
their own remarks, and we'll be glad to supplement any
questions —
MR. WEITZEL: I just need toknow where in the
comprehensive plan to look.
MR. LAREW: We'll guide you to it.
MR. WEITZEL: Okay.
59
MS. ERICKSON: Thank you.
MS. MADSEN: I'm Joanne Madsen. I've lived at 244
Woolf Avenue for over 40 years. Three years ago, the
City denied a homeowners request to build a structure
in his backyard that he would use for woodworking
projects in his retirement. I learned about this from
reading archived procedures of the Board of Adjustment.
I'm perplexed by this decision the City made in 2013 to
deny a building permit for an accessory structure in an
RS -5 zone.
The building official said the large size of the
structure in the rear yard wasn't customary and was,
quote, "out of character, scale, and the pattern of
development," end quote, with the applicant's
neighborhood and was, therefore, not, quote,
'.customarily incidental and commonly associated with low
density single-family development," end quote.
Another comment from the City in this case, and I
quote, "The zoning code regulates accessory structures
and uses in the residential zones to help assure that
they are compatible in scale and use in a residential
setting. Excessively large accessory structures may be
out of character with single-family homes, and they
invite noncompatible uses such as commercial activity or
warehousing."
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
arm
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Another quote, "Moreover, the building official
contends that the scale and design of the structure, a
pole building, is not typical in residential
neighborhoods and, therefore, detracts from surrounding
residential development," end quote.
If the City is so concerned about an accessory
structure, why not extend this concern to the house
itself. Our city officials seem to have been rendered
impotent by a code that prevents them from going beyond
a sterile checklist that doesn't acknowledge reasonable
expectations of living in a residential neighborhood.
These officials ignore the quality of life that should
be protected by those in power. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Thank you.
(Indiscernible)
MS. KOZA: My name is Patricia Koza. My husband
and I have lived at 209 Lexington Avenue since 1974, and
I actually have lived within a block of this house since
I was three years old. Listening to your questions last
Wednesday, and I don't remember which of you asked the
question, it was clear -- well, several of you — it was
clear that several of you are struggling with just how
to handle the proposed building at 101 Lusk Avenue in
terms of nomenclature. If you agree it has not been
properly classified, it is not necessary to find another
61
1 name for it. You are charged with deciding is it
2 principally a residence that conforms to all code
3 requirements in the RS -5 zone or is it not.
4 One of you mentioned, and I don't remember which,
5 the concept of precedent on Wednesday. Yours is a very
6 precedent -setting decision, whichever way you go. If
7 you vote to issue the permit to this structure as a
8 single-family residence, there will be many, many more
9 neighborhood groups in front of you asking for relief.
10 If the Carlsons can build this in our neighborhood,
11 there is no limit to what can be built and where it can
12 be built.
13 If you vote to deny the permit, you are sending a
14 clear message to the City that we need to create a new
15 classification to describe projects like this. They do
16 exist elsewhere in the city, and more of them will be
17 built.
18 We have an affluent society. A new classification
19 would carry with it appropriate code requirements
20 dictated by the usage and created to assume maximum
21 safety for all occupants. Safety of its citizens is the
22 primary goal of every code in this -- in our book. And
23 safety is the issue that concerns me most. All of us
24 are troubled that the building officials are ignoring
25 clear safety issues in classifying this structure as
Page 58 to 61
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Board of Adjustm
62
primarily residential. Aside from the blatant disregard
for International Fire Code in regard to the street and
the water supply, there are clear problems with this
structure if used as it is clearly designed and intended
to be used. A single-family residence does not entitle
resident occupants of the building to the safety
precautions that would have to be built in and required
by code if it were properly classified as something
else.
And so I go back to the need for a new
classification. Let's just say for our purposes today
we'll call it a Kinnick and think about some appropriate
codes. A Kinnick would require a larger lot and larger
setbacks to buffer it from neighbors and accommodate
runoff from a large footprint. A Kinnick would have
multiple outward -opening doors equipped with crash bars,
and they would be marked with lighted exit signs. This
plan as presented has a single inward opening door on
the main level that exits directly to the outside.
To get to the outside through the only other door
on the main level, you must go through the kitchen, a
likely source of fire, and then through the owners'
suite and then into the garage before you get to outside
and safety. Imagine the tragic situation that would
occur if 200 people or 100 people, or 75 people tried to
63
exit the building as proposed by the Cadsons at the
same time. It's really too terrible to think about.
If a Kinnick had a lower level with features
designed for larger recreational gatherings, such as
this one, it would be required to have at least one
egress door, not merely a window. There is one window
in this lower level, and if you do the math right, I
think you would exit into a window well that comes up
under the driveway. A Kinnick would have an occupancy
limit and would be subject to periodic inspections to be
sure that all safety codes are being met.
Common sense tells us that building — that the
building in question should be subject to a different
set of codes based on its usage. If you allow it to be
built as a residence lacking appropriate safety
features, you personally are depriving future occupants
of protections that they deserve and should expect while
in a building approved by Iowa City codes. They simply
would not be safe at a party in this building.
Last Wednesday, one of you asked Mr. Boothroy if
there shouldn't be another classification created in the
code for a building like this. 1 think it was you. He
answered by saying he had too many things more important
than this to think about. Don't you think the four of
you could push this to the lop of his list? I do not
mt
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
30
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
9-21-16
64
think that building officials acted in an arbitrary or
capricious manner, but mistakes happen.
To err is human. You don't have to slap any hands.
You just need to look at all the facts before you with
fresh eyes and clear heads. This proposal is not
residential because its use as a residence is merely
accessory to its use as an entertainment space. Each of
you has the same power as Mr. Boothroy, each one of you.
You can set this right, and we trust you to do just that
with your individual votes.
Thank you very much. And I must speak for all of
us. We have appreciated the fact that you have very
courteously listened to everything that we have to say.
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Jim, before anybody else gets up,
I'm going to take about a 15 -minute recess. Get up,
whatever business needs to be done.
MR. LAREW: To fill you in, we have two more
speakers. I don't think they will last long, but we
certainly welcome the break.
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Sure. So we start again at
eight -fifteen.
(A brief recess was taken.)
CHAIRMAN BAKER: I'm going to take the liberty of
starting at eight -fourteen rather than eight -fifteen. I
think we're ready to begin again. Jim?
65
1 MS. LAHEY: Good evening. My name is Anne Lahey
2 and I live at 111 Lusk, which is immediately north to
3 the property at issue. Actually, it was the brown house
4 that was pictured above the cars in that one picture
5 where the parking was going on at the game. Obviously,
6 1 have a lot of concerns about adverse consequences of
7 this. Obviously, the sewer was mentioned, the — 1
8 believe that it will cause foundation problems, runoff
9 problems, drainage, all those types of things.
10 1 guess what has been concerning, too, is that we
11 had no notice. I have kind of been at these meetings
12 and that's the only, in a sense, notice I've got of all
13 the issues and public notice about any of this. We
14 consequently did terminate the sewer easements if there
15 were any. Last meeting I understood from some of those
16 emails that it sounded like that the City thought, well,
17 we would find out soon enough about the sewer problems
18 when the sewer failed, which I think is — is disturbing
19 in itself.
20 On a broader sense, I feel that this clearly is not
21 a primarily residential use. Its principal use is not
22 residential and one thing, when Mr. Boothroy was
23 talking, he said you can't help but notice the bathrooms
24 front and center when you walk into the proposed plans
25 of this. And what I think is concerning also is that
Page 62 to 65
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
75
am
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Board of Adjustment 9-21-16
66 1 68
it's been talked about that it's a residence because it
has the indicia of residential features, such as
bathrooms, kitchen, that type of thing, but 1 think if
you look at the actual bathrooms and kitchens, the
kitchen facilities In that facility, it's not indicative
of single-family residences, and I share with my
immediate concerns but also with the neighborhood about
all the problems this is going to cause: Safety,
changing the character of the neighborhood, which is
basically and essentially composed of actual
single-family residences. Thank you.
MS. SOUTHARD: Hello. My name is Karin Southard,
and I've lived in Manville Heights for over 25 years.
I'm here representing our neighborhood association, as
we believe that something has terribly — has gone
terribly wrong. We neighbors came together quickly to
fact find because we could gel very little information
about the Carlson project. As you heard last week, a
meet -and -greet with the neighbors was deemed a lose -lose
by City staff. We are deeply concerned not only by the
outcome of this process that this party venue could be
permitted in our residential neighborhood but also by
how the process has — itself has resulted in so many
critical errors.
We are shocked because so manv situations were
67
managed so poorly. Had normal, regular processes been
followed, ones involving fair, objective administration
of City rules and Iowa law, implemented by persons
without bias and without preexisting opinions and
interests, we would not be here tonight. Our first
impressions that this structure was not a residence were
affirmed the more we found out about it. As soon as we
organized and approached city council asking them for
time to get citizen input, the door was slammed shut in
our face by Mr. Boothroy, who announced to ABC News that
the permit was to be issued within days. So much for
citizen input.
Even though when he made the announcement there was
no valid site plan on file, we were then told that it
was a done deal and that there was absolutely nothing we
could do, so we continued with public records requests.
It appears to us that Mr. Boothroy pushed this project
through by bypassing expected critical reviews and --
and from our vantage point, Mr. Boothroy has been
telling the Board only some of the facts about key
issues, key points, that unless clarified could
misdirect the Board's decision, and I will address
these.
As stated last week, Mr. Boothroy acknowledged that
he and his staff were initially skeptical about the true
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
nature and principal use of this project. However, for
reasons that are unclear, Mr. Boothroy did not follow a
required process to determine the principal use through
a use analysis, as outlined in city code 14-4A. If he
had done so, he could have determined a principal use
for the structure. Had he done the objective assessment
that city code requires, we believe he could and should
have determined via multiple types of possible
assessments that the principal use of the Carlson
structure is one of entertainment, not residence. The
residential use is only accessory to the entertainment
use.
Had Mr. Boothroy followed the city code procedure
and had he determined the Carlson structure cannot be
clearly classified within an existing use category, city
code dictates that Mr. Carlson's structure would be
prohibited unless that use is incorporated into zoning
code via a zoning code amendment. Our expectations
concerning the fair and impartial application of our
city's code and Iowa's laws by city staff have been
challenged. Public records from University Heights
document the very controversial nature of the Carlson
project in University Heights and that our Iowa City
legal department was notified of — as such in 2015.
That controversv focused on the very use classification
69
1 issue before this board; that is, structure should not
2 be classified principally as a residence.
3 Public records produced by the City of Iowa City
4 indicate that a few days — actually, three days —
5 after the Carlson structural plans were submitted to our
6 city in early April of 2016, those PDF files of the
7 actual plans were forwarded to the city legal
8 department. So clearly there was concern about the
9 anticipated use, and clearly the legal department was on
10 notice, and this was a full two months before any of the
11 neighbors became involved, before any of the neighbors
12 knew anything about this.
13 There should have been no question from the start
14 as to the importance of utilizing the city code's use
15 classification provisions prior to any determination of
16 whether a building permit should have been issued at
17 all. Yet, that did not happen as it did happen in
18 University Heights. Mr. Boothroy's statement that it
19 took so long to approve this permit because he wanted to
20 get it right is odd. The first site plan, as you all
21 have heard — those are the words on the document --
22 that he approved showed the large driveway on the south
23 side originally, and it was emptying into an unpaved
24 street with ruts and old oaks.
25 So how does that square with getting it right? If
Page 66 to 69
Board of Adjustment 9-21-16
70 1 72
1 Mr. Boothroy had, in fact, practiced due diligence, he
2- would have concluded that he could not, nor should not,
3 in good conscience issue a building permit for massive
4 new construction that had neither an independent
5 sanitary sewer nor any easement agreement with any
6 neighbor to allow Carlsons' sewage to traverse their
7 property. As Mr. Boothroy explains in his own
8 submission to the Board on page 138 of the early
9 submission packet, the City has adopted the 2015
10 International Building Code and the 2015 International
11 Residential Code, and that — that IRC then defines a
12 dwelling unit in Section R202 as a single unit — a
13 single unit providing complete independent living
14 facilities for one or more persons, including permit
15 provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and
16 sanitation.
17 This project had huge sewer problems, ones that
18 threatened public health and welfare and that were fully
19 documented in the city's own flies, problems that
20 Mr. Boothroy and all of his staff were fully cognizant
21 of and that some staff members repeatedly expressed
22 concems about but never to the neighbors. The city's
23 absence of timely and substantive communication with
24 nearby residents who would be adversely affected by this
25 Kinnick Stadium replica, especially in light of the
71
1 extent of knowledge that the City possessed, stands in
2 vivid contrast to the city's frequent communications
3 with the Carlsons.
4 Not only did the City fail to inform affected
5 nearby residents, but it approved a site plan and a
6 building permit to allow this frivolous project to move
7 forward, a project that all neighbors we know of agree
8 that it threatens the sewer, safety, security, and
9 property interests of adjacent owners downstream. We
10 are troubled by the fact that from at least 2014, Terry
11 Goerdt was Involved with the Carlson project in
12 University Heights. Terry Goerdt is the same person who
13 has his initials virtually every step of the way on the
14 Iowa City permit process, and he also has his initials
15 on the building permit.
16 We are bothered — we are bothered that public
17 records show that Mr. Goerdt has had a familiar
18 association with Mr. Carlson and his builder Al Zahasky.
19 He's had that association for years. Given this prior
20 involvement with the Carlson project and
21 University Heights, there is no way that Mr. Goerdt
22 could have started his review of the same project in
23 Iowa City with a neutral mindset that a public official
24 must have when dealing —when applying legal standards.
25 We are bothered by Mr. Goerdfs familiar emails
1 that start, "Good morning, Reed and Al," and by his
2 eager response time to forward a key internal city
3 memorandum, a very important city memorandum, to
4 Mr. Carlson when that internal memorandum was only
5 copied to four people but yet, he wrote that he wanted
6 to forward it to Mr. Carlson to keep him in the loop.
7 This is particularly offensive because at the same
8 time, Bill Ackerman — at the very same time, Bill
9 Ackerman was stymied when contacting staff for any
10 information about the shared private sewer. Yet Carlson
11 got special treatment, and this is from last week that
12 Mr. Rossi showed you about the response to Bill Ackerman
13 after over a week time period, he had been asking staff
14 about the sewer and he gels the response, the city does
15 not have any information about the condition of the
16 joint private sewer that you share with your neighbors.
17 Bias and potential bias and the appearance of bias
18 are not trivial issues when it involves citizen
19 expectations that city code and Iowa law requirements
20 are implemented by public officials in an evenhanded
21 manner. Therefore, we are deeply concerned that the
22 lawyer who fled suit against University Heights on
23 behalf of the Carlsons is Matthew G. Hektoen, spouse of
24 Iowa City Assistant Attorney Sarah Hektoen. That
25 lawsuit was in effect when Carlsons purchased 101 Lusk -
73
1 Avenue. We are concerned that Assistant City Attorney
2 Sarah Hektoen, the spouse of Matthew G. Hektoen, who
3 fled that Carlson lawsuit against University Heights
4 for that community's refusal to approve construction for
5 this mini Kinnick, that she, Sarah, was the recipient of
6 multiple documents involving the Carlson structure in
7 Iowa City.
8 For example, she was one of only four city staff
9 members copied to a key June 17th internal memorandum,
10 and she was the only attorney copied on it, and this
11 memorandum went to City Manager Geoff Fruin summarizing
12 the status of the situation. It was a law memorandum,
13 and it was generated when the neighbors were alarmed and
14 asking questions.
15 Recall how many times Mr. Boothroy in his
16 presentation to the board emphasized how frequently he
17 and his staff consulted with the city attorney's office
18 when making its recommendations to issue a building
19 permit to the Carlsons. The significance is, therefore,
20 not lost on us that after we spoke to city council
21 addressing our concerns about the features of this
22 structure and that this structure was not residential
23 and two days later, Carlson — Carlson submitted a
24 bathroom remodel of the same space, the very same space
25 that we criticize, and that space was what we talked
Page 70 to 73
Page 74 to 77
Board of Adjustment
9-21-16
74
76
1
about last week. That is the space that when you walk
1
safety surrounding such a publicly advertised use is
2
in the front door, it's flanked by a men's and a women's
2
important and requires adherence to fire codes for new
3
restroom, and we complained about that and two days
3
construction. The City failed to consider this code
4
later, Carlson submitted a remodel. So I'm going to
4
which was critical just months before with Mr. Oliveira.
5
show you that space again.
5
Then, having failed to consider the impact of
6
So if you come in the main entrance here, this is
6
turnarounds on the Carlsons' site plan and lot size, the
7
the original plan that was —that was approved, and you
7
site plan must be revoked and applicable maximums for
8
come In and there's men's — women's restroom on the
8
structure size recalculated and the permit use then be
9
left and men's on the right, and you can see that
9
revoked.
10
there's two urinals and then opposite — opposite that
10
More than 270 citizens, and most of them are
11
are lockers. And then in the women's restroom, there's
11
current neighbors — And I want to tell you how many
12
two toilets and lockers. So what happens — so Carlson
12
times I've been walking in the neighborhood with a
13
immediately reduced — after our complaint, he
13
petition or a sign and I've been chased down by
14
immediately reduced within two days the number of
14
neighbors because they want to sign the petition or they
15
toilets and urinals and removed the lockers, so you can
15
want a sign for their yard. Some of them — some of the
16
see that this is the bathroom remodel here, but the
16
people who have signed have past ties to the
17
significance Is not lost on us that this submission of
17
neighborhood and they've signed on an electronic
18
the bathroom remodel was sent immediately to Eleanor
18
petition, and they've also added comments in opposition
19
Dilkes, Sarah Hektoen, and Doug Boothroy.
19
of this venue.
20
What bothers me is why was Carlson allowed to
20
We are certain that if asked, most of them would
21
modify his plans in an orchestrated effort with City
21
love to speak to you tonight, and in the interests of
22
staff in an attempt to deflect public criticism. Yet no
22
time in connection with the hearing process that has
23
one addressed our concems. Given the clear knowledge
23
already been really long, we offer the petition, the
24
from the very start that the Carlsons' proposal would be
24
electronic signatures, and comments to the Board of
25
controversial, it would have been easy for the City to
25
Adjustment, and that's Exhibit 37, and thank you very
75
77
1
have taken simple, yet important, steps to assure both
1
much. I really appreciate your time.
2
the absence of bias and the appearance of the absence of
2
CHAIRMAN BAKER: All right. You will also provide
3
bias. Something has gone terribly wrong in this
3
a copy of your statement as well.
4
instance.
4
MS. SOUTHARD: I will, yes.
5
We are grateful that Iowa law requires the
5
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Questions?
6
establishment of a Board of Adjustment and empowers you
6
MS. SOUTHARD: Do you want — I will provide a
7
all to correct serious errors made by building
7
clean copy.
8
officials. We are confident that upon your review of
8
CHAIRMAN BAKER: To Sarah and she'll get it to us.
9
the situation, you will make the necessary corrections:
9
MS. SOUTHARD: Questions?
10
One, to determine that a use analysis should have been
10
MS. SOGLIN: I do have a question.
11
performed and had it been independently performed, based
11
MS. SOUTHARD: Yes.
12
upon information produced last week by Mr. Befeler and
12
MS. SOGLIN: The association is new, correct?
13
Miss Park, this project cannot be classified as an RS -5
13
MS. SOUTHARD: Yes. We formed because of this.
14
residential use structure. Therefore, as required by
14
MS. SOGLIN: And prior to that, was there ever
15
law, please send the permit applicants back to request a
15
something that occurred in the neighborhood where —
16
zoning code amendment for new classification for zoning.
16
MS. SOUTHARD: Never.
17
Two, would you please determine that a
17
MS. SOGLIN: — that, one, people didn't like what
18
single-family residence must include independent
18
was happening and banded together?
19
sanitation and that without a separate and independent
19
MS. SOUTHARD: Never. Not that I'm aware of. 1
20
sewer, as required by the International Residential
20
haven't been involved, and I've been there 20 -some
21
Code, which Mr. Boothroy states in his own documents the
21
years.
22
City should adhere to, based on either or both of these
22
MS. SOGLIN: And do you have another comment?
23
items, we ask you to please revoke the building permit
23
(Inaudible)
24
application for 101 Lusk Avenue.
24
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Make sure those comments get into
25
Three, would you please determine that public
25
the microphone.
Page 74 to 77
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
30
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Board of Adjuslm,
78
MS. SOUTHARD: I'm sorry. I am not aware of it.
Trish apparently is.
MS. KOZA: I know there have been other instances
where, you know, groups of neighbors have bonded
together to protest an illegal use, yes, but I —
MS. SOGLIN: There was a concern about something
being built, that they were concerned about what was
happening —
MS. KOZA: Built or usage, yes.
MS. SOGLIN: And—
MS. KOZA: I haven't personally been involved but I
know personally that they existed, okay?
MS. SOGLIN: Was there ever an offer to request
that a historic or conservation or other type of overlay
district be created?
MS. KOZA: I — I do think that there was an
inquiry about that, and it did not pass. There was not
sufficient interest in the historic overlay and so it
did not happen.
MS. SOGLIN: Interest by who?
MS. KOZA: Well, I think when you do a survey, it's
by whom the majority didn't want it.
MS. SOGLIN: Of the neighbors.
MS. KOZA: Yes.
MS SOLI IN, Neiahbors.
79
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Majority of the homeowners.
MS. SOGLIN: Because there's a — I'm not trying
to be difficult. There's a whole process so —
MS. KOZA: Right. I think there was a process. We
got letters. I — We — we personally answered the
letter, and that's kind of — I just know that it — we
didn't get a historic district.
(Inaudible)
MS. SOUTHARD: Any more questions for me?
MR. BEFELER: My understanding is when the
historic —
MS. SOGLIN: Would you state your name, please,
Larry, just so —
MR. BEFELER: Oh, I'm sorry. I'm Dennis Befeler at
234 Hutchinson Avenue. I spoke a week ago. My
understanding is that the historic preservation issue
came before the neighborhood. We —we do qualify in
terms of the age of homes and the percentage there.
There was a pretty good support, kind of a 60-50.
There's a really outspoken person that was very against
it, and I — I think some of the fear tactics of you
won't ever be able to renovate anything, they're going
to control the windows you put in, you won't be able to
plant new trees, and I think some of those issues swayed
enough people that — to not let it pass, although I
nt
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
30
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1s
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
9-21-16
80
believe a big group of us were also In favor of that.
MS. SOGLIN: But you're saying "not let it pass,"
meaning nobody moved forward to make the request to the
City or—
MR. BEFELER: No, the request was made and it
was —
MS. SOGLIN: To the City, you're saying.
MR. BEFELER: Not -- I guess I don't know if it
was made to the City. I thought they reviewed the
status, and they said it needs to be put to a vote of
homeowners, and there were some debates in the
neighborhood.
MS. SOGLIN: So it never went to a vote.
MR. BEFELER: I guess I don't know.
MS. SOGLIN: Okay.
MR. BEFELER: It was before I moved to the
neighborhood.
MS. SOGUN: Thanks.
MR. BEFELER: But I've done a lot of historic
research. We also banded together when they talked
about closing Lincoln, the local elementary school, so
I — there were — A lot of the neighbors got very
involved in — in that discussion and that was school
board that was relevant.
MR. WEITZEL: Have there been other controversial
81
1 architecture?
2 MR. BEFELER: Again, not that I know of. I've been
3 in the neighborhood for six years now, so nothing else
4 that I'm aware of.
5 MS. KOZA: She can answer that.
6 MS. MADSEN: Can I say something about that
7 question?
8 MR. WEITZEL: Yeah.
9 MS. MADSEN: I do not believe that anybody that has
30 spoken on behalf of the association has mentioned the
11 architecture. The only person that has mentioned the
12 architecture of this building was Mr. Boothroy.
13 MR. BEFELER: And I guess what we're trying to say
14 is we're not offended by the architecture on its own.
15 It's that the architecture is an indicator of the use
16 classification.
17 MR. WEITZEL: Okay.
18 MR. BEFELER: When you build something that looks
19 like a stadium, people go there with the intention to do
20 what they do at a stadium.
21 MR. WEITZEL: Okay.
22 CHAIRMAN BAKER: Karin?
23 MS. SOUTHARD: Yes.
24 CHAIRMAN BAKER: You raise the issue of a conflict
25 between the city building inspector or housing
Page 78 to 81
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Board of Adjustment
82
inspector, Mr. Goerdt, and his prior role with
University Heights.
MS. SOUTHARD: Right.
CHAIRMAN BAKER: The City of University Heights has
indicated that the -- their official problem was a slope
issue. Now, their original discussion indicated, you
know, commercial or entertainment venue, so there was a
perception, but that perception was not followed through
on. Let me finish this question.
So my question is to your knowledge or do you have
any evidence that Mr. Goerdt, in his capacity at
University Heights, had any role in the definition of
the property? They didn't talk about it being
single-family residence or not; they just talked about
slopes. Was his position -- I can ask Doug this as
well. As — In his role at University Heights, he made
a determination that this was a single-family residence.
Do you know for a fact that is true?
MS. SOUTHARD: What I know is the — one of the
first submissions in the Appendix 7 is an email that is
from Steve Ballard in which he states that he and
Mr. Goerdt in 2014 determined that it was not a
residential -- a residential — it wasn't a residence
and that it was more recreational commercial.
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Okay.
83
MS. SOUTHARD: And that I know that he referred to
both of them making that determination.
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Okay. I'm just trying to
determine whether or not there's already a
predisposition on the part of a city building official
based upon an opinion he had rendered earlier, but you
seem to indicate that his prior opinion was it was not
residential.
MS. SOUTHARD: We —we don't know. We don't have
that information. I'm just trying to connect some dots.
All I know is that he was biased coming into this
situation. He was very friendly with and had known
these people for years, and that's readily apparent from
emails.
MR. LAREW: There are two dimensions to the
University Heights issue. One is -- and we don't
know — We have the one email where Mr. Goerdt signed
on to the opinion that the very same project --
dimensions were smaller, but the very same project—
was not residential but primarily something else. We
don't know whether he changed his mind in the months and
years that followed and changed his mind to determine
that it was residential, whether he continued with that
analysis — analysis and therefore started his Iowa City
assignment with a belief that it was residential, at
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
9-21-16
84
least the same project he'd signed on to, or whether he
moved from an opinion that it was not residential at
University Heights and then changed his opinion in
Iowa City, because there is no trail of any use analysis
in Iowa City. What we expect of a city official is to
come to a problem with a fresh point of view, and we
feel Mr. Goerdt didn't have it.
Second, how could it be -- and I believe,
Mr. Chairman, that you stated it correctly. That in
University Heights' rase, the project was rejected
because it failed to survive sensitive area ordinance, a
very steep lot, and it went through a city council vote.
They looked for amendments and couldn't obtain that.
How in a situation like that, when you have someone like
Mr. Goerdt, who has signed on to all of these, knowing
that the controversy involved the sensitive ordinance,
not question for a moment who at the City is
responsible. Then that's an issue that comes into play.
How could you approve a building of this size next to
one of the steepest slopes in all of Manville Heights
and not even say is this something that applies or not?
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Okay, but are the
University Heights and Iowa City regulations on slopes
the same?
MR. LAREW: No, but they're so comparable and
85
1 they're aimed at the same kinds of issues. Iowa City
2 did not invent sensitive slope ordinances and neither
3 did University Heights. No, you'd have to go to the
4 particulars. I'm saying conceptually the issue, and
5 there — there are things that cities can easily do not
6 only to avoid bias one way or the other but even the
7 appearance of bias. How could we end up with a
8 situation where the recently most controversial building
9 and zoning issue that we know of in University Heights
10 moved with the same person from that community to this
11 one. It strikes us as being at the very least an
12 inability to see around the corner so that you'd have
13 the same individual with some kind of preconceived
14 notion as to what this project was. That's — that's
15 the issue on two dimensions.
16 CHAIRMAN BAKER: Okay.
17 MR. WEITZEL: Are you maintaining the bias in the
18 city attorney's office with the City of Iowa City?
19 MR. LAREW: What we --what we believe is that good
20 practice would have been whether marital partners who
21 both practice law, and this happens with some frequency,
22 that one side or the other — one is representing one
23 party that's adverse -- has an adverse interest. In
24 this case, a person applying for a building permit
25 legally is adverse; that is, they're seeking something
Page 82 to 85
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Board of Adjustment
86
that the City has charged with the duty to protect the
public until they come to some agreement. That there
should have been what we call in the law Chinese
firewalls on either side, the law firm and/or the City,
and that not to do so disturbs lay people when you have
such a close series of events, one marital partner
signing on filing a lawsuit against University Heights
for its denial of it, and then a person who is right in
the thick of it on the city's side of the same.
Either could have easily written a memo and
followed it and — and we would have thought that would
have been sufficient. Listen, Sarah's got a problem
here. We — we asked that all legal questions go to
some other member of our staff. We've got multiple
lawyers here and — and the problem is that we're not in
a position to show causality. We're in a position to
say we think something's gone horribly wrong. How come
the checkpoints that would have been there to ask the
right questions, ask the hard questions, how were they
missed? And we have a view that these kinds of
conflicted situations make it difficult for the public
to have confidence in the outcome, and then if the
outcome is severely off the track, which is what we
believe, then we say was that a part of it or not.
Those are all of the speakers that we knew of. We
87
understood that the public had a right to speak, but
that we have no other lined up.
CHAIRMAN BAKER: All right. Thank you, Jim. We're
going to open this up to supporters of the appellant
now. A couple of guidelines: One, we are absolutely in
search of as much factual information as we can. We
understand your feelings about this project. I don't
think there's much of a disagreement about the
subjective feelings that this project provokes, so first
of all, before anybody else comes up, I'd like to say do
you have something factually or some clear statement
about error by the City, something different to add to
the previous factual discussions. That would be your
first guideline.
And the second guideline, if that is not the case,
then please feel free to come to the podium, but I'm
going to restrict this to three minutes, so I'll be glad
to hear from you, but we are helped most by sort of the
accumulation of facts.
One other thing, and this is me. I'm not — I
don't— I hope that we do not personalize this issue.
I don't want us to be adversarial to an individual, so
just please be considerate of everybody involved.
That's all I would ask.
Anybody from the public? If not, I'm going to move
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
9-21-16
88
to allow the applicant to address the board. Applicant
of the original building permit as opposed to the
appellant. And you have a lot of time to deal with, if
you so choose.
MR. FAGAN: Members of the board, counsel, staff.
My name is Brian Fagan, and I represent Reed and Sandy
Carlson. Thank you for your service and dedication. We
appreciate the time you volunteer to serve to study
these issues and render a decision that comports with
state law and our local ordinances.
First, 1 want to enter into the record an objection
to Appellants' testimony and documents related to
irrelevant issues that are not before this board, that
are not appealable to this board, and should not be
considered by this board. As the City indicated in its
presentation, the issues related to or dealing with the
sanitary sewer, the fire code, stonnwater, drainage, and
street, among others, including the sensitive areas
ordinance that we heard about this evening, are not
zoning related. In addition, information related to the
University Heights application and what it did or didn't
do is not relevant to the decision that you have before
you.
Moreover, we object to the appellants' testimony,
which is based on speculation and innuendo about how the
89
1 property will be used. Speculation about what the
2 property could possibly be used for cannot override the
3 definitive statement of use by the Carlsons. Reliance
4 on the appellants' speculative testimony and irrelevant
5 documentation is arbitrary and capricious, and inclusion
6 of it in any finding of facts is inappropriate.
7 Before I get into additional argument and then
8 presentation of our witnesses, the applicants, Reed and
9 Sandy Carlson, before you tonight, though, is one
10 straightforward question: Whether city staff erred in
11 finding that the Carlsons' building permit application
12 met all the city code requirements, including the
13 determination that the proposed structure is a
14 single-family home. If there was no error, then the
15 City correctly applied the code and a permit shall
16 issue. We submit to you that that's exactly what the
17 City did.
18 At this point, I'd like to introduce Reed Carlson,
19 who has prepared comments for inclusion in the record,
20 but I did want to make sure that our objections are
21 entered into the record, Counsel.
22 MR. PARMENTER: Thank you, Mr. Fagan. Sarah, can
23 you make sure that those are entered in the record as
24 spoken. Thank you.
25 MR. CARLSON: I'm Frederic Reed Carlson, and with
Page 86 to 89
1
2
3
4
5
6
WA
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
f1I
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Board of Adjustment 9-21-16
90 1
my wife, Sandy, here tonight with me, we are the couple
wanting to build a single-family home dwelling at our
lot at 101 Lusk Avenue. I'd like to thank the board for
their voluntary service to the City and hope that we can
answer any questions you may have.
We firmly believe that this house that we intend to
build meets all of the guidelines of a single-family
dwelling and intended use along such lines with our—
we will use — along such lines with our extended family
and friends. My mother grew up in Iowa City at 321
Melrose Court, and my parents mel at the University of
Iowa after my dad returned from World War II. They were
married here in Iowa City at St. Patrick's on
February 5th of 1949. My maternal grandparents lived in
Iowa City when I was a young child, and we visited as
often as possible. One of my stepmother's brothers, Don
Winslow, played football for the University of Iowa in
the late'40s. He was an All-American his senior year
and drafted by the Washington Redskins in 1950.
My mother made sure that I grew up a diehard
Hawkeye fan. I attended Iowa football games in the
'50s, '60s, and'70s and have been a U of I football
season ticket holder in some fashion since 1975, and
have attended most of the home games since 1975.
At the present time Sandy and I have four married
91
children and six grandchildren with the hopes that we
will have more grandchildren in the future. One son
lives here in Iowa City with his wife and three of our
grandchildren. He and his family were here at the
meeting last week but are unable to attend tonight. We
have spent considerable time in Iowa City since 2010
after our son moved back to the area. It is our hope to
spend even more time here in the coming years sharing
life events and holidays with all of our family members.
Four of our children and two of their spouses
graduated from the University of Iowa. While three of
them have relocated, one to Decorah, New York City, and
Denver, they all enjoy coming back to Iowa City to visit
friends and attend events. The close proximity of the
Cedar Rapids airport and a family home in Iowa City —
in the Iowa City area will facilitate these visits. The
Iowa City area is centrally located for many of our
immediate family members as well. Sandy's family lives
in the St. Louis area, including her 87 -year-old mother.
While my 90 -year-old father and my 78 -year-old
stepmother live in Decorah, most of my family is
somewhat scattered. It is, therefore, closer for the
majority of them to come to Iowa City than it is to our
home in Decorah.
Most of our family attends at least one Iowa
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
92
football game each year and some considerably more. We
feel that this will be a central gathering spot for our
family for years to come as we celebrate many future
life events such as birthdays, holidays, and school
events, as well as University of Iowa and community
events.
I'd like to take you through the floor plan, with
the help of Brian, of the house and add my perspective.
We will start on the second floor with what we call the
kids' bunk room. Here are four built-in bunk beds with
a small play area and attached bathroom. This is a
place for the cousins to sleep and enjoy time getting to
know each other better. Down the hall are two guest
bedrooms for our adult children and spouses, and they —
and it shares a bathroom, those two bedrooms. Then we
come to the stairway and laundry room and then a master
bedroom with a walk-in closet and connected master bath.
All of this, I believe, is pretty straightforward and
certainly nothing out of the ordinary.
The main or ground floor is at the bottom of the
stairway that enters into the kitchen and dining area.
The kitchen is a large, open kitchen with a large
island, a trend that we have seen over the last two
decades. It's going to be a nice kitchen but not a
commercial or industrial kitchen. We also wanted it to
93
1 open onto the three -season porch, which has a grill, to
2 give us flexibility of eating on the porch or in the
3 dining area depending on the time of year. There are
4 three glass patio doors that access the three -season
5 porch and three overhead glass garage doors that open up
6 to the courtyard to let in ample natural light. The
7 courtyard is designed for children and adults to throw a
8 ball or play games on.
9 The dining area is just off the kitchen and
10 constrained to a certain degree by the layout of the
11 house, so we felt that the long bench with the three
12 tables would suit us best. The three tables give us
13 lots of flexibility and easy egress. There's also a
14 stairway to the cellar between the dining area and the
15 kitchen. Off of the dining area is a play room for
16 children and also a living room.
17 As you round the comer, you enter the main entry
18 to the home off of which there are two half bathrooms
19 that include cubbies to hang coats. These half baths
20 are also accessible from the courtyard. Since the theme
21 of the house is Kinnick Stadium, these are to mimic the
22 home and visitor locker rooms with one being the iconic
23 pink visitor locker rooms for which the stadium is
24 famous. We've revised these to add more room to the
25 play room, at my wife's insistence.
Page 90 to 93
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
i[r]
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
iii
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Board of Adjustment 9-2746
94 I 96
Continuing on is the family room with a viewing
area that overlooks the two — two-story sports court
below and sliding patio doors onto the courtyard. After
the sports court is an exercise room and attached
three -car garage. Entering the house from the garage,
you enter into the owner entry or mud room. Here is an
area with a silting bench and more coat hooks.
To the right is another bedroom designed for those
with limited mobility. As I mentioned earlier, my
father is 90 and Sandy's mother is 87, and both have
mobility issues. It is our hope that along with my
87 -year-old —or 78 -year-old stepmother will be able to
visit on occasion. This bedroom with attached handicap
accessible bathroom and handicap shower is designed with
those issues in mind. We are also looking down the road
with our own aging in mind, and that is why the bedroom
is on the ground level and has a no -step entry from the
garage. Our current house that we built in 1993 has no
bedroom -- has no bedrooms on the main level, so we were
mindful of this as we designed this house. This
completes the ground -level rooms.
Moving down the stairway off the kitchen and dining
area into the cellar is a low — lower -level play room
and storage area. The cellar also houses the mechanical
room. a bathroom, and theater room. The lower level
95
also includes the sports court with basketball hoop.
There is a stairway between the theater room and sports
court with an egress window at the base. We hope the
theater room and sports court will be a fun place for
grandkids, parents, and grandparents to bond.
We have no desire to rent out our house in whole or
part or to turn it into a bed and breakfast. We do plan
to celebrate many of the events that families do
together and that — that I had stated earlier. Yes, we
plan to tailgate, like many others in Iowa City as
permitted by the city code and respect our neighbors in
the neighborhood. The house design gives us -- keeps us
contained almost exclusively within the walls of the
house and out of sight. We do not plan to sell anything
out of our home at any time.
Even though the issue is not before this board,
Appellants continue to raise the issue regarding the
sanitary sewer service. We will work with the City on
addressing that issue if there is one. We do not
anticipate any issues with it or hurdles to having
sanitary service.
MR. FAGAN: Explain the parking. I think the
relevant issue that came up with the parking in one of
the earlier slides, and I think certainly explain that.
MR. CARLSON: That was the Iowa Stale game and we
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
did not tailgate in our regular spot, and I came down
here with some friends, and when we got to our lot at
101 Lusk, the cutout where the driveway is was blocked
by a car that had Florida plates on it. So we jumped
the curb, parked on the lot, and I left a note on the
windshield of the van that had the Florida plates on it
that had parked in front of the drive and asked them
please not to park in front of our driveway again.
My business partner, who had driven down earlier in
the day and had tailgated at some other spot and then
came over to join us, called me and said, "I thought I
could park on your lot," and I said, "Yeah, I don't know
what to tell you because it's blocked." So I think he
ended up obviously parking down at the end of the
street.
And I think that it was mentioned that someone
else — another friend of mine had given his tickets to
somebody and told them that they could park at our lot,
and they called me on their phone and I said, "I'm
sorry, I don't know what to tell you." You know, "You
can't park on our lot because the driveway's blocked."
and I — you know, "You'll have to find alternate
parking." So I don't — I don't know where they parked.
That's the last I heard from them, so —
MS. SOGLIN: Can you just talk a little bit more
97
1 about the change that was made to the bathrooms on the
2 main Floor?
3 MR. CARLSON: My wife has been very adamant about
4 play space in this house and —for children and
5 especially on that ground level, so in some respects,
6 you know, we — we hear the chatter, so to alleviate
7 some fears, I guess, we added space to that playroom and
8 took out a toilet and a urinal.
9 MS. SOGLIN: But nobody specifically directed
10 you — no one specifically directed you to do that?
11 MR. CARLSON: No.
12 MS. SOGLIN: Thank you.
13 MR. WEITZEL: I mean obviously it's your choice to
14 put whatever fixtures in your house you want, but why a
15 urinal and why a separate men's and women's restrooms?
16 MR. CARLSON: Well, I think as I stated earlier,
17 the theme of the house is Kinnick Stadium. Therefore, 1
18 thought it would be apropos to have a men's and women's
19 locker room, visitor/home locker room. I had no idea it
20 would cause this much consternation to people, quite
21 honestly.
22 CHAIRMAN BAKER: Mr. Carlson, thank you for coming
23 down. You'd said that you would be willing to work with
24 the City on the sewer issue if there is an issue. Are
25 there any other issues that have been raised tonight
Page 94 to 97
Board of Adjuslmi
98
1 which you would be amenable to working with the City to
2 resolve? For example, the slope issue?
3 MR. CARLSON: I think, you know, we've always been
4 eager to work with the neighbors and the City, even in
5 University Heights. Yes, we would be —
6 CHAIRMAN BAKER: Okay.
7 MR. CHRISCHILLES: If it was determined that due to
8 the length of the — the length of the street exceeding
9 150 feet, but turnaround —fire turnarounds were
10 necessary, would you be amenable to sacrificing part of
11 your property to create such a turnaround, thereby
12 reducing the overall plan and size of your structure?
13 MR. CARLSON: I think we'd have to take a long,
14 hard look at that.
15 CHAIRMAN BAKER: It would require somewhat of a
16 redesign. Mr. Fagan?
17 MR. FAGAN: Yeah, I think you mentioned the issue
18 of the slope. I think the City will have some
19 additional comments on that but— and certainly clarify
20 some of the record. I think the use of the term
21 "applicant" that you were questioning the professor on
22 at least in some part relates to the applicant for the
23 sensitive area ordinance review, not the applicant for
24 the home. And so I think — I want to make sure that's
75 rlonr at least lonk at Bnme of that. and I think the
99
1 City may have more information related to that. But 1
2 think, you know, it's been shown a willingness to work
3 with -- to work with the --
4 MR. CHRISCHILLES: I don't understand what you're
5 saying.
6 MR. FAGAN: I think that the use of the term
7 "applicant" in that provision, the code provision,
8 relates to the issue of the applicant for sensitive area
9 ordinance review, and I think the City may have some
10 additional information on that to clear that up, but
11 that's the term "applicant" The applicant is not the
12 homeowner necessarily; the applicant is the sensitive
13 areas ordinance review.
14 CHAIRMAN BAKER: We'll let them talk about that.
15 Back to the sewer issue. It is my impression from
16 previous testimony by the City that indeed they
17 recognize that there is a problem that if this lot was
18 being subdivided, they would have required a different
19 kind of sewer arrangement. Is that not your
20 understanding? I just want to identify a problem. The
21 problem can only be fixed if it was subdivided. But
22 what we're saying now is, Mr. Carlson has indicated a
23 willingness to work with the City on a problem. The
24 problem is established. It's just the city's power to
25 solve the problem.
nt
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
9-21-16
100
MR. FAGAN: Yeah, and first we would submit that
the issue of the sewer is not properly before this
board, but in addressing that issue, yes. If the lot
were to be subdivided, then there would have to be a
different solution for the sewer service, and the City
explained the number of reasons why that would have to
be, but in this particular instance, there may be
another solution with the sewer issue other than using
the current existing easement, and that's something that
I think, you know, the Carlsons would work with the City
on, whatever that may be.
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Okay. All right, thank you.
MR. CHRISCHILLES: In your opening statement,
you — you listed several things that you felt were
not — or the City had already stated that were not part
of the zoning code and, therefore, we — we could not
rule on those issues. However, tonightwhen the
sensitive slope argument was presented, at least as far
as I could see, all the examples of pages that he was
citing came directly from the — the city's zoning code,
and so how could that be included in your list of things
that we cannot rule about?
MR. FAGAN: One—
MR. CHRISCHILLES: You're saying those aren't?
Those — those — those pages are not part of the zoning
101
1 code?
2 MR. FAGAN: No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm
3 saying that the issue of the sensitive area ordinance
4 review and any application for that is not before you.
5 There hasn't been an application for that review. So
6 that's all I'm saying.
7 MR. CHRISCHILLES: But — but also, you're — it
8 could be that the — the appellants' argument, then, was
9 that the error was made when that was not included in
10 the process to determine the issuance of the building
11 permit?
12 MR. FAGAN: Yeah, that's right. Il— it is not
13 necessary to be included in that process for the
14 approval of a single-family home.
15 CHAIRMAN BAKER: So are you — You're rejecting
16 the interpretation of the appellant that the clause
17 provided that so on, so forth, does not apply.
18 MR. FAGAN: I can save that for rebuttal, but yeah,
19 1 want to look at that. But, yeah, that's absolutely, 1
20 think— I'll let the City explain its sensitive area
21 ordinance and its application to this before I venture
22 any further down that road.
23 CHAIRMAN BAKER: Okay.
24 MR. CHRISCHILLES: And if you're basing an argument
25 on the fact that you're presuming that it is correctly
Page 98 to 101
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Board of Ad
102
classified as a single-family home, then all arguments
that they — are — that stem from that are not
necessarily valid because the determination of whether
it's misclassified has yet — is yet before us.
MR. FAGAN: Well, I'm — I'm basing it on the code
and what the code provides and the strict language in
the code. That's what I'm basing that argument on. It
was properly deemed a — a single-family residence.
MR.CHRISCHILLES: Butif—
MR. FAGAN: And it wasn't misclassified. As that
term has been used by the appellants.
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Okay. So you're both looking at
the same language, and your interpretation says that the
City is not justified or— in requiring the applicant,
Mr. Carlson, to consider the slope issue, and the app —
the appellant seems to be saying their interpretation of
the code directly is the opposite of that. So we have
two — I want to say we have two conflicting
interpretations of the same language. Is that a fair
statement?
MR. FAGAN: That very well maybe the case. Again,
I — I will wail to hear the city's response on its
sensitive area ordinance instead of confusing or
confounding the record even more at this point. So,
yes, it might be — that may be a fair statement.
103
Another issue, I'm not sure exactly how far out
they're looking at the slope and whose actual property
that is in terms of the CRANDIC right-of-way, but you
necessarily would be entering into an area where the
railroad right-of-way and your authority over that and
in terms of what you can do may be preempted by federal
law. I don't know that, but as that issue was brought
up to me tonight, that's something that I would want to
look at as well.
CHAIRMAN BAKER: So it's to be litigated, then.
MR. FAGAN: No, no. I'm not saying that. Not at
all. No, not at all. There's nothing — No, there's
no spectre of that.
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Any other questions? For
Mr. Carlson.
MR. FAGAN: If I may introduce Sandy Carlson.
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Sure. Thank you, Mr. Carlson.
MS. CARLSON: Hello. My name is Sandy Carlson and
I'm one of the owners at 101 Lusk Avenue. First of all,
I would like to say that I agree with the statements
that my husband just made and his explanations, but I
would like to — I have a few comments that I would like
to make to clarify our intentions regarding the
property.
In 1977, after receiving a master's degree in
int 9-21-16
104
1 communication disorders, I moved from St. Louis,
2 Missouri, to Decorah, Iowa. 1 accepted a position as a
3 speech-language pathologist with the Area Education
4 Agency, and I worked for the AEA 1 my entire working
5 career until retiring in 2008. The year before my
6 retirement, I was awarded the Friend of Education Award
7 from the Howard Wrineshiek Education Association and was
8 the only person to receive such award who was not an
9 employee of the Howard W nneshiek School District.
10 Why is this relevant to what we are discussing here
11 tonight? I am very troubled by comments that have been
12 made at meetings, through emails, and to the press,
13 remarks about the expected behavior of Reed, of me, of
14 our family, and they've presumed unfairly not only that
15 we won't be good neighbors but that we won't obey the
16 law. Mostly I'm troubled by the allegations that our
17 behavior would even put children in jeopardy. Many of
18 these remarks have been made by people in this room.
19 I've spent my entire adult life advocating for
20 children and specifically the children of northeast
21 Iowa. I certainly have no intentions of participating
22 in or allowing any activities on our property that will
23 result in children being placed in any jeopardy or being
24 injured. I have grandchildren in Iowa City that I plan
25 on nurturing throughout the year. This residence is
105
1 being built as a home for my family throughout the year,
2 notjust on football weekends.
3 1 support Reed in building a Kinnick-style home.
4 This has been his dream, and I support him in that. But
5 for me, the emphasis is solidly on making a home for our
6 family. This is the principal use of this property.
7 The question that everyone wants to know, this is it.
8 We have tailgated on the property of the University of
9 Iowa for over 35 years without incident. I'm convinced
10 that the passage of time will show this community that
11 we are good neighbors. Thank you very much.
12 CHAIRMAN BAKER: Thank you.
13 MR. FAGAN: Do you have any questions?
14 MS. CARLSON: Oh, I'm sorry.
15 CHAIRMAN BAKER: Do you have questions?
16 MR. FAGAN: I have a brief PowerPoint that I'll be
17 using here at some point during the presentation, okay,
18 and I'll provide copies of it for the record as well.
19 Members of the board, your counsel has set forth
20 the applicable law and the city's professional staff has
21 addressed the relevant issues that are properly before
22 this board, as well as the irrelevant issues that are
23 not before you tonight. You've heard from Reed and
24 Sandy Carlson about their sincere intention to occupy
25 this home, this residence, with their family. This
Page 102 to 105
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Board of Adjustment
106
isn't about whether you or I or the neighbors approve of
1
the style choices chosen by the Carlsons and what they
2
have made in designing their home. It's not about
3
property values, parking, or even tailgating. Those
4
decisions went into drafting the code that was approved
5
by the city council. They had those policy discussions,
6
and they implemented that.
7
This decision is about applying that Code. We
8
think the professional staff did a thorough and accurate
9
review of this single-family home, and they exhaustively
10
addressed all the objections presented in this appeal.
11
The City and its professional staff have complied with
12
state law and local ordinances which directly govern the
13
request for the building permit for this single-family
14
home.
15
Under the circumstances, staff likely knew that the
16
issuance of the building permit would be subject to
17
scrutiny and possibly challenged. Given this
18
anticipated scrutiny, their review and analysis was not
19
undertaken likely. They should be congratulated for
20
assuring that the decision to issue a building permit
21
was based on their strict compliance with the applicable
22
state law and local ordinances in the face of this
23
anticipated scrutiny. The use of the Carlsons'
24
single-family home conforms on the zoning
25
107
classification, and no special exception is needed or
before you. No variance is needed or requested or
before you.
The design and construction of this single-family
home is and will be in compliance with the city code and
standards. Reed Carlson has assured the City of his
intentions just as he has the board here tonight, as has
Sandy. There's no more that he can do nor is he
required to do to satisfy the requirements of the zoning
code. The professional staff is absolutely correct when
they tell you that it has no authority to deny a
building permit based on the architectural design of a
structure for a property that is not part of the
historic district. The 2015 Residential Building Code
expressly provides that if the proposed work conforms to
all of the requirements of this code and the applicable
laws and ordinances, the building official shall issue a
permit, therefore, as soon as practicable.
Site plan review is also not required for the
development of the single-family dwelling or one- or
two-family dwellings or related accessory structures in
any zoning district. Accordingly, all of the
appellants' complaints regarding requirements under
Title 18 in the city zoning code are irrelevant before
this board tonight and this board's decision. In
9-21-16
108
addition, no analysis is needed under Section 14-A2
because a single-family dwelling is specifically listed
in the zoning code.
The appellants wrongly assert that the City failed
to undertake an analysis under this section, but because
this is clearly a residence and that use is an example
in the zoning code, this analysis is not applicable.
But nonetheless, Appellants rely on six of the 16
factors in their appeal, and the appellants, in order to
support these arguments, have advanced speculative
accusations about the type of use they suspect the
structure could be put to and presume unfairly that the
Carlsons will disobey the law. They rely on 14 -4A -2.A,
the description of the use or activities in comparison
to the stated characteristics of each use category.
The Carlson residence has one set of facilities for
cooking, one dining room, one laundry room, a master
bedroom with master bath. This structure has clearly
not been set up for commercial enterprise or multi -
residential living. It might be well adapted for a
family of sports fans, but it's not adapted for
commercial use.
They also rely on 2 b., the intensity of the
activity or use in comparison to the stated
characteristics of each category. Again, the appellants
109
1 rely only on speculation to advance their argument.
2 They make no credible argument related to this point
3 because there is no use other than residential from
4 which to build this comparison. There isn't a
5 restaurant, there isn't a gift shop, there's not a
6 commercial kitchen involved here. All of these uses
7 contemplated by the Carlson design are unquestionably
8 residential.
9 The appellants rely on 2 c., the amount of site or
10 floor area and equipment devoted to the use or activity.
11 Again, I entered my objection to the documents, but
12 Mr. Befeler compiled some percentages of what he
13 speculates to be the use and allots certain time to it,
14 and he does that in affidavit as well. That's a
15 speculation that we can't rely on. Consistent with the
16 zoning code, the vast majority of the floor area is
17 devoted to uses that are unquestionably residential or
18 permitted accessory to a residential: Bedrooms,
19 kitchen, family room, exercise room, garage, theater.
20 The City testified and stated that they have had
21 other sports courts and theaters in the city of
22 Iowa City. The activities the appellants are most
23 suspicious of, the sports court and the theater, are
24 clearly permitted uses in a residential facility. Such
25 features are present in other homes in Iowa City, as I
Page 106 to 109
Board of Adjustm
110
1 stated, and the floor area devoted to these activities
2 does not predominate.
3 Again, the appellants rely on 2 h., the building
4 and site arrangement. Again, the appellants offer only
5 speculation and innuendo about the home to prop up the
6 argument that the proposed structure is not a
7 single-family home. It has a front door that can be
8 approached from the street, like virtually all
9 residences. It has separate entrance through an
10 attached garage, similar to many, many homes in
11 Iowa City. The arrangement of kitchens, bedroom, and
12 bathroom doors is not uncommon.
13 Is the design uncommon? Yeah. But that's not
14 before this board. The issue of architectural review is
15 not before this board. It is not sized or configured
16 for a commercial enterprise because it's not intended to
17 be. The Carlsons gave you their testimony on that and
18 their position and their hopes and aspirations for what
19 this home will be for them.
20 The number of vehicle trips generated by the use or
21 activity. Appellants don't explain how the Carlsons'
22 proposed home generates more vehicle trips than any
23 other residents. They speculate that because there may
24 be tailgating, there might be more vehicle trips. 1
25 speculate during this time of year that because of the
111
1 number of political fundraisers, there are going to be a
2 lot of neighborhoods that have a lot of visitors, but
3 that's not before this — this — this board. Nothing
4 in the zoning code allows you to deny a permit because
5 the appearance of the residence is unique or because
6 they allege curious people may seek it out to look at
7 it.
8 Appellants' arguments are founded on the
9 unsupported speculation that the Carlsons will violate
10 the law, not in some violation of the zoning code. If
11 any resident of Iowa City takes it upon himself to turn
12 a residential property into commercial enterprise,
13 traffic counts may rise. That doesn't make the
14 structure itself nonconforming. The zoning code has
15 issues and areas that they can deal with based on that.
16 14-4A-2 k., how the use advertises itself. The
17 Carlsons have no intent to advertise anything about
18 their home. The comments that Appellants attribute to
19 the Carlsons weren't published by the Carlsons. They
20 have consistently told everyone from city staff to you
21 on the board tonight that this is intended to be their
22 home. Will one use of it to be to tailgate? Yes. Will
23 one use and many uses of it be to spend time with their
24 family and the life events? Certainly.
25 Land uses are assigned to the use category that
nl
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
9-21-16
112
most closely describes the nature of the principal use.
The city staff correctly assigned the Carlsons'
residence to the category that most closely describes
the nature of the principal use, that of a residential.
Again, going back to the objection about
University Heights, this is not University Heights.
Iowa City is not University Heights. Appellants would
have you believe that if University Heights denied the
Carlsons a building permit, if that's what happened, the
City of Iowa City should too. That argument has no
merit. The project, the process, and the code are all
different.
The red herring number one: It's a different
project. As the city staff pointed out, the structure
proposed in University Heights is not the same one
proposed in Iowa City. It's enough for the Carlsons to
have to defend their design in Iowa City without having
to defend a different design in University Heights.
Error cannot be assigned to the City or staff for not
imposing University Heights' regulations on a different
design when considering an Iowa City permit.
Red herring number two: This is a different stage
of the process. University Heights' city attorney
responded to a preliminary set of plans, not a decision
from a board of review. This board should not consider
113
1 that preliminary and conclusory opinion on a different
2 project as evidence that the Carlsons' proposed
3 residence in Iowa City is not permissible.
4 Red herring number three: A different code. The
5 University Heights zoning code is different than the
6 Iowa City zoning code. Iowa laws — Iowa law allows a
7 city to adopt their own zoning rules and regulations
8 which typically differ from city to city. Iowa City
9 zoning code discusses the characteristics of residential
30 uses, including facilities for sleeping, cooking, and
11 eating meals, the characteristics present in the Carlson
12 home. And for the intended use that they will be using
13 them for.
14 The email from the University Heights attorney
15 relies on University Heights Ordinance 79, and that
16 ordinance doesn't use the term "sleeping, cooking, or
17 eating;' so there are plenty of differences within
18 codes. But I feel compelled to address this. While 1
19 object to it, and I don't think it should be considered
20 or work its way into the finding of facts, it needs to
21 be addressed.
22 Now, the Carlson home is properly categorized using
23 the criteria in the Iowa City zoning code. It's not
24 relevant or productive to consider what might have
25 happened in University Heights if the same project had
Page 110 to 113
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
`m
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Board of Adjustment
114 1
been submitted to the Board of Adjustment under the same
rules. Your job, like the professional staff, is to
apply the Iowa City zoning code. 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, therefore, as soon as practicable.
So the factors set out in that section do not need
to be weighed, but even if they are weighed, the city's
classification is still appropriate. If you think that
there is any ambiguity in that ordinance, the rule is
that any ambiguity in a zoning ordinance should be
resolved in favor of the unrestricted use of the land by
the owner, and that restriction should not be extended
by implication or interpretation. While this section is
not applicable, the Carlsons' home still passes this
analysis.
Appellants raised a litany of speculative
objections of granting — to the city's granting of the
building permit. Appellants want you to believe that
their speculation about a use to which the Carlson
property or any property might be used should override
the Carlsons' consistently stated use. Reliance on the
appellants' speculation is arbitrary and capricious.
Moreover, error cannot be assigned to that city staff
115
for not imposing University Heights' regulations as a
different design when considering this permit.
The Carlsons respectfully submit that the plan
submitted to the City and the city's professional staff
and memoranda and testimony clearly establish compliance
with all city requirements on such issues as fire
safety, erosion, control, drainage, and sewer. The red
herrings that Applicants have raised in an effort to
prevent construction are not relevant and should not be
considered. The request for a building permit complies
with every aspect of the city's zoning code.
I appreciate the comments about not getting
personal and not making this personal, and certainly
we're respectful of that and understand that when we're
dealing with issues of individual property and property
rights and their homes and their neighborhoods, that
sometimes that can happen. And my clients certainly
appreciate that, and this has not been an easy or
difficult process on them, but they're committed to
doing this because they want this home for their family.
Iowa City has long billed itself, and rightfully
so, as a great place to retire, and that's what people
want to do. My clients want to build a home. Some
people may not agree with the design. They don't want
to build a home just to tailgate, they want to build
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
30
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
30
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
9-21-16
116
their home for their family as that family grows and as
they have the opportunity to share that with their
family. It's easier for their family, as they testified
to, for them to come to Iowa City. Some family is
already here. And that's what they want to do with this
home. This is a family residence, and you heard Sandy's
testimony about this.
I'm — I know it was difficult for them to sit
through this and listen to a lot of the allegations and
speculation against them. They don't take that lightly
and those allegations lightly and that speculation, but
they're committed to building this home and to making it
the family residence that they so hope for. On behalf
of the Carlsons, we respectfully request that you uphold
the decision of the building official to classify that
structure as a single-family dwelling and affirm the
subsequent issuance of the building permit and that the
stop work order be lifted.
Again, thank you for your time and your service.
We understand this is a volunteer board and that you
have decisions in front of you. While difficult in
terms of the public impact, in terms of the law that you
must apply, we believe that decision is very clear.
Again, thank you.
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Any questions for Mr. Fagan?
117
MS. SOGLIN: I'm not sure if you want to address
this now or maybe in the rebuttal, but -- So it's my
understanding people have said that the 2015 Residential
Building Code specifically calls out sanitation as part
of this definition of a single-family dwelling. The
city's code does not mention the word "sanitation."
Just -- Do you have comment on that?
MR. FAGAN: Well, the comment is a couple of
things. One, at the end of the day what will have to be
issued by this department will be a certificate of
occupancy, and certainly there is an existing easement
for them to use that sanitary sewer. I understand that
they've come in and said that they've revoked that
easement, and that's a different legal argument.
That's -- It's not before this board. But we believe
that that issue, one, is not before the board but it can
be remedied through various methods, whether it's an
extension of the sewer or going across the street. So
again, the code before you is the zoning code, and it
clearly classifies this as a residential structure.
MS. SOGLIN: I think I still have a question, but I
will wait for further discussion on this then.
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Tim?
MR. WEITZEL: You mentioned Title 18's not
relevant. What about the site plan in Title 16, or is
Page 114 to 117
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
Cl
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Board of Adjustm
118
that sewer, I guess? The site plan, what do you think
of that, the requirements for a site plan?
MR. FAGAN: Well, because it's a single-family
dwelling that they -- they don't — it's exempted from
that and they don't have to review that, but certainly
it's submitted, a plan is, to approve and to get the
building permit, but again, they don't have to do the
site plan review under the existing code.
MR. WEITZEL: Okay.
MR. CHRISCHILLES: You spoke a lot about the
speculative nature of the appellants' comments, but the
Carlsons' comments in regards to frequency of use for
various activities and — I'm not doubting --they've
been clear and upfront about what they intend to do at
the -- at the property, but in terms of how frequent
those activities will be, the size of the activities,
aren't those all speculative comments by the Carlsons
until they actually would occupy the structure and prove
what — what they're doing and how often they're doing
it?
MR. FAGAN: With the exception that — that the
speculation of Appellants is premised on them breaking
the law, and —
MR. CHRISCHILLES: I didn't --
MR. FAGAN: — thev have no intention of breaking
119
the law.
MR. CHRISCHILLES: I don't think that was
mentioned.
MR. FAGAN: What I'm saying is that they would —
The allegations are that they're not going to comply
with the code or that they, you know, will be having
parties of 200 people. We don't know that.
MR. CHRISCHILLES: No, the comments were directed
towards the possible misclassification of use of the
structure.
MR. FAGAN: And — and again, based on them having
200 people at an event, and that's not what the Carlsons
have done. That's not what they do.
MR. CHRISCHILLES: So it's — But I'm — I'm
saying that that's -- that's no more speculative than --
than them saying that we're just going to have a few
tailgates and most of our time is going to be spent in
family get-togethers.
MR. FAGAN: That's their stated intent, yes. It's
their intent.
MR. CHRISCHILLES: But that's also-- Don't you
agree that that's also speculative in nature? You don't
have any proof that that's what they're going to do
until they actually do it.
MR. FAGAN: Until they do it, sure.
int
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
30
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
W-1
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
9-21-16
120
MR. CHRISCHILLES: So it's spec-- it's
speculative. Just as if on the other side of the coin,
that you're arguing that the appellants are saying
things that are speculative.
MR. WEITZEL: They've signed an affidavit, though;
right?
MR. FAGAN: Yes. And we will provide the
statements as well for the record.
MR.CHRISCHILLES: But the affidavit is not—
doesn't carry any more weight than -- I — I don't see
it carrying any more weight than any statement that
anybody — any other speculative statement that somebody
might make.
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Gene, just-- and Mr. Fagan, and
maybe you can resolve this between the two of you. The
purpose of the intent of use and the affidavit of use is
to establish intentions, but they're not contracts of
conduct. Is that not true?
MR. FAGAN: They're not contracts of conduct.
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Yeah. In other words, the
affidavit of use says that we agree that this is not
going to be used for a bed and -- short-term rental —
MR. FAGAN: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN BAKER: -- things like that. But there's
no provision that— I'm sorry. I just answered my own
121
question. Thank you.
MR. FAGAN: Anything else?
CHAIRMAN BAKER: It hit me.
MR. FAGAN: You mentioned about the published
statements or their intent, and those were published by
the news and Mr. Carlson, you know, says that it's taken
out of context and misquoted, but again, their intent is
not in advertising this as a tailgate. They don't
intend to use it as a tailgate central. I just wanted
to make sure that was clear and — and Reed wanted to
make sure that that was clear.
CHAIRMAN BAKER: I think that the neighborhood
concern was that the design of the structure sort of
encouraged large social gatherings, and it wasn't just a
matter of tailgating, it was a matter of the
50 -something other events and that the facility would
become not just a seven -weekend occurrence but a
constant occurrence of all of the problems associated
with tailgating: Traffic, so on, so forth.
MR. FAGAN: Understood. I've heard those concerns.
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Yeah.
MR. FAGAN: We've made our comment and position
now.
MR. CHRISCHILLES: Is the affidavit of use or the
statement of intent of use a — Is the affidavit of use
Page 118 to 121
Board of Adju
122
1 an enforceable document?
2 MR. FAGAN: I'm going to leave your -- you getting
3 legal advice to Mr. Parmenter on that and for him to
4 address that, whether it's in this forum or a different
5 forum.
6 MR. CHRISCHILLES: Or is it just a statement?
7 MR. PARMENTER: Well, it's a — it's a statement
8 that's been signed, presumably — I don't— haven't
9 seen it yet or looked at it closely. I'm presuming it's
10 been notarized, and so it could be used, presumably, by
11 the City to enforce the code and be used as evidence in
12 enforcing the code and saying, look, you said you would
13 not use it for — you were going to use it for this
14 specific use, now you're not using it for that use, and
15 the City could use that to enforce its code.
16 CHAIRMAN BAKER: But as an accessory use, all sorts
17 of — You know, any single-family home has accessory
18 uses, social activities, so there's no really — no real
19 control over that, unless they become public nuisances,
20 and that's a separate issue.
21 MR. PARMENTER: Right, and I think the City is —
22 has talked about that initially.
23 CHAIRMAN BAKER: Okay. Anything else? Thank you
24 very much.
?5 MR. FAGAN: Thank vou.
123
1 CHAIRMAN BAKER: Now, at this time we're certainly
2 willing, able, and actually required to listen to any
3 other public comment in support of the applicant and
4 opposed to the appellant, but once again, factual
5 information is most helpful. So anybody who would like
6 to speak in support of the applicant certainly can do
7 that now.
8 MR. KLINEFELTER: My name is Gary Klinefelter. 1
9 live at 1131 East Washington Street in Iowa City. I
10 would also like to thank the board members for their
11 volunteer service to the community. I appreciate the
12 opportunity to express my viewpoint. My wife and I —
13 Cindy Parsons and I own the property directly across the
14 street from 101, 111, and 117 Lusk Avenue, and I should
15 say for the record I have never met the Carlsons, I've
16 never met their attorney. This is the first time I've
17 ever seen them.
18 We purchased that property in July of 2013. 101
19 obviously has been demolished. I don't know if this is
20 important or not, but, Anne, I'm sorry, I've never seen
21 you there. I'm there many hours mowing the lawn every
22 week. I've never seen Anne as a neighbor. I know the
23 house on the corner --
24 CHAIRMAN BAKER: All right, Mr. Klinefelter, I —
25 I'm going to repeat this.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
li
991
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
9-21-16
124
MR. KLINEFELTER: Okay, I'm done. I just want —
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Address your remarks to us.
MR. KLINEFELTER: Okay. All right. Cindy and I
have no substantive objections to the home that is
proposed. I want to convey — This is my last
paragraph. I want to convey to the board how important
it is to be able to rely on the permitting process that
has long been established in Iowa City. If one meets
all of the development regulations, zoning ordinance,
and building code requirements, one should be entitled
to obtain a building permit. That's the end of my
comments, but I'd like to say two more things, please.
One is the CRANDIC right-of-way is not a natural
area. It was deeply manmade, excavated so that a
railroad would meet the minimum grade that it has to
achieve. Secondly, its deeply disturbing to me that
the integrity and the independence of the building
department has been challenged so actively here. I
worked in that department for 13 years, specifically
with Doug Boothroy, Tim Hennes, Terry Goerdt. They have
the highest integrity. The last 16 years I've been on
the opposite side of the fence as a builder. I can tell
you that I've had some minor contentious relationships
with them, but they are not — they do not play
favorites. Thank you very much.
125
1 CHAIRMAN BAKER: Thank you. Any other comments
2 from the public? If not, I think this is the time we
3 offer the staff, applicant, and appellant a chance to
4 respond to comments made by the other side. I think —
5 The applicant has certainly responded to the appellants'
6 position, so whether, Doug, you want to go and respond
7 to anything that you have heard? Or Jim? It makes no
8 difference to me who goes first.
9 MR. PARMENTER: Excuse me, Mr. Chair. Do you want
30 to set time limits for the rebuttal?
11 CHAIRMAN BAKER: Yeah, I'd like to get the two
12 sides or the three to wrap this up by ten o'clock.
13 Yeah, ten.. Because we still have — the board itself
14 has some questions for some of these applicants. Sue.
15 MS. DULEK: I'm Sue Dulek. I'm an assistant city
16 attorney. I want to just speak briefly about Exhibit 24
17 that — of the appellants. Looks like this, that's
18 partially blackened out. After the meeting last week, 1
19 thought how can that be. I provided those 800 pages and
20 1 didn't blacken out anything. So I went back and
21 looked at the emails that the IT department had
22 provided, and it was provided in yellow and red. I
23 simply hit the print button. It printed black and white
24 and it appeared that way. My apologies to the board.
25 Certainly no intent. With that said, nobody called me
Page 122 to 125
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Board of Adjustment
126 I
or contacted me and inquired why one of them appeared to
be blackened out. But in any event, I will provide
color copies to everybody.
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Okay, thank you. And one quick
question for Mr. Fagan. You had some prepared comments.
I assume we'll get a copy of those prepared comments.
MR. FAGAN: Certainly, Mr. Chair.
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Okay. Doug, I'm sorry, go ahead.
MR. BOOTHROY: Well, first let me say that clearly
if this had been a historic zone, the review would have
been different and that overlay zone, as I mentioned
earlier, didn't exist. Secondly, with regard to the
sensitive areas ordinance, the altered slopes — altered
protected slope as defined in the sensitive areas is on
a railroad right-of-way, it's not on the property --
That's not working?
CHAIRMAN BAKER: I'm a little bit deaf anyway on a
good day.
MR. BOOTHROY: I'm sorry. I can lean over. It
seemed like -- I thought my — It must be I'm getting
weaker as the — as the meeting goes on.
But the — the slope — the altered protected slope
is on a separate property and the — and not part of
this particular consideration with regard to encroaching
into the protected slope. The issue came up about the
127
buffer. The buffer is not a protected slope under the
sensitive areas ordinance. We have addressed this issue
before with a different project.
The project was the Jesse Allen project on First
Avenue. It came up. There was quite a little bit of
neighborhood concern about the amount of open space
and — and the multifamily being provided there, and the
issue came up as to whether Jesse Allen could extend
sewer into the buffer area, and the city attorney's
staff ruled that the buffer was not a protected slope
and was not protected under the sensitive areas
ordinance. So that happened a couple years ago.
That -- that's — You know, we don't look at that
buffer as being in place with regard to the development
of the site.
As far as, you know, the other aspects, it is a
manmade slope, as mentioned earlier. So I just wanted
to clarify that.
I think the other thing that came up, and I've got
a couple handouts but I'll just mention it just tonight,
is that, you know, the definitions talk about — that we
look at that — and that's why we get these intent
statements and that's why we've had all this
conversation and that's why everybody is talking about
what the intended use is. You know, it's -- The
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
9-21-16
128
definition of dwelling unit is specifically used or
intended to be used by one household for living,
sleeping, cooking, and eating of meals.
It's used or intended to be used, and I understand
that until the building's built, you don't know what
it's — how it's going to be used, but that's true of
every single-family house that's built in this
community. Until it's built, it's not used. And so
there — there has to be some reliance, a good faith
reliance, on the person that's building the house that
it will be used in conformance with the law. If it's a
nuisance or if it's used illegally, then we have to deal
with it as an enforcement matter.
Next I'd like to hand out a memorandum that
addresses some issues that were raised at a previous
meeting. I'll let you get that, and then I'll just kind
of read through it. And just for clarification, and you
can take a look at it, and I — I have some, you know,
sections quoted here. I'm not going to read those
tonight because I know it's late. Just the first
paragraph.
A lot of the emails that were discussed at the
previous meeting that involve Mr. Oliveira in particular
were mixed with some of the emails about an existing lot
on an existing public street with existing water and
129
1 sewer. And when we were looking at Oliveira's proposal,
2 it was to subdivide a lot. And under the subdivision
3 regulations, and I'll attach them to this, our authority
4 is much broader and we have a lot more control over what
5 can happen. And we knew in that situation that there's
6 a likelihood that if the turnaround was provided, the
7 street would be extended and there would be more than
8 just one additional lot in the neighborhood as a part
9 of — of that particular subdivision. So what I've
10 attached here are the general provisions and the design
11 requirements, and it does indicate that in -- in the
12 public improvements section that the City may require a
13 turnaround if we decide that that's necessary.
14 We've already addressed the bedrooms. I — or
15 bathrooms. I don't think I need to go into that. 1
16 think they've answered the questions and we don't need
17 to -- to belabor that issue.
18 The next one was required number and spacing of
19 fire hydrants. I'll ask Roger Jensen to speak to this.
20 HBK indicates that there's inadequate flow. What they
21 didn't do in their report is connect the dots in terms
22 of how the fire code actually is applied. They didn't
23 go from what the fire load capacity for a flow in a
24 building and what— what you need for minimum hydrants
25 within 400 feet, and I think Roger will address that.
Page 126 to 129
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Board of Adjustment
130 1
And I think the other thing Roger will address—the
deputy chief will address is the fact about the question
of the dead-end street, the existing dead-end street, so
I'd ask Roger to come up for a minute.
MR. JENSEN: Good evening. Roger Jensen, deputy
fire chief. Fire marshal's out of town tonight so I'm
filling in on his behalf. I've been asked to clarify a
couple issues, one with respect to fire flow and second
with fire apparatus access. I'll take that one first.
HBK in their analysis, they refer to a section of the
code, it's 503.2.5, which requires turnaround for fire
apparatus on access roads longer than 150 feet. I have
provided this, I believe. Sarah has it. So this is in
hard copy. You can refer to it perhaps later, but in
this hard copy, and I'm — I'd like to read it for all
of you, there is the commentary to the code.
The commentary provides some clarification as to
what the code is really trying to say, what its intent
is, and in the commentary it says, and I quote, "In
consideration of the hazards inherent in attempting to
back emergency vehicles, especially larger ones such as
tower ladders, out of a long dead-end roadway, this
section tends to create a safer situation by requiring
that dead-end roads over 150 feet long be equipped with
approved turnaround designed for the largest anticipated
131
emergency response vehicles."
The City has a number of dead-end roads, many of
them longer than 150 feet, and all of them were built
prior to this becoming a code requirement. Therefore,
the City has taken the position that, particularly on
dead-end streets where there's infill development that
already exists that may, in fact, be longer than 150
feet, for infill development, the pursuit of an
apparatus turnaround is excessive and unnecessary
because of, number one, it's already existing; and
number two, the commentary clearly states its really
not germane to life safety. Okay?
Second point regards the -- regarding the hydrants
and the number of hydrants and water flow requirements.
HBK analysis, they did a fire flow test of the hydrant
at Lusk Avenue. I believe it flowed over 1500 gallons
per minute, close to 1600 gallons per minute. Our
apparatus, our pumping apparatus, will only pump 1500
gallons per minute, and the fire code correctly
identifies that in looking at fire flow requirements,
and I'll point you to Section C102.1, and there, and HBK
provided --
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Mr. Jensen, you're pointing us to
sections and I want to be clear in my mind. We have
that in front of us now or are you going to provide
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
PV
9-21-16
132
copies of that?
MR. BOOTHROY: I think he's referring to — Are
you referring to charts?
MR. JENSEN: It's a table.
MR. BOOTHROY: Yeah, tables. There are two tables
there on that one page.
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Okay.
MR. BOOTHROY: That's what he's referring to. One
is a building fire flow and the other is fire hydrant —
number of fire hydrants and — and spacing.
CHAIRMAN BAKER: All right, thank you.
MR. JENSEN: Thank you. I think the title of it,
Mr. Chairman, is required number and spacing of fire
hydrants, and it's in the appendix to the International
Fire Code. It's labeled C102.1. And in that table, you
can find the minimum fire flow required; in this case,
2,250 gallons per minute. And it identifies that a
minimum of two hydrants are required to provide that
fire flow. It's right in the table.
We have a very healthy hydrant at Lusk Avenue at
the property, 1584 gallons per minute. We have another
hydrant, and HBK correctly identifies that it's 400 feet
from the proposed building, at Lexington and Bayard.
That hydrant, I've looked. Its on a loop system. It
clearly will provide the additional 750 gallons
133
1 necessary to meet that minimum fire flow.
2 So we would need two engines. We show up with
3 three engines always, a ladder truck, a battalion chief
4 vehicle, so we have plenty of pumping apparatus, and we
5 have an ample fire flow. Well over 2,250 gallons per
6 minute.
7 Questions?
8 CHAIRMAN BAKER: 1 think part of the confusion
9 comes from -- I'm just looking at Mr. Greer's memo he
10 gave us at the last meeting when he talks about the
31 hydrant nearest the property in question was flow tested
12 and is shown to provide 1564 gpm at 20, so on, so forth.
13 While this hydrant does not meet the minimum required
14 fire flow for the building, it is a very strong hydrant
15 at 35 percent less than the minimum. And about -
16 above, you talk about a -- the 2250 is the correct fire
17 flow as stated and it considers so on, so forth. So —
18 MR. JENSEN: I think if -
19 CHAIRMAN BAKER: The confusion comes from how
20 you're going to meet that.
21 MR. JENSEN: Sure, and I believe its the C102.1.
22 CHAIRMAN BAKER: Okay.
23 MR. JENSEN: If you'll find that table, it
24 correctly states that a minimum of two hydrants are
25 necessary to meet that minimum fire flow requirement.
Page 130 to 133
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
30
11
12
13
14
15
F[7
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Board of Adjust
134
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Okay. So no single hydrant has to
meet that.
MR. JENSEN: Correct.
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Okay.
MR. CHRISCHILLES: That's what the number of
hydrants column refers to?
MR. JENSEN: It does.
MR. CHRISCHILLES: But you can use two hydrants to
create the Flow of 2,000 — between 2,000 and 2250?
MR. JENSEN: Correct. Yes.
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Okay. Let me interject here.
I -- I'm probably a very naturally optimistic person
thinking that we could get through this by len o'clock
and then the — the board could sort of wrap it up by
ten -thirty. I need to get a sense from Jim and Doug
both how much more time you think you need.
MR. LAREW: Five minutes.
MR. BOOTHROY: Five minutes, yeah.
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Okay.
(Inaudible)
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Okay, so say ten -ten we could
proceed. Great. I consider that a contract. Thank
you.
MR. BOOTHROY: Subject to your questioning.
CHAIRMAN BAKER: I'm sorry?
135
MR. BOOTHROY: Contingent upon your questions.
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Yeah. No, I got— Yeah, I got
questions.
MR. BOOTHROY: Okay. And then I also wanted to go
back to the — on that last page of the memorandum,
accessory uses in a residential zone, just to emphasize
this again with you, because we noted that recreational
uses are identified in the zoning code as private
recreational uses as well as public but in private
recreational uses accessory to a single household. So
if you go into the zoning code and you go into the
residential use section and you go to subparagraph A,
which is the first, it says household uses, and you go
under that, Number 3 is permitted accessory uses and it
lists private recreational uses in that paragraph.
And I've cited that paragraph right here in the
memo that I just handed out to you, and you'll note that
in the — that private recreational uses as accessory
are — are allowed without qualification. However, many
of the other accessory uses mentioned in that particular
paragraph and even elsewhere often have standards that
regulate size, frequency of use, location, and things of
this nature. We do not in the Iowa City zoning code
limit or have any additional use regulations for private
recreational uses. So I think it's important to
!nt 9-21-16
136
1 remember that.
2 CHAIRMAN BAKER: So there's no real definite --
3 Its — it's a term but there's not a defined term.
4 MR. BOOTHROY: Well, I think it could have the
5 plain meaning of private recreational uses. It's not
6 commercial and it's recreational, but it can be any type
7 of use that could be considered — Right, it could
8 be — with —
9 CHAIRMAN BAKER: Standard size or --
10 (Overlapping speakers)
11 MR. BOOTHROY: Yeah, and there's nothing about
12 frequency of use, size of use. There's no — there are
13 no qualifications as to limiting the square footage it
14 takes or anything of that nature. Okay, I just wanted
15 to point that out.
16 And then I have one other document I want to hand
17 out. They seem to be slicking. Here. Here, let me
18 get— I wanted to hand out a couple to staff too. 1
19 think there's enough. Yeah, I'm sorry, Jim. He gets
20 one too. So I think I've got enough now.
21 So in closing, I wanted to make one statement or
22 I'll read this to you for the record. Throughout this
23 hearing, you have heard Mr. Larew and others assert that
24 they, and by inference, the citizens of Iowa City,
25 deserve better than the staff who have been involved in
137
1 this matter. They have questioned the motives of staff
2 in an attempt to insinuate an error by innuendo. I feel
3 compelled to address this issue. I am the building
4 official charged with making determinations about
5 building permits, and in this capacity I often consult
6 with members of the neighborhood and development
7 services department as well as other departments.
8 Each of them has expertise, experience, technical
9 knowledge that I rely on to inform my decisions.
10 Because each of these persons bring a different
11 perspective based on his or her area of expertise — in
12 other words, a different piece of the puzzle — it is
13 imperative that we collaborate in order to consider
14 issues as a whole. Staff who served in the following
15 roles were involved in collaborating on the issue before
16 us: The director, development services coordinator,
17 senior building inspector, city attorney, first
18 assistant city attorney, deputy fire chief, fire
19 marshal, and city engineer.
20 When Mr. Larew and others question the competence,
21 professionalism, ethics, and trustworthiness of city
22 staff, they are putting all of these individuals listed
23 here in the same bucket, painting everyone with the same
24 negative brush. The implication is that every staff
25 member who has had anything to do with this matter is
Page 134 to 137
Board of Adjus
138
1 subpar. It is easy to cast aspersions targeting an
2 entire group. We see that every day in the political
3 arena and online. It is unnecessary to abandon civility
4 and embrace the politics of vilification to win a point.
5 If Mr. Larew and the neighborhood feel compelled to
6 diminish the professionalism and competence of anyone —
7 and I think we've heard that maybe tonight — the
8 criticism should be directed towards me. As NDS
9 director, I am accountable for the performance of the
30 department of 50 -- approximately 50 individuals. I'm
11 also responsible for the collaborative efforts of the
12 departments involved and ultimately, as a building
13 official, I am responsible for the decision under
14 consideration tonight. The process of getting it right
15 requires objective consideration of the facts, as well
16 as a respectful deliberation of disparate viewpoints.
17 This can and should be done without sacrificing
18 civility and fracturing our community. I am proud of
19 the professionalism of city staff in addressing this
20 issue, and I thank the board for your thorough
21 examination of the issues and your thoughtful
22 consideration of this matter. Thank you.
23 CHAIRMAN BAKER: Thank you, Doug. Don't go away.
24 1 mean sit down, but don't go away.
25 MR. LAREW: Very brief statement by a witness,
139
1 Mr. Weirich, and then I'll conclude.
2 CHAIRMAN BAKER: All right, thank you.
3 MR. WEIRICH: I assure you I'll do this in two
4 minutes.
5 CHAIRMAN BAKER: Okay.
6 MR. WEIRICH: Okay. First of all, I want to make
7 the point that while I drew the boundaries for the
8 buffers at the property line, in fact, both the wooded
9 area and the slope do encroach on the property. They're
10 on the property as well, and so the buffer would have to
11 go further in. So the suggestion that — that, you
12 know, the line is right at the property line where the
13 trees stop and where the slope stops, that is not
14 correct. The slope does go onto the property, and the
15 trees go on as part of the grove and wooded area.
16 The second point is it doesn't matter whether the
17 slope is manmade or natural. If you look at — I'll
18 just give you the citation. On page 321, a regulated
19 slope is defined as steep, critical, protected, altered
20 protected slopes. So any slope of 40 percent or steeper
21 created by human activity is also a regulated slope with
22 vegetation on it, at cetera, at cetera. So it's -- it's
23 part of the dance, okay.
24 Third, I don't understand the comment when you're
25 talking about applicability of the environmental
nt 9-21-19
140
1 sensitive lands feature, and I read this out to you, it
2 is the applicant's responsibility. It seems to me the
3 applicant is clearly the person asking to make changes
4 on the property and do something with the land. I don't
5 know who else the applicant would be in that situation.
6 Finally, I want to reiterate this question of
7 exemptions. I'm not challenging -- that's not my zone
8 of expertise —whether this is single-family or not.
9 Assuming it is, the exemption that I read to you says
10 single-family dwellings are exempt except for if they're
11 less than 20,000, they're out, but also, and as I
12 repeat, there is no encroachment by said activities into
13 the sensitive question.
14 There is an encroachment, and the buffer is part of
15 that dance and that property encroaches on that. That's
16 the reason why this specific property is subject to the
17 environmental requirements. There are many other
38 properties in Manville Heights and in the city that
19 don't have to follow this. The exemption applies to
20 them, but not in this particular situation.
21 And finally, there are a set of very explicit
22 requirements in the code that were not addressed from
23 anything I can see. There's an environment review
24 required. It's on page 323. 1 highlighted it. It's in
25 the documents you have, and its in the full code as
141
1 well where there's a whole process of a sensitive areas
2 development plan, at cetera, at cetera, at cetera, that
3 is required and there's all kinds of steps, and I didn't
4 articulate them. None of that happened. So the reason
5 that one might consider saying this can't go forward is
6 it was flawed from square one, and that means you have
7 to go back to square one and start this whole process
8 all over again if you're going to follow the rules of
9 the code that I'm referring to. I'll stop there. Okay.
30 MR. CHRISCHILLES: Where was the information about
11 an environmental review being required?
12 MR. WEIRICH: That's a whole section on it, but if
13 you look at page 323 in the code, it's — it's under
14 'Wooded areas:'
15 MR. CHRISCHILLES: Okay.
16 MR. WEIRICH: Okay. And there's a beginning there.
17 "Environmental review is required:' That's where that
18 conversation begins. There's a much more extensive
19 review through the whole document over steps of review
20 and levels of review I didn't want to get into. I'm
21 just simply saying it never even got started. That's
22 the point that I was trying to make.
23 And keep in mind that the purpose for these things
24 are to reduce damages to wooded areas, steep slopes, at
25 cetera, to reduce erosion and siltation, etcetera, at
Page 138 to 141
Board of Adjustment 9-21-16
142 1 144
1 cetera. There's lots of important reasons why these
2 things are required both from a safety and environmental
3 perspective. Doesn't matter if the railway cul it.
4 It's still a regulated slope and that is still a
5 regulated area.
6 CHAIRMAN BAKER: Thank you.
7 MR. LAREW: There are some —just a couple of
8 major points I want to make, but I want to start out
9 that for citizens to challenge a decision made by their
10 city government or the staff of the city government
11 doesn't necessarily impugn the integrity or
12 professionalism or anything else of anyone, and
13 certainly not a whole department.
14 The way that the law requires us to frame our
15 appeal is to name Mr. Boothroy personally. Those are
16 the rules. In fact, when we mistakenly named Mr. Yapp,
17 because he's the only person we'd ever talked to when we
18 named — presented this, we were told that it was
19 Mr. Boothroy. That's how the law requires us to posit
20 it, and we take him at his word when he says he's
21 responsible for the decision that was made.
22 We also went out of our way to point out any number
23 of instances where staff people themselves were raising
24 issues and concerns, and -- and we could not understand
25 completely why those concerns, many of them which echoed
143
1 our own, were not abided by, and we take it that it was
2 Mr. Boothroy's final decision as an executive for the
3 City that the wrong decision was made in this instance.
4 Nor has anyone that I know of in our group impugned
5 the Carlsons, as it's been suggested, nor have we said
6 that they will engage in illegal activities or even
7 suggested that. And if to the extent that's the theme,
8 we're trying to enforce a zoning code, and if there is
9 something that's in violation of that, if that impugns
10 someone's integrity, we —we can't help that
11 interpretation. We've been careful about what we
12 have — have said and tried to say, and — but believe
13 that a bad mistake has been made. And to the extent
14 that we speculate, it's necessary because we don't know
15 the Carlsons. They've never come knocking on the door
16 to a neighbor, even those who they intended apparently
17 to share an ancient sewer with without notice to them.
18 So what we know is what we see in the press and
19 what other people who know them say in the press about
20 what their intent is. That's why when we took this
21 statement from — it wasn't a quote from us but from ABC
22 News when this became a national story, the one that
23 Mr. Boothroy injected himself in, and said, "We're going
24 to approve the building permit," days before they even
25 had an approved site plan. It was Mr. Carlson who said,
1 "My stepson suggested that if we're going to build a
2 house to tailgate" — "if we're going to build a house
3 to tailgate as it should" -- "it should mimic the
4 stadium." Carlson, 64, told ABC News, "I'm kind of a
5 theme guy anyways so I thought that was a great idea."
6 There aren't that many statements that we have to
7 go by. The affidavit which was signed, we don't
8 understand as a matter of policy how the City does this.
9 It seems frivolous. All they're agreeing to do is to
10 obey the law, as anyone else. If any of us fail to
11 abide by the local laws without an affidavit, we would
12 be just as liable as someone who signed an affidavit.
13 That's all the affidavit says.
14 Other people who know them also describe what the
15 use is. This was a Facebook entry. Now, like different
16 versions, different versions of the plans themselves,
17 sometimes they disappear and in recent days this is no
18 longer there, but this was someone named Ted Burton
19 Jacobson who entered this on the Internet. He's a local
20 person. I don't know him but I know of him. I'm sure
21 he's a very reputable person. "Having spent over 30
22 years in Iowa City and more than once this family's" —
23 that is, the Carlsons' — "Realtor, I'm here to defend
24 my friend of over 40 years, Reed Carlson. In my
25 hometown of Decorah, the Carlson family supported the
145
1 town for four generations. Reed's mother was a native
2 of Iowa City, which gives him deep roots in Hawkeye
3 land, and there are no greater Iowa fans than this
4 family. Think of little Kinnick as another Field of
5 Dreams that your grandchildren will come to visit and
6 let the Carlsons have their American dream. People will
7 come, Reed. People will definitely come."
a Now, to the public, people go and they — they
9 visit Elvis's home. That's okay. They become iconic.
10 This is something in the public mind so people who know
11 them well, which is some kind of entertainment event.
12 To the extent that we know this project through what
13 others who know them well and vouch for them say, we —
14 we first don't have any doubt that these are good
15 citizens of the city of Decorah, but we also have no
16 real doubt as to what their intent or use is, and it's
17 not residential. That is our purpose in coming to this
18 board for relief. It doesn't look like a house, it's
19 not designed like a house, the intent that's described
20 to the public describes it not primarily as a residence
21 but as a place to hold the tailgates. That is what is
22 of — of concern.
23 So here we are. Our clients don't dislike the City
24 of Iowa City or the staff. We pay taxes to support it,
25 and we would concede that most the time they get it
Page 142 to 145
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1007
IN
II VA
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
30
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
38
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Board of Adjustm
146
right. Garbage is picked up most days as scheduled,
clean water is delivered to all of us, to every
household. Firefighters arrive promptly and do their
work bravely, and we appreciate that. But sometimes for
one reason or another, things go wrong and very wrong,
and when that happens it's important to acknowledge that
fact, to correct the mistakes, and to learn from them.
To fail to correct a mistake can have repercussions for
a long, long time.
In governance, particularly in legal matters, as a
democracy we rule ourselves by analogies. We take what
we know and what has worked, and we apply it to the next
problem. We make a decision involving the public and
they remember, and they rightfully expect that others
similarly situated in the future will be treated in a
similar way. This case challenges the essence of
self-government when it comes to zoning issues. The
proposed building is so Flamboyant and so visible and to
us the mistakes of judgment made so purely visible to
all of us that not to correct the mistakes here and now
will adversely affect many more persons than those who
appeal this particular matter to you tonight.
We either zone by rules or by affidavits. We
either apply use classifications and related code
provision to each applicant who has a site plan or we
147
don't. We either do requirements under the
International Fire Code or, as even the most recent memo
says, we don't even apply this in some instances. The
fire department decides not to. There are any number of
places in our fire code where Iowa City has made
amendments to the International Fire Code to make sure
it fits our needs. Here they simply say if it's longer
than 150 feet and it's an infill lot, we just don't
enforce it.
How can that be? Isn't it a moment like this where
we bring issues to the attention of those of us who are
governing each other, say this doesn't seem right. Fire
safety, and they say we just don't choose to enforce it.
They would have enforced it for Mr. Oliveira for two
smaller homes, but not in this instance, and it's the
same fire code requiring the turnarounds.
We either apply the International Residential Code
terms as to what defines a home or we do not, and the
International Residential Code says that a residence
shall have a sanitary system. The one that's quoted for
you always leaves that word out. Well, here's the
challenge. My -- my clients, having not been notified
of the controversy known to the City that there was no
easement agreement and that there was no understanding
of the neighborhood and that it didn't have a complying
nt
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
9-21-16
148
sewer were never notified of that fact, so what they've
done is what the law allows them. Gave them notice, you
can't trample on our property. You can't take your
sewer and go across our land.
So we have Craig Syrop, whose talk you listened to
the other day. He and his spouse issued a notice, you
may not go across our property. So did Anne Lahey at
111. So did the Ackenmans, said you're not coming
across our property, and so did the Armstrongs. They
say you may not assume that you're coming across with
your sewage on our property, and the only way that the
law allows them to give that notice -- and you've heard
even tonight talking about valid easements and right to
go across.
This will be the first time and this is the
concerning thing. Until now it's been Mr. Boothroy and
his staff making a series of, we think, very serious
mistakes. After that proceeding your names will be on
it. This decision will be remembered by you as the
Board of Adjustment members because you have the same
authority as Mr. Boothroy did and more time to consider
it than we think was ever given to this project before
the building permit was issued. We have no doubt that
much time has been spent since we raised this challenge.
We are doubtful as to the amount of thoughtful attention
149
1 these issues were given prior to it.
2 So if this project is approved, we can only imagine
3 the metaphoric hand-to-hand combat at the City level as
4 people, builders, people who want to do things will say,
5 my goodness, you allowed that project to go forward with
6 no sewer, with no compliance with the fire code, with no
7 compliance with the sensitive ordinance. You let that
8 project go but you won't let me do this?
9 You can put a stop to that kind of reasoning which
10 will be there on a daily basis, and there's a reason
11 that the code of Iowa's requirements that if you have
12 five members on the board only a couple of them and no
13 more can have anything to do with real estate and
14 building and development is because these energies are
15 always so intense. They want a board like yours to have
16 some space away from these day-to-day intensities that
17 have to affect the city staff even on their best days.
18 So why should any property owner be asked to
19 present any more than an affidavit of compliance if
20 that's all that it really takes for us to be assured
21 that there will be full compliance with the laws when we
22 can't show full compliance with International Fire Code,
23 with International Residential Code, and the like. So
24 members of the Board of Adjustment, short by one
25 member -- One person expressed her point of view that
Page 146 to 149
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
s
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Board of Adjustm
150
this was an outrage to the city council, was removed,
and should have been. Should have been. People with
preconceived notions as to the outcome of the
application of law to fact should be removed.
When we raised the issue of bias as to the city
staff, we're accused of personal attacks and innuendo.
So we have four members. We understand that, and we
think its right that one member was recused. That's
the way it should have been. We want you to do the
right thing, the most fundamental choice, and agree with
the appellants that this building cannot be classified
principally as a residence. What it is we're not sure.
We think its a new kind of use advertised in a way that
is not recognized by the code, but at that point, the
city council has legislated that you're not to go to the
next best thing, you're just to say it cannot be done
here. Send it back. Amend the code if you want to if
this kind of complex, which is intended to draw people
in an iconic way to an entertainment venue. Do the
right thing. Decide that this was not classified
correctly. It's not a residence, and that's the fastest
way to get to the most just result.
On the other hand, if you continue through the
analysis, we feel that you will determine that it
doesn't comply with the most basic definitions of our
151
Cade, even if it were a residence. Would it be the
first residence that was allowed without a sewer? Would
it be the first residence that was allowed without
checking off the boxes for compliance with the zoning
codes that go into a building permit? We're sure that
this would not if the City had correctly looked at the
sensitive ordinance — or area ordinance and correctly
made that decision; they would have put a kibosh on the
project. That they failed to consider it completely
doesn't mean that the project should be approved.
We think that your decision that the building
official, Mr. Boothroy, because that's what the law
requires us to posit it as, he erred by wrongfully
approving the building permit and as a part of that,
whether it's separate or a part of it, he wrongfully
approved the site plan, the same site plan that earlier
he had used to retract, suspend a building permit, and
in this case to determine that this building permit
should be revoked and the project should not proceed.
We have brought to you citizens who in a good faith
belief believe that an error has been made. We ask that
the Board of Adjustment now correct those errors and
each area of law which affected the building permit.
Its not as narrowly defined, we think, as the
applicant, Mr. Carlson and Mrs. Carlson, have asked you
:nl 9-21-16
152
1 to consider, but to apply fairly and reasonably the code
2 provisions that define what a residence is or is not;
3 and if it is a residence, whether it complies with the
4 minimum definitional requirements of a single-family
5 dwelling in the state of Iowa and the city of Iowa City.
6 We thank you for your attention tonight and in
7 prior session.
8 CHAIRMAN BAKER: Thank you, Jim.
9 MR.LAREW: Thank you.
10 MR. CHRISCHILLES: I have a question.
11 CHAIRMAN BAKER: Oh, I'm sorry. Go ahead. Jim.
12 MR. CHRISCHILLES: I'm not sure if this is a good
13 time to bring this up, but will we have —will we have
14 another chance to question him?
15 CHAIRMAN BAKER: I'm letting them reply to each
16 other, and my plan was to have the board able to ask
17 questions of Jim, Doug, or Mr. Fagan to follow up on any
18 concerns that they had that have not been clarified for
19 them, and then I was going to ask Mr. Parmenter to sort
20 of give us some guidance on legal parameters. But, yes,
21 there will be a time and you can do it now, but we
22 certainly will reserve the right as a board to do our
23 own follow-up questions. And for that reason, I have a
24 new deadline, eleven o'clock. I appreciate your
25 patience, but -
153
1 MR.CHRISCHILLES: I don't know that this will
2 take --
3 CHAIRMAN BAKER: Because I don't want to have
4 another meeting just for input, all right? Go ahead.
5 MR. CHRISCHILLES: I'm confused about the sewer
6 issues. Did — When you brought this up, you —you
7 stated that Iowa City Code and Iowa law require private
8 separate sanitary sewer —
9 MR. LAREW: Yes.
10 MR. CHRISCHILLES: —for individual residences,
11 for single-family residences?
12 MR, LAREW. Yes. My — my opinion is based on the
13 following: Iowa law, the only place in the Iowa Code
14 where the Iowa General Assembly has defined a
15 single-family dwelling is in the Uniform Landlord -Tenant
16 ordinance, and although this is not a case which will be
17 decided by that law, it's the only chance where Iowans
18 as a whole have decided, and it requires by definition
19 to have its own systems including the sewer system,
20 independent sewer system, even areas where walls are —
21 are shared.
22 Second, the Iowa City Code of Ordinances adopts by
23 reference the International Residential Code, and that's
24 been referred to in a number of ways. That residential
25 code is a little more thorough than the definition of
Page 150 to 153
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Board of Adjustment 9-21-16
154 1 156
single-family dwelling that's in the code, and it
includes the word "sanitary," that such a dwelling must
include "sanitary" as a part of the definition of a
single-family dwelling.
MR. CHRISCHILLES: Okay. So do the terminations of
easement that have been entered apply to —just to
shared sewer services or to instances where — in —
like in this instance where the Carlsons might want to
dig their own separate sewer that didn't tie into the
shared system?
MR. LAREW: The position of the adjoining
landowners is that the Carlsons have no right of entry
whether to try to reestablish a flow of sewage from the
old sewer pipe into theirjoint sewer or if they would
try to demand a way to force themselves across the
property to get to the nearest sewer, which you can see
is depicted on — on their property. There is no
easement agreement, and it's our legal position —
again, I agree with counsel at least one thing: it may
be a district court that decides — that at the time
that this arrangement was started, it appears that one
person alone owned four contiguous properties, and Iowa
law in our opinion is clear that a person cannot grant
an easement to himself, and that's probably why no
easement was there. So this has been going on for some
155
period of time. The notice that was given was you may
not go across our land for any presumed purpose, and if
they want to force their way across, they'll have to get
a court order to do it, and that will be the legal
question.
MR. CHRISCHILLES: So as it is now, any type of
sewage system for the Carlsons' proposed structure would
be — would have to go over the property that's —
that — the appellants' property that this has the
easement — determination of easement applied to it.
MR. LAREW: What — I think they would have
choices. One, and this was the kind of choice that the
Oliveira — Mr. Oliveira was given. They could go like
every other private property owner does. They go to the
nearest street. Now, in this case there's not a sewer
there, and they'd have to work out how they get from
there north. They have also presumably — and it sounds
like Mr. Klinefelter is very supportive of this project.
He's the person who owns the property nearby. Maybe he
would grant an easement to go across the street or under
the street and across some portion of his property to
attach to a sewer main that is on further down on — on
the street.
But the sewer line that is now in existence that
has the bend and ends up at the corner of Lexington and
3
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Bayard, that's a terminus. That's a terminus for the
city sewer line. It comes down Lexington, so that's —
that's as close as they can get to a sewer if they're
going across the property. If they want to go another
way, they go up the street and over, or they could go
across Mr. Klinefelter's land, perhaps, and — or under
it and decide what he wants to do with the sewer line.
MR. CHRISCHILLES: So they do have options in terms
of getting sewer service.
MR. LAREW: Absolutely.
MR. CHRISCHILLES: But those options do not include
the neighbors' property in any way.
MR. LAREW: That's right. All four contiguous
neighbors have given them clear notice that you're —
you're not traversing their property with their sewage.
MR. CHRISCHILLES: And the issue of whether or not
they can --well, I guess — That would make the issue
of whether or not they can tap into the shared system a
moot point, then.
MR. LAREW: In our opinion, yes. That there is
no — there is no going back on that, and it's a
practical matter too. If you look at the world In the
way that we do, that this could have a party of 200
people, imagine what that 30 minutes before game time
looks like, and who is it that carries the likely burden
157
of a malfunctioning sewer, and you have no sewer
easement there. Who even pays for that cleanup. This
is — this is the kind of thing which makes it difficult
to understand that people acting like good neighbors
could not even come knock on the door, say is there some
way we could work this out. These people to learn by
surprise of what was going on is particularly troubling.
MR. CHRISCHILLES: So I — I don't know if I can
ask you this or ask Mr. Boothroy this, but so if they
were to — the Carlsons decided to establish their own
private connection to — to the sewer, they would have
to do that at their own expense?
MR. LAREW: I -- I presume so. I'll let
Mr. Boothroy answer that. That's — As a property
owner, that's been my experience.
MR. CHRISCHILLES: And would that alter — would
that alter — would that reset the building permit
process or—
MR. BOOTHROY: They would — they would not get —
They could not get a CO without proper connection to a
sewer.
MR. CHRISCHILLES: But—
MR. BOOTHROY: They could not gel a —
MR. CHRISCHILLES: Certificate of occupancy.
MR. BOOTHROY: They could not occupy the building
Page 154 to 157
Board of Adjustment
158 1
1 without --
2 MR. CHRISCHILLES: I -- I know that, but --
3 MR. BOOTH ROY: --a sewer.
4 MR. CHRISCHILLES: They would have to provide
5 the -
6 MR. BOOTHROY: Yeah, they have to -- they have to
7 gel a water tap permit and comply with moving the
8 hydrant if it's a problem, and if they can't get sewer.
9 1 don't know if — This sounds like this is a private
10 litigation matter.
11 MR. CHRISCHILLES: Yeah.
12 MR. BOOTHROY: The other option would be to get
13 into the public sewer from a different route. That is
14 available and I'm sure just a matter of expense.
15 MS. SOGLIN: But would you or could you approve a
16 building permit without a clear sewer option for a home?
17 MR.BOOTHROY:Theyhave— theyhave--Atthe
18 time we issued the building permit, they had an open
19 sewer stub on the property, right almost in the middle
20 of the property, and, you know, it was a sewer that had
21 been — when we did some research had been permitted by
22 the City in the 1920s. So the pipe is there and it's
23 available to be hooked on.
24 Since — since we started this process, I think the
25 property owners have filed this notice of termination of
159
1 the easement. I don't think that terminates the
2 easement if — if the Carlsons litigated. I mean 1
3 think that's —that's a matter that would be litigated.
4 1 don't think it's -- And I -- you know, 1 think
5 that's -- that could happen. I don't know.
6 CHAIRMAN BAKER: But that would not be cause for
7 you to rescind the current building permit?
8 MR. BOOTHROY: I -- I haven't had a conversation
9 with the Carlsons if whether or not they're going to --
10 1 mean I don't know whether they've changed their mind,
11 if they're going to go and —
12 CHAIRMAN BAKER: Your control is the certificate of
13 occupancy could only be resolved by the sewer being
14 hooked up, and they can't occupy regardless of the
15 building permit until the sewer issue is resolved —
16 MR. BOOTHROY: The building —
17 CHAIRMAN BAKER: — in court.
18 MR. BOOTHROY: Yeah. The failsafe is that the
19 building could never be occupied without water and
20 sewer.
21 CHAIRMAN BAKER: Okay.
22 MR. CHRISCHILLES: But I don't know that you fully
23 answered Becky's question when she said can a — can a
24 building permit— should -- can a building permit be
25 granted if --
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
III
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
9-21-16
160
MR. BOOTHROY: I thought you were talking about
this particular one.
MS. SOGLIN: I did mean just — not this particular
case, just-- Take the question exactly as I said it.
Just for any resident --
MR. BOOTHROY: If we had a situation where there
wasn't sewer possible, I think that would — yeah, it
might not get issued under those circumstances until
they showed to us that they had a way of getting sewer.
And if they — In other words, it doesn't necessarily
have to be extended to the property by the time the
building permit's issued, but it would have to be
connected by the time the CO was issued, so —
MS. SOGLIN: So it affects the —
MR. BOOTHROY: If they -- if they could show that
they had a way to get access to a public sanitary sewer,
you know, we've had -- we've had situations where people
have extended sewers 300 feet, you know. I'm talking
about a service line now, not a public sewer. And so,
you know, they got to have sewer in order to occupy the
building, so I think they've shown that there are
options here. We don't know whether they're going to
try to pursue the private sewer or they're going to
abandon that and go with the public sewer, but that
would be a conversation we would have.
161
1 MS. SOGLIN: So I just want to make sure I'm
2 hearing good, so that in general —
3 MR. BOOTHROY: But it -- but it's not a zoning
4 issue, it's —it's a -- It has nothing to do with
5 whether or not the use is classified correctly. It's
6 all about the sewer.
7 MS. SOGLIN: Right, I understand that, but you
8 normally would issue a building permit for a
9 single-family dwelling with some understanding of — you
10 know, there's some viable —
11 MR. BOOTHROY: The risk is totally with the
12 property owner, not with the City, so —
13 MS. SOGLIN: But what would you —I mean you would
14 normally --
i5 MR. BOOTHROY: We don't have — The sewer hookup
16 does not come necess -- at the time the permit is
17 issued.
18 MS. SOGLIN: Okay. So there may not be any plan
19 for that that —
20 MR. BOOTHROY: What I'm saying is that if they
21 can -- if they can show that they have access or the
22 ability to access a public sewer, then that's good
23 enough.
24 MS. SOGLIN: Okay. That's —
25 MR. BOOTHROY: That's what I'm trying to say.
Page 158 to 161
Board of Adjustmi
162
1 CHAIRMAN BAKER: And the question's not what you
2 would do in a hypothetical future situation but is this
3 cause -- the question over the easement, is this cause
4 to rescind the building permit, and I'm hearing that
5 it's not.
6 MR. BOOTHROY: No, it appears that — that there
7 are other options.
8 CHAIRMAN BAKER: Okay.
9 MR. LAREW: The appellants note with interest that
30 when this very issue came before the same staff with
11 regards to Mr. Oliveira, it was a condition precedent
12 that he was required to show a written easement with
13 these people or to show how the sewer would go. That's
14 not a — it's not an issue of hypothetical.
15 CHAIRMAN BAKER: Okay. And we are getting into the
16 point where we're starting to repeat information now.
17 That's been talked about several times in this whole
18 discussion.
19 MR. LAREW: Oh, I — I understand that. But to the
20 extent that— that we're talking hypotheticals versus
21 reals, this is the same property in the same period of
22 time, the same city staff, and treatment by two
23 different parties in two different ways. It was a
24 condition precedent to a building permit being issued
25 where it's now described as some kind of postpermitting
163
1 option.
2 CHAIRMAN BAKER: Any other questions for Mr. Larew?
3 Thank you, Jim. Mr. Fagan, do you want to say anything?
4 And if you do, we'd like to hear it.
5 MR. FAGAN: Just briefly, members of the board.
6 Again, thank you for your time and patience on this. 1
7 had the benefit of going last, and so I'm not going to
8 repeat or use this necessarily to rebut some of this
9 stuff, but as far as that statement that was up there, I
10 don't know what that was necessarily in response to or
11 what Facebook string it was. I don't think it's
12 relevant to what we have to decide here today in terms
13 of focusing on the building permit and its issuance.
14 So bringing it back to that, I think the City did a
15 nice job of explaining the issue related to the sewer.
16 Again, the sewer is not before you, and any reference by
17 Mr. Larew in terms of trying to bootstrap on
18 Mr. Oliveira's plan is not relevant, and it's a
19 different project and it's another red herring. So
20 again, as Reed stated, he will work with the City on
21 coming up with a solution to that issue, but that's not
22 related to the zoning of this property.
23 MR. CHRISCHILLES: So you're saying — Am 1
24 correct in your assumption that— that since it's not
25 part — You're saying a sewage issue is not part of the
nt 9-21-16
164
1 zoning code or cannot be reviewed under the zoning code,
2 but what about the State of Iowa law? Doesn't that
3 apply? Doesn't that apply at all?
4 MR. FAGAN: Fair question. I — I certainly think
5 obviously you are governed by the State of Iowa and its
6 laws and its relevant code provisions. I don't believe
7 that the landlord -tenant code that the applicant — or
8 the appellants have submitted as an exhibit are relevant
9 or govern your decision here, and that's — that was
10 part of his argument. But — but fair question.
11 CHAIRMAN BAKER: Thank you.
12 MR. FAGAN: Thank you.
13 CHAIRMAN BAKER: Now, we're going to do this: This
14 is the time for the board — if the board has any
15 follow-up questions, anything to get cleared up, this is
16 the time to address those questions.
17 MS. SOGLIN: I -- I do have a few. IT try to be
18 quick and if they're not applicable, people can just
19 tell me that. I guess this might be for Mr. Boothroy.
20 There's a mention of the zoning code interpretation
21 panel. Was --was that something potentially could have
22 been part of this whole process or — Can you just talk
23 about that a little bit. That — that was brought up at
24 one point.
25 MR. BOOTHROY: Well, the zoning code interpretation
165
1 panel was created to resolve differences of opinion.
2 There was no difference of opinion.
3 MS. SOGLIN: Difference of opinion among staff.
4 MR. BOOTHROY: Absolutely. It's only for staff.
5 It's an administrative panel and —
6 MS. SOGLIN: Okay. That's what I didn't
7 understand, what kind of panel. And I just— Have —
8 have you ever tested —
9 MR. BOOTHROY: Still for me?
10 MS. SOGLIN: Yes, please.
11 MR. BOOTHROY: Okay.
12 MS. SOGLIN: Have you ever tested some kind of
13 proposed building by running it both through its most
14 likely principal use or what the applicants are saying
15 is its most likely principal use and then running it
16 through that list of factors in — in Part A that has
17 been discussed? Have you —
18 MR. BOOTHROY: I missed a little bit of the first
19 part because you weren't speaking into the mic, so —
20 MS. SOGLIN: Sorry. Have you ever tested some --
21 So someone's submitting a building application. Have
22 you ever tested a proposed building by running it
23 through both its most likely principal use or what the
24 applicants are saying its most likely principal use is
25 and then that list of factors?
Page 162 to 165
Board of Adjuslrni
166
1 MR. BOOTHROY: We look at all possible scenarios
2 and worst-case scenarios, and so I don't know if that
3 answers your question, but we try to look at it from all
4 perspectives and we have, as I mentioned, a lot of
5 people that were helping me and everyone agreed that —
6 everybody was in agreement that this was a single-family
7 dwelling intended for single-family use. There was no
8 dissension among the folks at the city attorney's office
9 or any of my staff with regard to this matter. I took
30 that as advice to me and -- and based my decision and I
11 agreed with them. 1 didn't choose to overrule them.
12 MS. SOGLIN: And I do have one question for Mr. —
13 Deputy Chief Jensen.
14 MR. CHRISCHILLES: Wait, I have a question for
15 Mr. Boothroy.
16 MS. SOGLIN: Oh, sorry.
17 MR. CHRISCHILLES: So in follow-up to that, have
18 you ever had a situation where you've looked at
19 something from the perspective of not qualifying in any
20 of the currentzoning code and saying this—we're
21 looking at this, it doesn't fit anything. Therefore, we
22 have to look at it in a different way or — or
23 reclassify it or any — Can you think of any instances
24 where that's occurred?
25 MR. BOOTHROY: I can't give you a specific example
167
1 but I can tell you that, yes, that has happened and,
2 yes, we have amended the zoning code to increase —
3 to — to add categories of uses over the years that I've
4 been involved with it. I just can't off the top of my
5 head give you a specific example, but yes, it has
6 happened.
7 MS. SOGLIN: Do you have any comment on — I'm
8 sorry, I'm forgetting the gentleman — the gentleman who
9 has had this engineering expertise and spoke on the
10 slopes, but he was saying that even a manmade slope is
11 part of the sensitive —
12 MR. BOOTHROY: Oh, absolutely. I never said that.
13 MS. SOGLIN: Okay.
14 MR. BOOTHROY: I never said it wasn't. It — it is
15 a — That particular type of protective slope is
16 included in the ordinance. It is on — It was my
17 understanding — I've been on the site. It appeared to
18 me that those slopes were in the railroad right-of-way
19 and not on the private property. But we didn't have it
20 surveyed by the applicant because just in walking the
21 site, it didn't look like it had that much fall from the
22 northwest corner, and I walked the entire site, but it
23 might not have been — the property may not have been
24 clearly staked.
25 CHAIRMAN BAKER: Questions for Doug?
nl 9-21-16
168
1 MR. CHRISCHILLES: Didn't—didn't he— In
2 regards to sensitive slope, didn't he say that it didn't
3 have to be on the property per se? The slope didn't
4 have to be on the property per se? It's the slope that
5 the property affects?
6 MR. BOOTHROY: We've never interpreted it that way,
7 that—that-
8 MR. CHRISCHILLES: Why wouldn't you?
9 MR. BOOTHROY: —that abutting property controls
30 what you can do on your property with regard to the
11 buffer area. That's never been applied under the
12 sensitive areas ordinance. That would be a completely
13 new interpretation. But I can tell you that buffer -
14 the buffer area — the buffer area is not a protective
15 slope. Its just a buffer area.
16 MR. CHRISCHILLES: The buffer area created by the
17 sensitive slope.
18 MR. BOOTHROY: But they're not encroaching — I
19 don't believe that they're encroaching into the
20 sensitive slope. You know, that's certainly something
21 we can get more information on if that's an issue.
22 MR. CHRISCHILLES: I think it is.
23 MR. BOOTHROY: If it is an issue, then it may be
24 easily resolved.
25 MR. CHRISCHILLES: Okay.
169
1 MR.BOOTHROY: By redesign or—or some
2 modification.
3 CHAIRMAN BAKER: Doug? Any questions for Doug?
4 Doug, I'm sorry, and once again, thank you. I will ask
5 these questions as quickly as possible and, again, as —
6 as succinctly as possible as I can.
7 You talked about the staff reviewing and all people
8 being involved being unanimous in their opinion. Was
9 this opinion unanimous at the beginning? Or was there
10 any ambiguity or — What is it that — that you had to
11 settle in the staff review process that was not apparent
12 from the very beginning?
13 MR. BOOTHROY: I wanted to make sure that every
14 question I asked was — I was comfortable with the
15 answer, and so whether it was with the zoning or whether
16 it was sewer or whether it was the street extension or
17 whether it was the fire flow or with any of those
18 issues, I wanted to make sure that the people that
19 provided — that — that worked in those areas were
20 confident in their answers. And so, you know, we -- we
21 spent time, you know, having that kind of conversation
22 as a staff.
23 CHAIRMAN BAKER: And there was no disagreement at
24 the end, no ambiguity, no people saying I'll go along
25 with it but —
Page 166 to 169
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
2S
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Board of Adjustment
no I
MR. BOOTHROY: We —we as a group are --
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Unanimous.
MR. BOOTHROY: — of one mind.
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Okay. In the staff — in the
material you presented to us at the first meeting, there
were -- there were elevations for two different designs
of the front bathrooms. Which one of those designs —
One of them had the double toilets and urinals and
everything else. Was that the design that was approved
in the first building permit?
MR. BOOTHROY: Yeah, I — You know, I don't really
know because I didn't look at that detail at that point
in time. My —
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Because this gets to the question
of how you're interpreting use.
MR. BOOTHROY: Yeah, what — what — Yeah,
frankly, I don't think it makes that much difference
because they're both basically the same design. The
fact they added a little bit more to a play area and —
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Yeah, what—
MR. BOOTHROY: I don't think that—
(Overlapping speakers)
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Yeah, one of the questions I asked
you at the very first meeting was did any part of this
in the review process, did you — did your plans that
171
you were reviewing include lockers and urinals, and I
think your answer was no.
MR. BOOTHROY: I think it was to the — I wasn't
aware that— I guess I thought those were just hooks.
I didn't realize that those were lockers. I wasn't
looking at it that specifically. It's not a building
code issue and it's not a zoning code issue.
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Okay. All right. But —
MR. BOOTHROY: And so we — we looked at it as
bathrooms and — and fixtures. Whether or not— You
know, we didn't get into some of the other issues.
CHAIRMAN BAKER: See, all of this is leading to the
question that's going to come, which is like at what
point in your interpretation of what these things
represent and they fit the rode, at what point — we'll
get back to you or somebody about is there something in
a plan that would cause you to second-guess the
purpose — the use of the property. And when you look
at the original plan that you approved, if I read those
elevations correctly, you approved two bathrooms that
were almost designed as — again, interpretation —
public restrooms. You had stalls, you had stall doors,
you had urinals, you had lockers. And that was what you
approved. Is that yes or no?
MR. BOOTHROY: We approved his -and -her bathroom
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
9-21-16
172
fixtures, yes. I'm not — I don't recall whether the
first permit had two urinals or one urinal, to be honest
with you. I think Tim would have been involved In that
more —
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Okay.
MR. BOOTHROY: To me that doesn't even — that's
not part of — that wasn't real important to the
analysis.
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Okay. I'll gel back to —
MR. BOOTHROY: It was just part of it. It was one
part of it.
CHAIRMAN BAKER: All right. You were going to say
something, contribute something.
MR. BOOTHROY: No, ljust was —
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Okay. You don't require a site
plan, so what you got was the building permit
application. What other factual information other than
that two-page application did you begin the evaluation
process with? What—
MR. BOOTHROY: Well, we — we would have a set of
building plans.
CHAIRMAN BAKER: You did have plans, and they
involved the first design of the — those opening
restrooms. Okay?
MR. BOOTHROY: Yeah. It had that type of design,
173
1 yes.
2 CHAIRMAN BAKER: Okay. At that point you're
3 seeking interpretation from fellow staff members about
4 what other codes are. At any point — When did you
5 start asking for specific information from the applicant
6 in addition to what was initially turned in, if you did
7 at all?
8 MR. BOOTHROY: I didn't specifically do that.
9 Maybe John or Tim did. I can't give you a date because
10 1 wasn't asking —
11 CHAIRMAN BAKER: Okay.
12 MR. BOOTHROY: I would have talked to them and then
13 they would have, you know.
14 CHAIRMAN BAKER: Okay.
15 MR. HENNES: Tim Hennes, senior building inspector.
16 There was nothing on the original plans that would have
17 caused us any concern there were violations of any of
18 the ordinances or codes based on number of restrooms or
19 anything like that. So that really wasn't the issue why
20 we went back and asked for additional information. Why
21 we went back and asked for additional information was
22 for them to clearly identify the intent on the use of
23 the property.
24 CHAIRMAN BAKER: Okay, but when you went back for
25 that, you had not made up your mind yet that this was
Page 170 to 173
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
30
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
Cf
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Board of Adjus"enl
174 1
indeed a single-family property?
MR. HENNES: At that point, no. We did make up —
We felt comfortable that it was single-family
property — residential use, but we just wanted to make
sure they understood that's all it could be used for.
CHAIRMAN BAKER: So their information was
informative and not definitive. I mean they didn't help
define the use. The use was determined before you asked
for those things.
MR. HENNES: That is correct.
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Okay. And that was because you
thought there might be some confusion in their mind?
MR. HENNES: We wanted to make sure there was clear
understanding that what the — what — for what the
property could be used for.
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Okay. So it was your clearing up
confusion -- any possible confusion on their part.
MR. HENNES: Correct.
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Okay.
MR. HENNES: We did not want any
misunderstanding —
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Right, because—
MR. HENNES: — between the city's understanding,
their understanding, and what the affidavit of use
future owner's understanding of the use.
175
CHAIRMAN BAKER: See, the basic problem here is —
if I'm listening to staff correctly is — you're
constricted by the code. The code says you shall do
this based upon these objective factors, and so what I'm
trying to understand is is there any point which your
look at a plan would say you know what? This fits all
of the objective factors. It has a bathroom, it has a
bedroom, it has a kitchen, it has a living area, but
there is something else about this that causes you to
question the single-family use. Hypothetical: I asked
Doug last time about—
MR. BOOTHROY: And I want to address that.
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Yeah. We'll — What if you had
ten bedrooms, ten bathrooms, whatever, and you said you
couldn't do anything about it.
MR. HENNES: Let mejust —
CHAIRMAN BAKER: I haven't finished. Let me
finish.
MR. HENNES: Okay.
CHAIRMAN BAKER: So let me give one last
hypothetical. One bedroom and ten bathrooms. It fits
all the criteria. Do you stop and say to yourself, now
wait a minute. Does this change what we perceive the
use to be even though the objective criteria — And if
it causes you concern, where could you tum in the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
9-21-16
176
zoning code to object to that design? Is there anything
that can be offered that you would say that's my limit
and I'll tum to the zoning code A, B, C, to justify my
opposition?
MR. HENNES: No, there — If it had all the
makings of a residential unit— living, cooking,
sleeping, sanitation — it would be issued as a building
permit for a single-family dwelling. Nothing in any of
those codes would direct us saying that you cannot have
ten bathrooms.
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Okay. Two basketball courts, len
bathrooms, nothing. As long as you've got the minimum,
you've got the whole thing.
MR. HENNES: That is correct.
CHAIRMAN BAKER: And, Doug, I'm going to raise this
question to you that I asked Jim about, which was this
definition between residential use and — You remember
the thing. It was like here's a permitted —you know,
primary use involved the use of the word "dwelling" and
then the definition of dwelling was partial or—
MR. BOOTHROY: Intended or—
CHAIRMAN BAKER: — intended use of residence.
MR. BOOTHROY: — and designed — designed and
intended for use as a single household.
CHAIRMAN BAKER: So according to that, if I'm
177
1 reading you correctly, there is no — there was a real
2 short discussion.
3 MR. BOOTHROY: Yes.
4 CHAIRMAN BAKER: Okay. That indeed, once that was
5 determined, the use was determined.
6 MR. BOOTHROY: Exactly. Except that we knew this
7 was going to be controversial and — and I think that -
8 and we tried to be as fair as possible by getting as
9 many different viewpoints. I wanted to make sure that I
10 wasn't missing anything, and zoning can be complicated
11 when you look at the code, and so I knew that this was
12 going to be challenged. Possibly it's going to be
13 challenged after this decision, and if it's going to be
14 challenged, I want to make sure that its challenged on
15 the code, not on supposition.
16 CHAIRMAN BAKER: Okay.
17 MR. BOOTHROY: Because then I lose oryou lose, one
18 of the two.
19 MR.CHRISCHILLES: Wouldn't the-- Never mind.
20 CHAIRMAN BAKER: Becky, you had a question for the
21 fire marshal?
22 MS. SOGLIN: Yeah.
23 MR. BOOTHROY: Are we done with me?
24 CHAIRMAN BAKER: Yeah.
25 MR. BOOTHROY: Thank you.
Page 174 to 177
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
30
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Board of
178
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Sit down, Doug.
MR. BOOTHROY: Can l go home?
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Thank you very much.
MR. WEITZEL: You can leave.
MR. JENSEN: Yes.
MS. SOGLIN: Thank you. You — I'm sorry, I can't
at this point find the piece of paper that you recently
just gave us, but you — in the second item about the
way you needed to have a turnaround if it was 150 or 155
feet, you said that Iowa City —you used an expression
something like, you know, you make a determination that
it's — you can go to 155 feet, so — but is that in
code or is that just an interpretation you do?
MR. JENSEN: It's an interpretation. Code says 150
feet.
MS. SOGLIN: But Iowa City doesn't then in its
reg -- have something as part of —
MR. JENSEN: That code was adopted long after
dead-end streets well in excess of 150 feet exist in
Iowa City. Well after.
MS. SOGLIN: Right. 1 understand that, but what
I'm trying to get at is when you say you — the City —
Is it a written policy somewhere that you're allowed to
make the leeway for the extra five feet, or is that --
is that lust — you do that and its just —
179
MR. JENSEN: To my knowledge — I've been here 29
years. It's just always been that way.
MS. SOGLIN: It's not written down somewhere.
MR. JENSEN: To my knowledge, no.
MS. SOGLIN: Okay. Thank you.
MR. WEITZEL: And that's something that's
everywhere. I mean just it's all over town.
MR. BOOTHROY: Yeah, I think — I think what we —
what he — what he's saying is that we grandfather it
because it's an existing law or an existing street, but
sometimes we — you know —
MR. CHRISCHILLES: But wouldn't you want to enforce
it if it's in the situation where you know about it in
advance and it's not just a matter of it already
existing somewhere so you don't do anything about it?
MR. BOOTHROY: Well, Lucon Street, just south of
Melrose, we just issued a permit not — recently on a
16 -foot -wide street that's a dead end. That's a recent
example. It happens in infill lots throughout this
community, and we have many dead-end streets. They're
existing and it's not a life safety issue. It's — it's
about the ability to turn around fire vehicles.
MR. CHRISCHILLES: But I can understand it if
it's — if it's dealing with a — you know, an area
that's already existing dead-end street and there's
mt 9-21-16
180
1 nothing being added to it. You can't— I mean it
2 would be very expensive to go around the whole city and
3 say every dead-end street -- every dead-end street needs
4 a turnaround. But in instances where you know about —
5 like on Lucon and — and this one where you know
6 about — that it's going to be — Yes, it is infill,
7 but you know that it's going to violate, I guess you'd
8 say, the — the International Fire Code, which says you
9 can't — can't go past 150 feet, wouldn't you want to do
30 something about that if you knew about it in advance?
11 MR. BOOTHROY: I think the distinction is that it's
12 an existing lot that's been there since 1920s on an
13 existing street, and I think there's a presumption on
14 these lots that are throughout this community that when
15 people buy them that they can build on them and not have
16 to be, you know, subject to standards that have been
17 passed subsequently. You know, that's what we've done.
18 We have treated this property no differently than any
19 other property, as Roger said, in the last 20 -some
20 years. So that's what it is.
21 CHAIRMAN BAKER: Would you have required a
22 turnaround if the lot were split?
23 MR. BOOTHROY: Thais my understanding of that
24 discussion.
25 CHAIRMAN BAKER: And you would do it not because
181
1 you just had the option and could but because there
2 would be some public safety factor.
3 MR. BOOTHROY: Well, I — Not only that. Not a
4 public safety, but for the— for vehicles, but we were
5 under — We also knew that there were going to be the
6 possibility of -- of additional — an additional lot
7 across the street as a result of that extension of the
8 street. So it's — So you extend the length of the
9 street and you add maybe a couple lots on it, and if
10 there's an opportunity to —through the subdivision
11 code which says that you may require for new — new
12 subdivisions and — and we wanted to exercise that
13 option that --
14 CHAIRMAN BAKER: But what you're saying --
15 MR. BOOTHROY: — this is not a subdivision. This
16 is an existing lot that's been there for 90 years,
17 and — and like some of — like the Lucon lot that we
18 recently issued a permit on, I don't know how long it's
19 been there, but that's a 16 -foot -wide right-of-way. 1
20 would guess that it's been there probably as long.
21 CHAIRMAN BAKER: But you would justify it in terms
22 of the — the expected density of the use. If you were
23 talking about more than one lot, you're talking about an
24 increased density of use. And, therefore, the
25 turnaround would be appropriate.
Page 178 to 181
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Pit
22
23
24
25
Board of Adjustmi
182
MR. BOOTHROY: And I think there was also some
sewer issues with regard to getting into the sewer,
gravity flow from the lot that was downhill.
CHAIRMAN BAKER: And the sewer issue would be
resolved through a — a subdivision as well because of
perceived problems with the current arrangement, but the
increased use would'dictate —
MR. BOOTHROY: And the access of the new lot and
the new house to the sewer. Otherwise, they would
have — you know, they would have had to pump it, which
would have been another option.
CHAIRMAN BAKER: All right. Thank you. Anybody
else? Any questions?
MS. SOGLIN: No, thank you.
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Any other questions from the board
to anybody?
Now, Mark. Would you please give us a very
succinct sort of guideline as to what our role is, what
we can issue a decision about, and in particular address
this question: One of our options is to, you know,
reject, accept, or modify the decision, but if we are
restricted from considering certain items from our
decision, doesn't that, therefore, almost eliminate the
ability to modify the decision?
MR. PARMENTER: Well, you're right, Mr. Chair. You
183
1 have the option to modify but it depends on what you
2 believe is in error and what you think needs to be
3 modified. Everything you do, whether you find error or
4 not or you modify, you must do within the constraints of
5 the code.
6 CHAIRMAN BAKER: Right. Butwe're told upfront
7 that regardless of what we think is an error, that the
8 board doesn't have the purview to make a decision based
9 upon things being exempt from the zoning code. So, for
10 example, we're told the turnaround is not something that
11 we can make our decision on so we can't use that as
12 something to modify. We're told that the sewer issue is
13 not something that we can make a decision on; therefore,
14 we can't base any sort of suggested modification on it.
15 So all of the things that rule out us ruling on them
16 also rule out the ability to offer any sort of
17 modification.
18 MR, PARMENTER: Well, I would agree with you that
19 the things that are ruled out you could not apply as a
20 modification.
21 CHAIRMAN BAKER: So then you can tell us what we
22 can modify.
23 MR. PARMENTER: But I —
24 MR. CHRISCHILLES: But wasn't — but wasn't— I'm
25 sorry to interrupt, but wasn't that part of our-- our
nt
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
9-21-1e
184
original powers as they were that we --we had the —
all the — all the powers of Mr. Boothroy, and since he
had the initial power of the decision regarding the
classification of it as single-family residence,
shouldn't we also have — and — and by that
qualification, it— it manipulates — like Larry says,
it manipulates certain things that we can rule on and
that we can't rule on. Don't we have the ability to —
to — to say it's misclassified and therefore open up
other possibilities of modification?
MR. PARMENTER: Well, you do step in the role as
the building official in this case. Your — your code
requires that you do that. If you believe there are
modifications that you can do under the code that are
allowable, then you as a board have the power to do so.
I can't tell you as legal counsel what modifications you
can make. That's a decision this board must make
collectively.
CHAIRMAN BAKER: But you can tell us what
modifications we — what we cannot make because we don't
have the right to use those factors in our decision,
period.
MR. PARMENTER: Right. And — and part of your—
part of your role is to weigh all of the evidence that's
been introduced both by testimony and by documentation
185
1 from all of the parties. You're going to have to
2 determine, based on that, what's relevant. You're a
3 quasi judicial --have quasi-judicial function. You're
4 going to have to determine what you believe the law
5 allows you to do. I'm going to sort of give you a
6 general guideline here in just a minute on — on what
7 you can do.
8 1 can certainly answer questions to — to that
9 later, but it would be inappropriate for me to tell you
10 you can't do this or you can do that. My goal here is
11 to ensure that this process is fair for all parties
12 because at the end of the day, you're the -- essentially
13 the trier of fact. You're the rule — the judges and
14 apply the law that you believe is applicable, and I will
15 assist you with that and I think my — my presentation
16 will be of assistance.
17 CHAIRMAN BAKER: Go ahead, please.
18 MR. PARMENTER: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair,
19 members of the board. My role as legal counsel to this
20 board is to ensure that you understand the role of the
21 Board of Adjustment and understand what you can and
22 cannot do in that role as dictated by Iowa law and the
23 Iowa City Code of Ordinances. My goal is to ensure this
24 appeal is fair -- the appeal is fair— is a fair
25 process to all of the parties and that the board has all
Page 182 to 185
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
IN
IN
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Board of Adjustment
186 1
relevant information it needs in order to rule on this
appeal.
Iowa law, as you know, provides that any person who
has been impacted by a decision of a city officer,
department, board, or bureau has a right to appeal that
decision to the Board of Adjustment. Specifically,
Iowa City Cade of Ordinance provides you, the Board of
Adjustment, that you, the Board of Adjustment, are,
quote, "an avenue for appeal of an administrative
decision regarding the enforcement and implementation of
this title," this title meaning the zoning code.
Iowa city's code of ordinances also provides what
the Board of Adjustment is empowered to do. With regard
to appeals, that power is specifically defined. We've
already -- we've talked about it. You've heard about
that in both of these meetings. You, the Board of
Adjustment, have the power to hear and decide appeals
where its alleged there is an error, any error, in any
order, requirement, decision, or determination made by
the City manager or designee in enforcement of this
title, again, meaning the zoning code, or of any
ordinance adopted pursuant thereto.
In this case the appellant, the neighbors of
Manville Heights Association, has appealed decisions
made by the City — city's Department of Neighborhood
187
and Development Services, NDS. I'll identify and
discuss each of these appealed decisions in turn. To
begin, the appellants have identified three issues that
they are appealing. However, the code -- however, the
City did not conduct a review of a site plan.
Iowa city's code of ordinance exempts single homes —
single-family homes from that requirement under Chapter
18.
Therefore, in my spin there are essentially two
decisions that this — this board needs to -- needs to
decide that were made by the City, and those are the
only two decisions that are before this board for review
or should be. And those decisions are, one,
classification of the proposed structure as a
single-family dwelling and issuance of a building permit
forthe proposed single-family dwelling. I will discuss
each of these issues and the law that you need to
consider as it applies to those issues, but first the
board needs to understand what actions it can and cannot
take.
Iowa city's code of ordinance states that the Board
of Adjustment may, quote, "affirm or, upon finding
error, reverse or modify, wholly or partly, the order,
requirement, decision, or determination appealed from,"
end quote. This means that the board may either, one,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
30
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
9-21-16
188
affirm the decision of the City; or two, find an error
was made, identify that error, and reverse or modify the
city's decision. Please keep this in mind as we discuss
the issues that have been presented by the appellants
for your consideration.
Issue one, the classification of the proposed
structure. We've heard testimony that the City
essentially reviews a building permit application and
any submitted plot plans for a single-family or
two-family dwelling for compliance with the Iowa City
zoning code and the 2015 International Residence Cade.
First, the City identifies the zone in which the
proposed structure is to be located. In this instance,
in this case, the property is located in an RS -5 zone.
That is low density single-family zone and, according to
Iowa City Code of Ordinances, that 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 the residential
neighborhoods, such as parks, schools, religious
189
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. The City also checks to see if there's an
overlay zone. I believe the parties in this case all
agree that there is no overlay zone applicable to this
building site and its proposed construction.
Second, the City checks the use of the property. A
property will have a principal use and may have
accessory uses. Each zone identified in Iowa city's
zoning code identifies principal uses and accessory uses
that are permitted, allowed provisionally and allowed by
special exceptions. If a use is not listed in the zone,
the City must review a series of criteria in order to
classify a use. Once a use is classified, the City then
determines whether that use is compatible with the
purpose of the particular zone. Iowa city's code of
ordinances lists residential uses in an RS -5 zone as a
permitted use. Household living uses are considered
residential uses and include detached single-family
dwellings, detached zero -lot -line dwellings, attached
single-family dwellings, two-family — duplexes, group
households, and multifamily uses, and that's in a table
that you've received.
Page 186 to 189
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
30
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Board of Adjustm
190
Now, some of the terms I've just used are defined
in Iowa city's code of ordinances. Those are things
you're going to want to look at for definitional
purposes. I'll just highlight a couple of them.
Household living uses. The Iowa City Code of Ordinances
describes the characteristics of this term as, quote,
"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 of time,"
end quote.
Detached single-family dwelling. The code
provides, quote, "farm dwellings, detached single-family
houses, manufactured homes, modular homes, and mobile
homes if converted to real property and taxed as a
site -built dwelling as provided in the Iowa Code as
amended."
Dwelling unit is defined as, quote, "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," end
quote. Iowa city's code of ordinances also permits
certain accessory uses in an RS -5 zone. These permitted
191
accessory uses include, quote, "private recreational
uses, storage buildings, parking for residents'
vehicles," end quote.
Now, we've heard some discussion in this appeal
regarding tailgating, and I just want to reiterate again
for the board that Iowa City does have an ordinance on
tailgating, as you know, and let me just briefly walk
through that with you for your consideration.
Tailgating is — is a term that is defined as, quote, "a
home football game day informal social gathering that is
noncommercial and may include eating and drinking
beverages," parenthetically, "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.
Temporary use permits are not required."
Based on these steps, the City determined this
proposed structure was a single-family dwelling and
that — that it was intended to be used as a
single-family dwelling and that the proposed structure
met the dimension and setback requirements set by
Iowa city's code of ordinances for an RS -5 zone.
Obviously the appellants have appealed that decision.
rot 9-21-16
192
1 You are charged with deciding whether the City erred in
2 determining that this house is a single-family
3 residence.
4 As stated before, it's my opinion that if you find
5 that this house meets the definition of a single-family
6 home, that chapter — or Title 18 doesn't apply. It
7 does not require a site plan for single-family homes.
8 And finally, you've been asked to weigh in on the
9 issuance of the building permit. Iowa City Code of
30 Ordinances defines a building permit as, quote,
11 "official certification that a proposed improvement
12 complies with the provisions of this title," again, the
13 zoning code, "and other applicable ordinances. A
14 building permit is required for new construction,
15 demolition, and for alteration or additions to existing
16 structures prior to commencement of construction or
17 demolition."
18 Therefore, if the requirements of the applicable
19 sections of the Iowa City Code of Ordinances and any
20 other applicable law, such as the residential building
21 codes are met, the City does not have the discretion to
22 deny the building permit. In this case the City
23 determined that the proposed construction met the
24 applicable requirements of the Iowa City Code of
25 Ordinances and the International Residence Code and
193
1 issued — and ultimately issued the building permit.
2 Obviously the appellants have appealed that decision as
3 well. Again, you are charged with deciding whether the
4 City erred in issuing this building permit.
5 Members of the board, you've heard a voluminous
6 amount of evidence and testimony from the parties. Some
7 of that evidence and testimony may be — obviously is
8 disputed by the parties. Your role as the board, to
9 make this decision you must consider the weight of that
10 evidence and testimony and whether some or all of that
11 evidence is relevant in this matter.
12 1 want to remind you of some procedural reminders.
13 As you know, there are rules and procedures specifically
14 developed for the appeal process in front of — in front
15 of this board, and some of those — and let me just
16 remind you of a couple of those rules. First, any
17 motion with regard to this appeal when you make your
18 decision must be made in the affirmative and approving
19 the requested action. That's under Title 5, Section 10.
20 And second, three members of this board must vote in
21 favor of the motion for it to pass. And this would, of
22 course, apply even though we have one member who has
23 recused herself.
24 With that, I believe that gives — with that as
25 well as the other information that I've given you as far
Page 190 to 193
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
it
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Board of Adjustment 9-21-16
194 1 196
as guidance, legal guidance in this matter, allows you
to weigh all the evidence and make your collective
decision. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Questions?
MR. WEITZEL: We need to have our findings of fact
before we vote?
MR. PARMENTER: What I would recommend — I mean
obviously you all have a tremendous amount of
information to go through and synthesize and consider.
What might make it easier for you, because this is a
fairly complicated decision to make, is to come up with
each of your own written opinions that you can discuss
at a subsequent meeting, but collectively, and then at
some point in time obviously there's going to be a —
there will be a motion. There will be a roll call vote,
and a decision will be made, and then the Board will
have one findings of fact ultimately when it comes to
its conclusion.
MR. CHRISCHILLES: At the very beginning of your
statement, you — you said something about an inclusion
of Iowa law being — Can — can you — It was the very
beginning and I — I don't know —
MR. PARMENTER: Yeah, I was referring to Chapter
414.
MR. CHRISCHILLES: Which is?
195
MR. PARMENTER: We've talked about that. That is
part of the — gives the powers to a Board of Adjustment
under Iowa law.
MR. CHRISCHILLES: So under the powers granted by
Iowa law, does that allow boards of adjustment to
include issues that are required by Iowa law?
MR. PARMENTER: Well, I think — Let me try to
answer it this way, Gene: Chapter 414 of the Iowa Code
allows cities or requires cities to establish a board of
adjustment. This city has done so. So once you've done
that, you need to follow the Iowa law if it's
applicable, and a lot of what the City of Iowa City has
done for its rules for Board of Adjustment mirrors Iowa
law. So when I say Iowa law and Iowa — and the — and
the rules or the law of the City of Iowa City as it
applies to the Board of Adjustment, they're almost
verbatim, if not — if not verbatim.
MR. CHRISCHILLES: Well, not when it comes to the
issue of the sewer issue.
MR. PARMENTER: Correct. Iowa Code does not—
Chapter 414 does not address the sewer issue.
MR. CHRISCHILLES: So you're saying —you're
saying what? That we can't apply — we can't rule on
that by Iowa law?
MR. PARMENTER: I think you have to rule based on
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
30
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Iowa city's code of ordinances.
MR. CHRISCHILLES: Okay. And then you said that --
later on in your argument, you said that —
MR. PARMENTER: Actually, just to clarify the
record, I didn't make an argument—
MR. CHRISCHILLES: 1 mean your statement.
MR. PARMENTER: I wasn't intending to make an
argument.
MR. CHRISCHILLES: Excuse me. I misspoke. Later
on in your statement, you said that if the — the
board — or the people that are making the decision
of — of how — of classification, use classification,
can't decide that it fits any classification, they have
to go through a criteria. What was it, a stepped
criteria evaluation or something. A set of criteria
that — and I don't — Have we ever been given those
or —
MR. PARMENTER: I'm not sure what you're talking
about, Gene. Can you —
MR. CHRISCHILLES: Well, you said that if they
couldn't figure out a classification for a particular
structure that they had to go through a review process
to go — to look at the factors that would allow them to
reclassify that? There's a set of steps they had to go
197
1 MR. PARMENTER: I don't — I don't think I said
2 that in my statement. Maybe —
3 MR. CHRISCHILLES: Well, I —
4 MS. SOGLIN: Can we get a copy of that?
5 MR. PARMENTER: Yeah, you'll get a copy of it.
6 I've made notes on it and I need to clean it up, but 1
7 think that information was brought to you by the
8 parties.
9 MR.CHRISCHILLES: Well, 1—I was just saying
30 that — The point I was trying to get to is I don't
11 think we've been — as a board, I don't think we've ever
12 been given any — any indication or any set of factors
13 that they use when they cannot come up with a -- or when
14 a classification is in doubt.
15 MR. PARMENTER: And that might be a question that
16 might be better addressed by the City, what — what they
17 use, what classifications they use. I don't know that 1
18 have a list.
19 MR. CHRISCHILLES: But you said the list exists.
20 That's what I'm getting at.
21 MS. WALZ: Was that information not provided in
22 144A-1 or 4A-2, classifying uses?
23 MR. WEITZEL: That was provided.
24 MS. SOGLIN: It was an attachment sent during the
25 week that had been referred to at the earlier meeting.
Page 194 to 197
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Board of Adjustment
198 1
MR. CHRISCHILLES: Okay.
MR. PARMENTER: If this board has any questions
about getting access to any Iowa City Code or Iowa Code,
please let me know. I will get that for you.
MS. SOGLIN: I guess could someone just make sure
we have the complete list of definite — definitions? 1
know we've been sent certain documents, but I don't know
if they include all the definitions that we're expected
to consult. I can't remember whether it was excerpts
from it or—
MR. WEITZEL: There was a full set of definitions.
MS. SOGLIN: It was the full set?
MR. WEITZEL: Yeah.
MS. SOGLIN: That— the other attachment.
MR. WEITZEL: That attachment had all — has all of
14-9A-1.
MS. SOGLIN: I — I have an additional question.
You had — We were sent your letter dated
September 121h, and you had attached a memorandum, and
on page 2 of that you were citing the Iowa Code 4 —
414.10 under B, purpose.
MR. PARMENTER: Yes.
MS. SOGLIN: The very last sentence of that is,
"The decisions of the board should serve the public
interest, meet the intent of the title, and be
199
consistent with the comprehensive plan of the City as
amended." Is there any weighting given to those three
different factors where if there are conflicts, one
supersedes the other?
MR. PARMENTER: Yeah, and that's — that's a great
question. That's something that this board's going to
have to weigh and make a decision because there's
conflicts in — in a lot of the evidence and testimony
that you've had. But that's part of the Iowa City Code
and it does say that under B, "The decisions of — "of
the board shall serve the public interest, meet the
intent of the title, and be consistent with the
comprehensive plan of the City as amended:' In other
words, I can't tell you that the public interest is more
or less important than the comprehensive plan. You have
to make that collective decision.
MS. SOGLIN: And there's nothing by law or
precedent that declares one —
MR. PARMENTER: Not that I —
MS. SOGLIN: — supersedes the other.
MR. PARMENTER: Not that I'm aware of.
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Mark, let me quickly wrap this up
here. We're told that the comprehensive plan is
aspirational, not legislative. But I'm hearing now that
the decision of the City has to be consistent with the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
30
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
P41
9-21-16
200
comprehensive plan, or is that a mischaracterization?
MR. PARMENTER: I'm just quoting what the —what
the city code says.
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Okay.
MR. PARMENTER: And so you've got to weigh that.
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Okay. You said we have to find an
error, and I think I asked you the first week an error
of fact? Can there be an error of judgment? If we are
to replace the judgment of the city officials, we're
changing their— our judgment for their judgment, so
we're — we would be saying that their judgment — based
upon these objective findings, the conclusion they
reached is what we might disagree with. That's the
error?
MR. PARMENTER: And I think the answer to that is
yes. You have to weigh, again, all the information
you've received. You're going to place yourselves in
the shoes of the building department and determine
whether the building department followed its own code.
If in your judgment you find that they have erred,
whether its based on facts you've received, your
interpretation of the code, then you — if you find
error, then that would be the decision you would make.
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Okay. I know that this is not the
same thing as a variance or a special exception, which
201
1 we handle on a routine basis here, but in that process,
2 we're presented with a staff report, a findings of fact,
3 and we have often disagreed and overruled the staff
4 recommendation. That's not a — that's not a decision
5 yet on their part because we have to approve it. It's
6 our decision, but the facts they present we simply say
7 are not true.
8 For example, one of the factors that we use in
9 valuation, special exceptions, and variances is impact
10 on the neighborhood, impact on the neighboring
11 properties, and the staff will say this has no negative
12 impact. We receive comments from the neighbors and we
13 obviously perceive this is a negative impact, and so we
14 overturn the staffs recommendation based upon what we
15 perceive as an error in judgment of finding of fact.
16 Is there a parallel to the process we're going
17 through here?
18 MR. PARMENTER: I think there is to a certain
19 extent, yes. 1 mean you're -- Again, you're being
20 asked — Listen, there's — It would be unusual in a
21 setting like this where there are facts that are not in
22 controversy, and clearly there are. And so you all have
23 to — You've listened to all of this testimony from all
24 of the parties. You can believe all of it, some of it,
25 or none of it, and then you need to come and use that
Page 198 to 201
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Board of Adjustment
202
information to come up ultimately with your— your
decision. But I think — I think the analogy is very
similar.
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Okay. And the statement you just
read we'll have copies of, right?
MR. PARMENTER: Well, I'm going to — I've got
some chicken scratches on it, but I will — I will clean
that up and I will get that to the — to Sarah to
distribute to the board.
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Okay. Any other questions from
the board to the counsel? Okay, we're going to adjourn
this meeting, but we're going to adjourn after we decide
when we're going to meet again —
MS. WALZ: Can I clarify one thing first?
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Yes. I'm sorry.
MS. WALZ: Because it has been a long evening. I
just want to clarify whether the public hearing is
closed.
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Yes, I'm sorry.
MS. WALZ: Because before you defer, I — I think
it's important to know whether you're deferring just to
have your discussion and your decision or whether there
is any need to get any more information from anyone,
other than what — other than maybe things that have
been presented tonight that you have asked for copies of
203
or the statement from Mark.
CHAIRMAN BAKER: I just lapped my gavel. The
public hearing is closed. We will not open it again.
MS. WALZ: All right.
CHAIRMAN BAKER: We will adjourn to meet again
for — for a decision, at which time we will make the —
we will begin by making the motion in the affirmative
and then present our findings of fact and our individual
decisions. Now, we need to decide on a date that works
for everybody. I would start with — by suggesting next
Friday, the 30th, late afternoon, four to five o'clock.
MS. SOGLIN: Not this Friday, but the 30th?
CHAIRMAN BAKER: I'm not going to be ready to make
a decision day after tomorrow.
MR. CHRISCHILLES: It would have to be later in the
day on the 301h.
CHAIRMAN BAKER: As how late?
MR. CHRISCHILLES: Six or—
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Six?
MR. CHRISCHILLES: Six or six -thirty.
CHAIRMAN BAKER: I — I foresee a short meeting.
MR. PARMENTER: You're talking Friday, the 30th?
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Friday, the 30th.
MR. PARMENTER: If it matters, I'm available.
CHAIRMAN BAKER: All right. Jim, are you
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
9-21-16
204
available? Friday, the 30th? Six o'clock in the
evening? Okay. Once again, we're not going to ask for
your input. We are going to issue our statements. You
can be here if you want to.
MR. CHRISCHILLES: Can we make it six -thirty, then?
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Yes. We'll do six -thirty Friday,
the 30th. Does that work okay with the rest of you all?
MR. WEITZEL: Yes.
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Staff will have the room,
everything set. Once again, thank all of you very, very
much. Staff, Jim, Mr. Fagan, everybody.
MS. WALZ: So can I just remind you before you make
the motion to adjourn —
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Yeah.
MS. WALZ: — about ex parte communication —
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Oh, yeah. We —
MS. WALZ: —which would — no one should contact
you, you should not contact anyone, staff. You should
not have any discussion.
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Make sure the public understands.
We do not make this decision together. We individually,
without talking to each other— Now there's a
possibility that when we get here and announce where
we're going and what we perceive as facts, somebody —
another board member may introduce a factor that would
205
1 cause us to change our mind, but I'm assuming we're all
2 basically set individually, without discussion with you
3 or us, to issue a finding Friday, the 30th, at
4 six -thirty. Don't call us.
5 MS. SOGLIN: Can I — Are we going to have a
6 chance to discuss what —
7 CHAIRMAN BAKER: After we make the motion, you --
8 we'll --
9 MS. SOGLIN: Only after the motion is made.
10 CHAIRMAN BAKER: After the motion is made we will
11 discuss. And again, we're not going to make the motion
12 and vote right then. We will discuss all you want to,
13 but we are going to vote that night. Thank you very
14 much. We are adjourned until September the 30th at
15 six -thirty.
16 (Meeting adjourned at 11:30 p.m.)
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 202 to 205
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
30
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Board of Adjustment
206
CERTIFICATE
I, Julie M. Kluber, Certified Shorthand Reporter in
the State of Iowa, do hereby certify that I was
authorized to and did transcribe in shorthand the above
and foregoing proceedings from a digital audio
recording; that said shorthand notes were reduced to
computer-aided transcription under my direction and
supervision; that the foregoing 205 pages are a full and
correct transcript of the shorthand notes so taken, to
the best of my ability under the situation presented;
that I am a disinterested person to the said action.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereupon set my hand
this 1st day of November, 2016.
Certified Shorthand Reporter
9-21-16
Page 206 to 206
'40s [t] - 90:18
'50s ill - 90:22
'60s [9 - 90:22
'70s [11- 90:22
1 [51- 7:2, 7:16, 8:3,
35:15, 104:4
10 [5) - 20:14, 46:1,
46:3, 55:25, 193:20
100 [3] - 20:18, 21:17,
62:25
101[141-2:7,43:11,
49:10, 50:24, 51:6,
54:1, 60:23, 72:25,
75:24, 90:3, 96:3,
103:19, 123:15,
123:19
10th It] - 53:4
11 111- 49:17
111 [3] - 65:2, 123:15,
148:9
1131 111- 123: 10
117 [1]- 123:15
11:30 [2]- 1:3, 205:17
12 [1] - 23:7
12 -point [11- 52:11
12th [1]- 198:20
13 [1l - 124:20
138(9-70:8
14-4A 19 - 68:4
14-4A-1 [t]- 197:23
14-4A-2 [t] -111:17
14-4A-2.A[t] - 108:14
14.9A-1 ill - 198:17
14-A2 (11-108:2
15[1]-31:19
15 -minute 111- 64:15
150 [Is]- 7:9, 9:7,
44:20, 98:9, 130:13,
130:25, 131:4,
131:8, 147:9,
178:10,178:15,
178:20,180:10
1500 [21- 131:17,
131:19
156151- 7:11, 44:2,
44:22, 178:10,
178:13
1564 [1]- 133:13
1684 [11- 132:22
15th 19 - 43:24
16[31-106:9,116:1,
124:22
16,8 ry]-37:1
16,800 [t] - 29:12
16 -foot -wide [21-
179:19, 181:20
1600 [1] - 131:18
17 [11- 52:9
17th 111- 73:9
18141- 19:3, 107:25,
187:9, 192:7
18's 111-117:25
18 -inch [11- 46:4
1917 [9 - 25:5
1920s 121- 158:23,
180:13
1949 [1l - 90:14
1950 [1] - 90:19
1974 (1] - 60:17
197512] - 90:23, 90:24
1977 [1]- 103:25
1993 111- 94:18
1A121-9:12,9:23
1st19-206:13
2 (61- 7:17, 8:4,
108:24,109:10,
110:4,198:21
2,000 [21-134:10
2,250 (21-132:18,
133:6
20 [3] - 37:7, 45:12,
133:13
20,000 (141- 18:15,
29:13, 29:14, 29:16,
36:8, 36:13, 36:14,
36:15, 36:25, 37:5,
37:11, 37:12,140:12
20 -some [2] - 77:20,
180:20
200 [8]- 23:17, 43:7,
51:8, 51:14, 62:25,
119:8, 119:13,
156:24
2008 (1] - 104:5
2010 [9 - 91:6
2013 [21- 59:8,123:19
2014 [21- 71:10, 82:22
2015 [81- 44:19,
68:24, 70:9, 70:10,
107:15, 114:4,
117:4, 188:12
2016 [31- 1:3, 69:6,
206:13
205 [11- 206:8
209 [1) - 60:17
21 19 - 1:3
22111- 18:4
2250 131- 47:16,
133:17, 134:10
234 ill - 79:15
24 [t] - 125:17
244 (1l - 59:2
Board of Adjustment
9-21-16
25121-19:21,66:13
6
270 [1]- 76:10
29[11-179:2
61219-43:6
64 [11- 144:5
1 -2 1 6:30[11-1:3
19:21, 35:5, 35:7,
35:9, 38:19, 135:15
30 121-144:22, 156:25
300 ill- 160:19
30th [9]- 203:12,
203:13, 203:17,
203:23, 203:24,
204:2, 204:8, 205:4,
205:15
311 [3] - 19:6, 35:18,
35:24
319.286-1717111-
1:24
321 (21- 90:10, 139:19
323 121- 140:25,
141:14
35 121-105:9,133:16
3515 [1] - 1:23
37 [t) - 76:25
4
4 (41- 8:14, 9:13,
19:20,198:21
40 [6] -19:21, 19:22,
46:1, 59:3,139:21,
144:25
400 [3] - 47:15, 130:1
132:23
414 [3] - 194:25,
195:9, 195:22
414.10 [11- 198:22
45 -degree [1]- 20:19
48 I1] - 46:3
4A-2 [11- 197:23
5[3] - 44:23, 55:25,
193:20
50 [7] - 22:21, 23:8,
24:19, 32:18, 51:4,
138:11
50-5011] - 79:19
50 -toot 181- 16:11,
16:15, 22:20, 24:10,
24:23, 28:9, 30:18,
31:2
50 -something [11-
121:17
503.2.5 [11- 130:12
52402 [ll -1:23
5th 111- 90:14
7[11-82:20
75 [1] - 62:25
750 (11- 133:1
7500 -square -foot [1) -
50:4
78 -year-old [2] -
91:20, 94:12
79 111- 113:16
8 [2] - 55:25
8,000 [t] - 25:1
800 [11-125:20
866-412.4766 (11-
1:24
87111- 94:10
87 -year-old [2) -
91:19, 94:12
9
90121- 94:10, 181:17
90 -year-old [ll - 91:20
96 -foot 11]- 47:2
A
a.m [21- 55:25
abandon [21- 138:4,
160:25
ABC [4] - 43:21,
67:10, 143:22, 144:5
abide [t] - 144:12
abided 19 - 143:2
ability [6] - 161:23,
179:23,182:25,
183:17,184:9,
206:10
able [71- 2:17, 79:22,
79:23, 94:12, 123:3,
124:8, 152:17
absence [3] - 70:23,
75:2
absent [1] - 1:8
absolutely [9]- 27:1,
42:21, 67:15, 87:5,
101:19, 107:11,
156:11, 165:5,
167:13
absorb 131- 4:2, 7:24,
8:17
abutting [1] -168:10
accept 19 - 182:22
accepted [1]- 104:2
access [8]- 93:4,
130:10,130:13.
160:17,161:22,
161:23, 182:9, 198:4
accessible [2]- 93:20,
94:14
accessory [231-10:9,
10:15, 12:20,12:22,
59:9, 59:19, 59:22,
60:6, 64:7, 68:11,
107:22,109:19,
122:17,122:18,
135;7,135:11,
135:15,135:19,
135:21,189:12,
189:13, 191:1, 191:2
accommodate 12] -
9:3, 62:14
according [3]- 44:19,
177:1, 188:16
accordingly [1] -
107:23
account 12] - 9:1, 9:11
accountable [1] -
138:10
accumulation [11-
87:19
accurate [21- 9:1,
106:10
accusations 11] -
108:12
accused [11- 150:7
achieve [2] - 47:1,
124:17
Ackerman [3] - 72:8,
72:9, 72:12
Ackermans [1] - 148:9
acknowledge [21-
60:10, 146:7
acknowledged [1] -
67:24
acquire [1]- 46:20
acquisition [3] - 47:8,
48:19, 48:20
acre [1]- 23:17
acreage [1]- 23:17
acres [4] - 19:12,
23:16, 23:19, 24:18
acted [11- 64:1
acting [21-17:1,
157:5
action [3] - 17:1,
193:20, 206:11
actions 12] - 49:3,
187:20
active [1] - 5:8
actively h1- 124:19
activities [161- 18:17,
36:7, 37:3, 38:20,
52:23, 104:22,
108:15, 109:23,
110:2, 118:14,
118:17, 122:19,
140:13, 143:7,
191:14
activity [7] - 20:3,
42:7, 59:24, 108:25,
109:11, 110:22,
139:22
actual [a] - 11:13,
28:14, 66:4, 66:10,
69:7, 103:2
adamant [21- 32:17,
97:3
adapted [2] - 108:21,
108:22
add [6] - 10:2, 87:12,
92:8, 93:24, 167:4,
181:10
added 141- 76:18,
97:7, 170:20, 180:2
addition 151- 4:17,
51:13, 88:20, 108:2,
173:7
additional [la] - 37:2,
46:4, 46:21, 51:9,
51:14, 52:16, 54:11,
89:7, 98:19, 99:10,
129:9, 133:1,
135:25, 173:21,
173:22, 181:7,
198:18
additions i1] - 192:16
add ress (16] -16:2,
17:19, 28:18, 49:12,
67:22, 88:1, 113:19,
117:2, 122:5.124:3.
130:1, 130:2.130:3,
137:4, 164:17,
175:13, 182:20,
195:22
addressed 1141-16:3,
26:24, 27:11, 27:13,
27:20, 28:7, 74:23,
105:22, 106:12,
113:22, 127:3,
129:15, 140:23,
197:17
addresses [1] -
128:16
addressing [4] -
73:21, 95:19, 100:3,
138:20
adhere [1] - 75:22
adherence [1] - 76:2
adjacent [7] - 16:16,
20:15, 23:21, 25:7,
27:17, 28:6, 71:9
adjoining 131- 37:17,
154:12, 190:21
adjourn Is] - 3:23,
202:12, 202:13,
203:6, 204:14
adjourned [21-
205:15, 205:17
ADJUSTMENT[11-
1:2
adjustment [21-
195:6, 195:11
Adjustment [211-
10:24, 43:13, 49:2,
49:14, 59:7, 75:6,
76:25,114:2,
148:21, 149:25,
151:23,185:22,
186:7, 186:9,
186:14,186:18,
187:23,195:3,
195:14,195:17
administration 111-
67:2
administrative 121 -
165:6, 186:10
admission [1]-
191:17
adopt [11- 113:8
adopted 141- 6:21,
70:9, 178:19, 186:23
adopts 121- 9:17,
153:23
adult 121- 92:14,
104:19
adults i11- 93:7
advance [3] - 109:2,
179:15, 180:11
advanced 111- 108:11
adversarial (1i - 87:22
adverse 141- 65:6,
85:23, 85:25
adversely [21- 70:24,
146:22
advertise [11- 111:18
advertised [21- 76:1,
150:14
advertises [1] -
111:17
advertising 111- 121:9
advice [21- 122:4,
166:11
advised 111- 17:15
advocating [1]-
104:19
AEA [1] - 104:4
aerial 11] - 46:2
affect [31- 15:5,
146:22,149:18
affected 13] - 70:24,
71:4,151:24
affects (31- 32:6,
Board of Adjustment 9-21-16
160:15, 168:6
affidavit (13] -109:15,
120:6, 120:10,
120:17, 120:22,
121:25, 122:1,
144:8, 144:12,
144:13, 144:14,
149:20, 174:25
affidavits ill -146:24
affirm [3]-116:17,
187:23, 188:2
affirmed [11- 67:7
affirms [11- 47:18
affluent [11- 61:18
afternoon [1] - 203:12
age [t] - 79:18
Agency i11- 104:4
agents i9 - 29:2
ages [+I - 49:18
aging (1] - 94:16
ago [41- 50:21, 59:3,
79:15, 127:13
agree if 1] - 32:21,
60:24, 71:7, 103:20,
115:25, 119:23,
120:22, 150:11,
154:20, 183:19,
189:8
agreed [31- 46:23,
166:6, 166:12
agreeing [11- 144:10
agreement [61- 26:16,
70:5, 86:2,147:25,
154:19, 166:7
ahead (51- 36:3,
126:9, 152:12,
153:5,185:18
aided [71- 206:7
aimed [11- 85:1
airport (11- 91:15
AI [2] - 71:18, 72:1
alarmed [1] - 73:13
alcohol it] -191:16
alcoholic [1] - 191:13
alert [1] - 4:12
Ail -American [11-
90:18
allegations [4]-
104:16, 116:10,
116:12, 119:6
allege ill - 111:7
alleged ill - 186:19
alleging i1] - 2:7
Allen [21-127:5,
127:9
alleviate [1] - 97:6
allots [11-109:14
allow [12] - 8:19,
14:19, 32:22, 50:1,
54:6, 63:14, 70:6,
71:6, 88:1, 188:22,
195:6, 196:24
allowable 111-184:16
allowed [151- 8:22,
20:5, 34:5, 46:5,
46:18, 48:15, 74:20,
135:20,149:6.
151:3, 151:4,
178:24, 189:14,
191:16
allowing [1]- 104:22
allows [91- 47:17,
111:5, 113:7, 148:3,
148:13,186:6,
188:24,194:2.
195:10
almost [61- 45:4,
95:13,158:20,
171:22,182:24,
195:17
alone [4] - 8:21, 20:9,
32:3, 154:23
alter [21- 157:17,
157:18
alteration [1] - 192:16
altered 14] - 126:14,
126:23, 139:20
alternate ill - 96:22
ambiguity [5] - 23:4,
114:12,114:13,
169:11, 169:25
ambulance (21-
46:10, 46:11
amenable 121- 98:1,
98:10
amend (31-11:6,
11:23,150:18
amended [41- 167:3,
190:19,199:3,
199:14
amendment [41- 6:10,
6:20, 68:18, 75:16
amendments 131-
47:4, 84:13, 147:7
American [21- 90:18,
145:7
amount [5] - 109:10,
127:7,149:1. 193:7,
194:9
ample 121- 93:6,133:6
analogies [11-146:12
analogy [1] - 202:3
analysis (211- 10:11,
10:13, 11:17, 11:18,
11:19, 27:19, 32:10,
68:4, 75:10, 83:24,
84:4, 106:20, 108:2,
108:6, 108:8,
114:18, 130:11,
131:16,150:25,
172:9
ancientl0 - 143:18
Anne [6] - 1:13, 5:16,
65:1, 123:21,
123:23, 148:8
announce [11- 204:24
announced [2]- 3:24,
67:10
announcement [1)-
67:13
answer [1o] - 6:15,
32:17, 81:5, 90:5,
157:15,169:16,
171:3, 185:9,195:9,
200:16
answered 15] - 63:23,
79:5,121:1, 129:17,
159:24
answering [1] - 36:5
answers 121-166:4,
169:21
anticipate [11- 95:20
anticipated [4] - 69:9,
106:20,106:25,
131:1
anvil [31- 7:19, 8:13,
8:15
anvil -shaped 111-
7:19
anyway [1] -126:18
anyways [1] - 144:6
apologies [11-125:25
apologize [2]- 15:16,
38:16
app [1i - 102:15
apparatus [61-
130:10, 130:13,
131:10,131:19,
133:5
apparent[21- 83:13,
169:12
appeal [1e] - 2:3, 2:4,
5:10, 5:21, 106:12,
108:10,142:16,
146:23,185:25,
186:3, 186:6,
186:10, 191:5,
193:15,193:18
appealable [1] - 88:14
appealed [sl - 186:25,
187:3, 187:25,
192:1, 193:3
appealing [1i -187:5
appeals [2] - 186:15,
186:18
appear [3] - 4:25,
28:22, 29:3
appearance (4) -
72:17, 75:2, 85:7,
111:6
appeared [31- 125:25,
126:2, 167:18
appellant till -2:14,
2:22, 3:4, 3:8, 87:4,
88:3, 101:16,
102:16, 123:5,
125:4, 186:24
appellants 1231- 4:13,
5:5, 102:11, 108:5,
108:10, 109:1,
109:10, 109:23,
110:4, 110:5,
110:22, 112:8,
114:19, 114:21,
120:4,125:18,
150:12, 162:10,
164:9, 187:4, 188:5,
192:1, 193:3
Appellants 141- 95:17,
108:9, 111:19,
118:23
appellants' [to] - 9:12,
88:24, 89:4, 101:8,
107:24, 111:9,
114:25, 118:12,
125:6, 155:10
Appellants' 11] - 88:12
appendix [4] - 7:5,
7:6, 132:15
Appendix [4] - 7:6,
9:15, 9:17, 82:20
applicability [21-
25:19, 140:1
applicable 1151- 76:7,
105:21, 106:23,
107:17, 108:8,
114:7, 114:17,
164:19, 185:15,
189:8,192:14,
192:19,192:21,
192:25,195:13
applicant [33] - 2:14,
2:23, 3:5, 3:8, 3:13,
14:20, 32:24, 40:13,
40:19, 42:1, 42:12,
88:1, 98:21, 98:22,
98:23, 99:7, 99:8,
99:11, 99:12,
102:14,123:4,
123:7, 125:4, 125:6,
140:4, 140:6, 147:1,
152:1, 164:8,
167:21, 173:6
applicant's 141- 3:6,
26:3, 59:14, 140:3
applicants [sl - 75:15,
89:8,125:16,
165:15,165:25
Applicants 111-115:9
applicants' 111- 40:9
application [201-16:8,
29:23, 30:1, 30:2,
32:23, 32:25, 42:5,
48:23, 68:19, 75:24,
88:21, 89:11, 101:4,
101:5, 101:21,
150:5, 165:22,
172:18, 172:19,
188:9
applications [1] - 2:10
applied [51- 39:15,
89:15, 129:23,
155:11, 168:12
applies [5] - 37:18,
84:21,140:20,
187:19, 195:17
apply 1211- 7:8, 18:8,
18:21, 18:24, 58:11,
101:17, 114:4,
116:24, 146:13,
146:25, 147:4,
147:18, 152:2,
154:7,164:4.
183:20,185:15,
192:7, 193:23,
195:24
applying [41- 24:8,
71:24, 85:24,106:9
appreciate [71- 77:1,
88:8.115:13,
115:19,123:12,
146:5, 152:25
appreciated [1] -
64:12
approach [3] - 6:5,
8:15, 32:13
approached [2]- 67:8,
110:9
appropriate Is] -
61:19, 62:12, 63:15,
114:11, 182:1
approval [s] - 2:9,
28:13, 28:16, 44:8,
101:14
approve [s] - 69:19,
73:4, 84:19, 106:2,
118:7, 143:25,
158:16, 201:6
approved lie] - 28:14,
43:11, 44:17, 63:18,
69:22, 71:5, 74:7,
106:6, 131:1, 144:1,
149:3, 151:11,
151:17, 170:10,
171:20,171:21,
171:25, 172:1
approving f41- 48:12,
48:22,151:15,
193:19
April Ill - 69:6
Board of Adjustment 9-21-16
apropos [21- 5:1,
97:18
arbitrary [3] - 64:1,
89:5, 114:25
architectural [21-
107:13,110:15
architecture [sl -
33:19, 81:1, 81:11,
81:12, 81:14, 81:15
archived Ill - 59:7
area 1641- 13:11,
16:24, 17:5, 17:8,
18:16, 18:18, 22:19,
22:20, 22:23, 23:8,
23:10, 23:15, 23:18,
23:22, 24:16, 24:18,
26:5, 27:18, 33:24,
36:12, 38:22, 40:21,
52:15, 52:24, 84:11,
91:7, 91:16, 91:17,
91:19, 92:11, 92:21,
93:3, 93:9, 93:14,
93:15, 94:2, 94:7,
94:23, 94:24,98:23,
99:8, 101:3, 101:20,
102:23, 103:4,
109:11, 109:17,
110:2, 124:15,
127:10, 137:12,
139:10, 139:16,
142:6, 151:8,
151:24, 168:12,
168:15, 168:16,
168:17, 170:20,
175:9, 179:25
Area [11- 104:3
areas 1441- 18:19,
19:2, 19:10, 19:15,
22:6, 22:8, 23:14,
23:24, 24:6, 25:23,
25:25, 26:1, 26:4,
26:9, 28:5, 30:9,
30:14, 37:9, 38:21,
38:25, 39:13, 39:23,
40:6, 40:8, 40:11,
41:2, 42:14, 47:22,
88:18, 99:13,
111:16, 126:14,
126:15, 127:3,
127:12, 141:2,
141:15, 141:25,
153:21, 168:13,
169:20
arena 111- 138:4
Arena ll] -51:3
argued [11-10:19
arguing [1] -120:4
argument 1161- 9:10,
13:18, 89:7.100:18,
101:8,101:24,
102:7, 109:2, 109:3,
110:7,112:11.
117:15, 164:11,
196:4,196:6.196:9
arguments [41-11:16,
102:1, 108:11,111:9
Armstrongs [11-
148:10
arranged [t] - 190:11
arrangement [5] -
99:19, 110:5,
110:12,154:22,
182:7
arrive [11- 146:4
article [1] - 26:6
Article [11- 35:15
articulate [1) - 141:5
aside (31- 50:4, 56:21,
62:1
aspect It] - 115:12
aspects [t] - 127:17
aspersions [11-138:2
aspirational [11-
199:25
aspirations 11] -
110:19
assembled 111- 17:23
Assembly [11-153:15
assert [21- 108:5,
136:25
assessing [ll - 29:2
assessment 111- 68:6
assessments [2] -
30:12, 68:9
asset [1] - 47:25
assigned 15]- 11:12,
112:1, 112:3,
112:20, 115:1
assignment [11-
83:25
assist Ill - 185:16
assistance It] -
185:17
Assistant [2) - 72:24,
73:1
assistant [31- 5:17,
125:16,137:19
associated [5] -
27:19, 44:16, 53:2,
59:16, 121:19
Association [2] -
104:7, 186:25
association [e] - 5:21,
66:14,71:18,71:19,
77:12,81:10
assume [7] - 8:9, 8:16,
13:7, 46:24, 61:20,
126:7.148:11
assumed I1] - 31:4
assuming E41- 7:25,
14:18,140:10, 205:2
assumption [2] - 31:3,
163:25
assure 14] - 42:6,
59:20, 75:1.139:4
assured 12] -107:7,
149:21
assuring [1] - 106:22
attach [zl - 129:4,
155:23
attached pl - 92:11,
94:4, 94:13,110:11,
129:11, 189:23,
198:20
attachment [41- 6:22,
197:25,198:16,
198:16
attacks It] - 150:7
attempt [2) - 74:22,
137:3
attempting [t] -
130:21
attend 121- 91:5,
91:14
attended 13) -17:2,
90:21, 90:24
attends Ill - 91:25
attention 131- 147:12,
149:1, 152:7
attorney [9] - 3:17,
5:17, 73:10,112:24,
113:15,123:17,
125:17,137:18,
137:19
Attorney 121- 72:24,
73:1
attorney's [41- 73:17,
85:18, 127:10,166:9
attractive [t] - 50:11
attribute ill - 111:19
audio [21- 1:19, 206:5
authorities [1] - 53:7
authority [41- 103:5,
107:12, 129:4,
148:22
authorized 121- 47:22,
206:4
available [41-158:15,
158:24, 203:25,
204:2
avenue 111-186:10
Avenue 1271- 2:7,
7:10, 8:9, 43:12,
44:1, 44:22, 45:2,
45:11, 49:10, 49:22,
50:24, 51:6, 51:24,
53:1, 54:1, 59:3,
60:17, 60:23, 73:1,
75:24, 79:15, 90:3,
103:19, 123:15,
127:6, 131:17,
132:21
average [1]- 51:4
avoid [5] - 33:15,
33:16, 49:3, 49:6,
85:6
Award If] - 104:6
award Ill - 104:8
awarded It] - 104:6
aware [5] - 77:19,
78:1, 81:4,171:5,
199:22
16:22
backyard 111- 59:5
bad [1] - 143:14
BAKER [185]- 2:2,
12:5, 12:7, 12:10,
12:12,12:17, 14:10,
14:25, 15:3, 38:15,
39:2, 39:4, 39:10,
39:12, 39:17, 40:4,
40:13, 40:18, 40:23,
41:7, 41:22, 41:24,
42:9, 42:22, 42:25,
45:5, 49:11, 49:15,
57:15, 57:25, 58:4,
58:6, 60:14, 64:14,
64:20, 64:23, 77:2,
77:5, 77:8, 77:24,
81:22, 81:24, 82:4,
82:25, 83:3, 84:22,
85:16, 87:3, 97:22,
98:6, 98:15, 99:14,
100:12, 101:15,
101:23, 102:12,
103:10,103:14,
103:17,105:13,
105:16,117:1,
117:24,120:15,
120:21, 120:25,
121:4, 121:13,
121:22, 122:17,
122:24,123:2.
123:25, 124:3,
125:2, 125:12,
126:5, 126:9,
126:18, 131:24,
132:8, 132:12,
133:9, 133:20,
133:23, 134:2,
134:5,134:12,
134:20,134:22,
135:1, 135:3,136:3,
136:10,138:24,
139:3, 139:6,142:7.
152:9, 152:12,
152:16, 153:4,
159:7,159:13,
159:18, 159:22,
162:2,162:9,
162:16,163:3,
164:12,164:14,
168:1, 169:4,
169:24,170:3,
170:5, 170:15,
170:21, 170:24,
171:9,171:13,
172:6.172:10,
172:13,172:16,
172:23,173:3.
173:12,173:15,
173:25,174:7,
174:12,174:17,
174:20,174:23,
175:2, 175:14,
175:18,175:21,
176:12,176:16,
176:23,177:1,
177:5,177:17,
177:21.177:25,
178:2, 178:4,
180:22.181:1,
181:15,181:22,
182:5.182:13,
182:16,183:7.
183:22,184:20,
185:18,194:5.
199:23, 200:5,
200:7, 200:25,
202:5, 202:11,
202:16, 202:20,
203:3, 203:6,
203:14, 203:18,
203:20, 203:22,
203:24, 204:1,
204:7, 204:10,
204:15, 204:17,
204:21, 205:8,
205:11
Baker It] - 1:7
ball (1] - 93:8
Ballard (tl - 82:21
banded 121- 77:18,
80:20
barricade It] - 56:11
barricading [11-
56:17
bars Ill - 62:16
base 121- 95:3, 183:15
based [26] - 16:9,
26:14, 28:21, 30:16,
51:22, 63:14, 75:11,
75:22, 83:6, 88:25,
106:23,107:13,
111:16, 119:12,
137:12, 153:13,
166:11, 173:19,
Board of Adjustment 9-21-16
175:5, 183:9,185:3,
19120, 196:1,
200:12, 200:22,
201:15
basic [3] - 43:22,
151:1, 175:2
basing [31-101:24,
102:5,102:7
basis 141- 17:21,
149:11, 190:12,
201:2
basketball [31- 52:4,
95:1, 176:12
bath (2] - 92:17,
108:19
bathroom Ito] - 73:24,
74:16, 74:18, 92:11,
92:15, 94:14, 94:25,
110:13,172:1, 175:8
bathrooms (13] -
65:23, 66:3, 66:4,
93:18, 97:1, 129:16,
170:8,171:11,
171:21, 175:15,
175:22.176:11,
176:13
baths Ill - 93:19
battalion 111- 133:4
Bayard Is] - 43:6,
51:17, 51:24, 57:6,
132:24, 156:2
beautiful [1] - 47:11
became [21- 69:11,
143:23
Becky 121-1:7,
177:21
Becky's (11-159:24
become 14] -15:13,
121:18, 122:20,
145:10
becomes [1] - 33:25
becoming ill -131:5
bed i31- 13:11, 95:7,
120:23
bedrock 111- 32:8
bedroom Is] - 92:17,
94:8, 94:13, 94:16,
94:19,108:19,
110:12,176:9.
175:22
bedrooms ]6] - 92:14,
92:15, 94:19,
109:19, 129:15,
175:15
beds [2] - 13:12, 92:10
BEFELER [10] - 79:10,
79:14, 80:5, 80:8,
80:14, 80:16, 80:19,
81:2, 81:13, 81:18
Befeler is] - 1:13,
10:3, 51:8, 75:12,
79:14, 109:13
Befelor's Ill - 11:8
begin [s] - 15:19,
64:25, 172:19,
187:4, 203:8
beginning [a] - 35:8,
36:5, 45:13, 141:17,
169:10, 169:13,
194:20, 194:23
begins It]- 141:19
behalf [41- 72:23,
81:10, 116:14, 130:8
behavior (4] - 52:17,
53:18,104:13,
104:17
belabor ll] - 129:18
belief 121- 83:25,
151:22
below [41- 20:9,
23:21, 24:20, 94:3
bench (3) - 5:25,
93:11, 94:7
bend [t] - 156:1
benefit(i]- 163:8
best (61- 50:14, 53:18,
93:12,149:18,
150:17, 206:10
better (3] - 92:13,
137:1, 197:17
between [91 - 24:16,
42:12, 81:25, 93:14,
95:2, 120:16,
134:10,174:24,
176:18
beverages If] -
191:13
beyond [5] - 38:7,
38:8, 38:9, 48:18,
60:9
bias [to] - 67:4, 72:17,
75:2, 75:3, 85:6,
85:7, 86:17,150:6
biased It] - 83:11
big 141- 31:23, 44:10,
58:13, 80:1
Bill [3] - 72:8, 72:12
billed It] - 115:22
binary I1] - 10:20
birthdays It] - 92:4
bit lel- 96:25,126:18,
127:6, 164:24,
165:19, 170:20
black [1] - 125:24
blacken It] -125:21
blackened [2] -
125:19, 126:3
blah [31- 37:4
blatant It] - 62:1
block Ill -60:18
blocked [4] - 23:5,
96:3, 96:13, 96:21
bluff [41- 25:2, 25:6,
25:12, 33:18
board fail - 2:15, 3:15,
4:1,4:3,4:12,5:11,
6:17, 6:25,10:7,
15:18, 27:15, 47:17,
51:12, 53:20, 53:21,
53:22, 54:12, 69:1,
73:16, 80:24, 88:1,
88:5, 88:13, 88:14,
88:15, 90:3, 95:16,
100:3,105:20,
105:23, 107:8,
108:1,110:15,
110:16,111:4.
111:22,113:1.
116:21.117:16,
117:17,12311,
124:7, 125:14,
125:25, 134:15,
138:21, 145:19,
149:13,149:16,
152:17,152:23,
163:6,164:15,
182:16, 183:9,
184:16, 184:18,
185:20, 185:21,
186:1, 186:6,
187:11, 187:13,
187:20,188:1,
191:7,193:6. 193:9,
193:16.193:21,
195:10,196:12,
197:12,198:3,
198:25, 199:12,
202:10, 202:12,
205:1
BOARD [11-1:2
Board [24] - 10:24,
43:12, 49:2, 49:13,
59:7, 67:20, 70:8,
75:6, 76:24,114:2.
148:21, 149:25,
151:23,185:22,
186:7,186:8, 186:9,
186:14,186:17,
187:22,194:17,
195:3, 195:14,
195:17
Board's 11] - 67:22
board's [3] - 44:24,
108:1, 199:7
boards (1] - 195:6
bond 11] - 95:5
bonded [1] - 78:4
book 121-12:1, 61:22
BOOTHROY [771-
126:10, 126:20,
132:3, 132:6, 132:9,
134:19, 134:25,
135:2, 135:5, 136:5,
136:12, 157:20,
157:24, 158:1,
158:4, 158:7,
158:13, 158:18,
159:9, 159:17,
159:19, 160:2,
160:7, 160:16,
161:4, 161:12,
161:16, 161:21,
162:1, 162:7, 165:1,
165:5, 165:10,
165:12, 165:19,
166:2, 167:1,
167:13, 167:15,
168:7, 168:10,
168:19, 168:24,
169:2, 169:14,
170:2, 170:4,
170:12, 170:17,
170:22, 171:4,
171:10, 172:1,
172:7, 172:11,
172:15, 172:21,
173:1, 173:9,
173:13, 175:13,
176:22, 176:24,
177:4, 177:7,
177:18, 177:24,
178:1, 178:3, 179:9,
179:17, 180:12,
180:24, 181:4,
181:16, 182:2, 182:9
Boothroy (31)- 1:9,
43:20, 53:12, 63:20,
64:8, 65:22, 67:10,
67:17, 67:19, 67:24,
68:2, 68:13, 70:1,
70:7, 70:20, 73:15,
74:19, 75:21, 81:12,
124:21, 142:16,
142:20,143:24,
148:17, 148:22,
151:13, 167:10,
157:15, 164:20,
166:16,184:3
Boothroy's [31-
48:11, 48:13, 56:10,
69:18, 143:3
bootstrap [11- 163:18
bothered p] - 71:16,
71:25
bothers [1] - 74:20
bottom [91-16:15,
22:18, 24:23, 30:13,
31:11, 35:9, 35:10,
35:19, 92:20
boundaries [el -
25:10,139:8
boundary [1] - 25:12
bounds Ell - 31:7
boxed 12] - 18:10,
19:25
boxes 111- 151:5
bravely [11-146:5
break 111- 64:19
breakfast [11- 95:7
breaking 121- 118:23,
119:1
breakout [11-11:11
Brian 131- 1:13, 88:6,
92:8
brief pl - 3:11, 3:17,
4:19, 6:9, 64:22,
105:17,139:1
briefly 131- 125:17,
163:6, 191:8
bring 141- 14:18,
137:11, 147:12,
152:14
bringing 111- 163:15
brings [11- 23:25
broader 12] - 65:20,
129:5
broken [21- 19:4,
19:11
brothers it] - 90:16
brought [91-16:25,
103:7, 151:21,
153:7, 164:24, 197:8
brown 111- 65:3
brush 111- 137:25
bucket 111-137:24
budgets 111- 47:20
buff [1] - 34:4
buffer [411- 16:11,
16:15, 19:25, 20:1,
20:2, 20:5, 22:20,
22:22, 22:24, 24:11,
24:23, 25:9, 25:13,
26:10, 27:19, 28:9,
30:18, 33:25, 34:4,
34:9, 34:10, 34:22,
38:3, 38:7, 38:12,
62:14,127:2,
127:10,127:11,
127:15,139:11.
140:15,168:12,
168:14,168:15,
168:16,168:17
buffers 111-139:9
build [201- 7:22, 25:6,
32:7, 32:14, 32:18,
33:17, 40:19, 47:7,
59:4, 61:10, 81:18,
90:2, 90:7.109:5,
115:24,116:1,
144:2.144:3. 180:16
Board of Adjustment 9-21-16
builder [21- 71:18,
124:23
builders [1] -149:5
building 11391- 2:5,
7:23, 8:11, 8:19,
8:21, 10:8.12:24,
12:25,14:7. 16:8,
28:14, 29:20, 41:25,
42:20, 43:11, 43:17,
43:19, 43:25, 44:9,
44:10, 44:14, 44:16,
44:17, 47:7, 47:18,
48:3, 48:8, 48:12,
48:23, 49:9, 50:4,
59:9, 59:11, 60:1,
60:3, 60:23, 61:24,
62:6, 63:1, 63:12,
63:13, 63:18, 63:19,
63:22, 64:1, 69:16,
70:3, 71:6, 71:15,
73:18, 75:7, 75:23,
81:12, 81:25, 83:5,
84:19, 85:8, 85:24,
88:2,89:11, 101:10,
105:3,106:15.
106:18,106:22,
107:13,107:18,
110:4, 112:10,
114:7, 114:21,
115:11, 116:13,
116:16, 116:18,
118:8,124:11,
124:12,124:18,
128:11, 129:25,
132:10,132:24,
133:16,137:5.
137:6, 137:18,
138:13, 143:25,
146:19, 148:24,
149:15, 150:12,
151:6,151:12,
151:15,151:18,
151:19,151:24,
157:18, 158:1,
158:17, 158:19,
159:8, 159:16,
159:17, 159:20,
159:25.160:13,
160:22,161:9,
162:5,162:25,
163:14, 165:14,
165:22, 165:23,
170:11, 171:7,
172:17, 172:22,
173:16.176:8,
184:13, 187:16,
188:9, 189:9,
192:10, 192:11,
192:15, 192:21,
192:23, 193:2,
193:5, 200:19,
200:20
Building [4]- 70:10,
107:15, 114:5, 117:5
building's [11-128:6
buildings [11-191:3
builds [t] - 38:24
built1211-16:14, 25:5,
49:22, 52:19, 53:6,
54:6, 61:11, 61:12,
61:17, 62:7, 63:15,
78:7, 78:9, 92:10,
94:18, 105:1, 128:6,
128:8, 128:9, 131:4,
190:18
built -In [11- 92:10
bullet [1]- 24:1
bumper 11] - 46:4
bunk [4] - 13:11,
13:12, 92:10
burden [4] - 8:4,
47:20, 48:18, 157:1
bureau [11- 186:6
Burton Ell -144:19
business 141- 32:2,
55:5, 64:16, 96:9
button 111- 125:24
buy [41- 41:8, 41:13,
41:17, 180:16
bypassing it] - 67:18
C
C-3 It] - 35:2
C102.1 131- 131:22,
132:16, 133:22
calculation 111- 31:2
calendar It] - 6:11
cannot [18] -10:4,
43:15, 48:12, 68:14,
75:13, 89:2, 100:22,
112:20, 115:1,
150:12, 150:17,
154:24,164:2,
176:10, 184:21,
185:23, 187:20,
197:14
canopies Ili - 23:8
capacity 14] - 33:22,
82:11, 129:24, 137:6
capricious [31- 64:2,
89:5, 114:25
car [fol - 51:10, 51:23,
52:10, 52:11, 55:14,
57:18, 57:22, 57:23,
94:5, 96:4
cardboard [11 - 45:18
career I1] - 104:5
careful [t] -143:12
carefully I1] - 5:10
Carl Ill - 55:18
CARLSON 191- 89:25,
95:25, 97:3, 97:11,
97:16, 98:3, 98:13,
103:18,105:16
Carlson [491-1:14,
43:7, 45:14, 46:12,
55:19, 66:18, 68:9,
68:14, 68:22, 69:5,
71:11, 71:18, 71:20,
72:4, 72:6, 72:10,
73:3, 73:6, 73:23,
74:4, 74:12, 74:20,
88:7, 89:9, 89:18,
89:25, 97:22, 99:22,
102:15, 103:15,
103:16,103:17,
103:18,105:25,
107:7.108:17,
109:8,113:12.
113:23,114:22,
121:7,144:1. 144:5,
144:25,145:1. 152:1
Carlson's 121- 55:5,
68:16
Carlsons 1421- 7:22,
8:2, 8:11, 8:16,
43:18, 46:22, 49:9,
53:13, 54:4, 54:18,
54:21, 55:13, 61:10,
63:1, 71:3, 72:23,
72:25, 73:19, 89:3,
100:10, 106:3,
108:14, 110:18,
111:10, 111:18,
111:20, 112:10,
112:17, 115:4,
116:15, 118:18,
119:13, 123:16,
143:6, 143:16,
145:7, 154:9,
154:13, 157:11,
159:3, 159:10
Carlsons' [231- 5:18,
16:12, 47:1,47:5,
48:9, 48:19, 48:22,
49:1, 53:2, 55:12,
70:6, 74:24, 76:6,
89:11, 106:25,
110:22, 112:3,
113:3, 114:17,
114:24, 118:13,
144:24, 155:8
Carlton [1] - 55:12
carries 111- 157:1
carry [2] - 61:19,
120:11
carrying [1] - 120:12
cars [l 1] - 51:10,
51:14, 52:6, 52:16,
53:9, 54:11, 56:3,
56:5, 56:18, 58:2,
65:4
Carverlil - 51:3
case [261- 8:6, 9:9,
11:12, 18:20, 20:14,
33:16, 40:15, 42:2,
42:6, 59:18, 84:10,
85:24, 87:15,
102:21, 132:17,
146:17, 151:19,
153:17, 155:16,
160:5, 166:3,
184:13, 186:24,
188:15, 189:7,
192:23
cast It] - 138:2
catch 121- 30:3, 52:5
categories 131- 19:11,
19:18, 167:4
categorized It] -
113:23
category 171-10:17,
23:22, 68:15,
108:16, 109:1,
112:1, 112:4
Catherine 131- 1:12,
5:4, 49:16
causality 111- 86:16
caused ill -173:18
causes [21- 175:10,
176:1
Cedar 121- 1:23, 91:15
celebrate 121- 92:3,
95:8
cellar 131- 93:14,
94:23, 94:24
center [11- 65:24
central [2]- 92:2,
121:10
centrally ill - 91:17
century 111- 47:11
certain is] -10:11,
76:20, 93:10,
109:14,182:23.
184:8, 191:1, 198:8,
201:19
certainly [251- 2:19,
9:24, 14:17, 32:22,
58:16, 64:19, 92:19,
95:24,98:19,
104:21, 111:25,
115:14, 115:18,
117:12, 118:6,
123:2, 123:7, 125:6,
126:1, 126:8,
142:14, 152:23,
164:5, 168:21, 185:9
certificate [31-
117:11, 157:25,
159:13
CERTIFICATE [11-
206:1
certification [1] -
192:12
Certified 121- 206:2,
206:16
certify ry] - 206:3
cetera [e]- 139:23,
141:3,142:1. 142:2
chair[4]- 125:10,
126:8, 183:1, 185:19
chairman [31- 4:10,
84:9, 132:14
CHAIRMAN 11951- 2:2,
12:5, 12:7, 12:10,
12:12, 12:17, 14:10,
14:25, 15:3, 38:15,
39:2, 39:4, 39:10,
39:12, 39:17, 40:4,
40:13, 40:18, 40:23,
41:7, 41:22, 41:24,
42:9, 42:22, 42:25,
45:5, 49:11, 49:15,
57:15, 57:25, 58:4,
58:6, 60:14, 64:14,
64:20, 64:23, 77:2,
77:5, 77:8, 77:24,
81:22, 81:24, 82:4,
82:25, 83:3, 84:22,
85:16, 87:3, 97:22,
98:6, 98:15, 99:14,
100:12, 101:15,
101:23, 102:12,
103:10, 103:14,
103:17, 105:13,
105:16,117:1,
117:24, 120:15,
120:21, 120:25,
121:4,121:13,
121:22, 122:17,
122:24, 123:2,
123:25,124:3,
125:2, 125:12,
126:5, 126:9,
126:18,131:24,
132:8.132:12,
133:9.133:20,
133:23,134:2,
134:5,134:12,
134:20,134:22,
135:1, 135:3.136:3,
136:10,138:24,
139:3, 139:6.142:7.
152:9,152:12,
152:16,153:4.
159:7.159:13,
169:18,159:22,
162:2,162:9,
162:16, 163:3,
164:12,164:14,
Board of Adjustment 9-21-16
168:1, 169:4,
169:24, 170:3,
170:5, 170:15,
170:21, 170:24,
171:9.171:13,
172:6,172:10,
172:13,172:16,
172:23, 173:3,
173:12, 173:15,
173:25, 174:7,
174:12, 174:17,
174:20,174:23,
175:2.175:14,
175:18, 175:21,
176:12, 176:16,
176:23, 177:1,
177:5,177:17,
177:21, 177:25,
178:2.178:4.
180:22, 181:1,
181:15,181:22,
182:5, 182:13,
182:16, 183:7,
183:22, 184:20,
185:18,194;5.
199:23, 200:5,
200:7, 200:25,
202:5, 202:11,
202:16, 202:20,
203:3, 203:6,
203:14, 203:18,
203:20, 203:22,
203:24, 204:1,
204:7, 204:10,
204:15, 204:17,
204:21, 205:8,
205:11
chalk 11] - 52:4
challenge [31-
142:10, 147:23,
148:25
challenged 171-
68:21, 106:19,
124:19, 177:13,
177:14, 177:15
challenges 121- 45:1,
146:17
challenging [11-
140:8
chance [51- 3:14, 4:4,
125:4, 152:15,
153:18, 205:7
change [51- 41:18,
50:71 97:11 175:24,
205:2
changed 141- 83:21,
83:22, 84:3, 159:11
changes [21- 31:24,
140:4
changing 121- 66:9,
200:11
Chapter [41-187:8,
194:24, 195:9,
195:22
chapter It] - 192:7
character 15] - 50:7,
59:13, 59:23, 66:9,
189:5
characteristics [5] -
108:16,109:1,
113:10,113:12.
190:7
charged [6] - 61:1,
86:1, 137:5,191:17,
192:2,193:4
charts It] - 132:4
chased It] - 76:13
chatter 111- 97:6
check 111- 37:5
checking If] -151:5
checklist Ill - 60:10
checkpoints Ill -
86:18
checks [21-189:6,
189:10
chicken [11- 202:8
Chief [t1- 166:14
chief [4]-130:3,
130:7, 133:4, 137:19
child Ell - 90:15
children [2ol - 5:7,
43:6, 49:18, 49:19,
50:9, 50:25, 52:3,
52:8, 52:13, 52:20,
91:1, 91:10, 92:14,
93:7, 93:16, 97:4,
104:17,104:20.
104:23
Chinese It] - 86:3
choice 131- 97:13,
150:11, 155:13
choices [21- 106:3,
155:13
choose [41- 41:18,
88:4, 147:14, 166:12
chosen 111- 106:3
Chris 141-1:12, 55:1,
55:3, 57:20
CHRISCHILLES (751-
33:23, 34:3, 41:1,
41:5, 42:11, 42:16,
42:18, 98:7, 99:4,
100:13,100:24,
101:7, 101:24,
102:9, 118:11,
118:25, 119:3,
119:9,119:15,
119:22.120:2,
120:10,121:25,
122:7, 134:6,134:9,
141:11, 141:16,
152:11, 152:13,
153:2.153:6.
153:11, 154:6,
155:7, 156:9,
156:12,156:17,
157:9, 157:17,
157:23, 157:25,
168:3.158:5,
158:12,159:23,
163:24,166:15,
166:18,168:2,
168:9.168:17,
168:23,169:1.
177:20,179:13,
179:24.183:25,
194:20, 195:1,
195:5, 195:19,
195:23, 196:3,
196:7.196:10,
196:21,197:4,
197:10,197:20,
198:2, 203:16,
203:19, 203:21,
204:6
Chrischilles 111-1:7
Cindy 121-123:14,
124:4
circular[l] - 13:2
circumstances 121-
106:17, 160:9
citation [21- 57:19,
139:19
citations [21- 53:17,
57:17
cited [t] -135:17
cities [4]- 17:15, 85:5,
195:10
citing [31- 35:9,
100:20,198:21
citizen 141- 17:1, 67:9,
67:12, 72:18
citizens 191- 49:20,
54:13, 54:14, 61:21,
76:10,136:25,
142:10,145:16,
151:21
City 12061- 6:21, 9:7,
9:16, 11:14, 11:18,
15:23, 16:1, 17:19,
20:7, 21:2, 21:3,
22:15, 27:6, 27:21,
28:15, 30:2, 40:20,
41:25, 42:6, 42:12,
42:23, 43:21, 44:8,
44:13, 44:14, 44:20,
45:23, 46:20, 47:20,
48:4, 48:13, 49:4,
52:22, 53:16, 53:23,
53:25, 54:2, 54:13,
56:6, 56:26, 57:1,
59:4, 59:8, 59:18,
60:6, 61:14, 63:18,
65:16, 66:20, 67:3,
68:23, 69:3, 70:9,
71:1, 71:4, 71:14,
71:23, 72:24, 73:1,
73:7, 73:11, 74:21,
74:25, 75:22, 76:3,
80:4, 80:7, 80:9,
82:4, 83:24, 84:4,
84:5, 84:17, 84:23,
85:1, 85:18, 86:1,
86:4, 87:12, 88:15,
89:15, 89:17, 90:4,
90:10, 90:13, 90:15,
91:3, 91:6, 91:12,
91:13, 91:15, 91:16,
91:17, 91:23, 95:10,
95:18, 97:24, 98:1,
98:4, 98:18, 99:1,
99:9, 99:16, 99:23,
100:5, 100:10,
100:15, 101:20,
102:14, 104:24,
106:13, 107:7,
108:5, 109:21,
109:23, 110:1,
110:12, 111:12,
112:8, 112:11,
112:17, 112:18,
112:20, 112:22,
113:4,113:7,113:9,
113:24,114:4,
115:5, 115:22,
116:5, 122:12,
122:16, 122:22,
123:10,124:9.
129:13, 131:3,
131:6, 135:24,
137:1, 143:4,144:9.
144:23,145:3.
145:24,145:25,
147:6, 147:24,
149:4, 151:7, 152:6,
153:8, 153:23,
158:23, 161:13,
163:15, 163:21,
178:11, 178:17,
178:21, 178:23,
185:24, 186:8,
186:21, 187:1,
187:6, 187:12,
188:2, 188:8,
188:11, 188:13,
188:17, 189:6,
189:10, 189:16,
189:17, 190:6,
191:7, 191:20,
192:2, 192:10,
192:20, 192:22,
192:23, 192:25,
193:5, 195:13,
195:16,197:17,
198:4, 199:2,
199:10,199:14.
200:1
CIN 121- 1:4, 1:5
City net - 9:18, 10:10,
10:23,10:24. 21:5,
27:6, 39:23, 48:8,
48:10, 48:14, 48:22,
48:24, 48:25, 56:9,
60:8, 61:16, 67:8,
68:4, 68:7, 68:13,
68:15, 68:20, 69:6,
69:7, 69:14, 72:2,
72:3, 72:14, 72:19,
73:8, 73:17, 73:20,
81:25, 83:5, 84:5,
84:12,85:18,89:10,
89:12, 95:11, 106:7,
107:6, 107:25,
109:22,111:21,
112:3, 112:15,
112:24,113:8,
113:9, 115:1, 115:7,
126:16,127:10,
137:18,137:19,
137:20,137:22,
138:20,140:19,
142:11.145:16,
149:18, 150:2,
150:6,150:16,
152:6,156:3.
162:23,166:9,
180:3.186:5,
195:11, 200:4,
200:10
City's 131- 8:7, 9:22,
30:14
city's Iso]- 42:18,
43:8, 49:5, 52:24,
68:20, 70:19, 70:22,
71:2, 86:9, 99:24,
100:20, 102:22,
105:21, 114:10,
114:20, 115:5,
115:12,117:7,
174:24,186:13,
187:1, 187:7,
187:22, 188:4,
189:12,189:19,
190:3.190:25,
191:25,196:2
Civil 111-17:12
civility 121- 138:4,
138:19
claims 111- 13:8
clarification 131-
38:17, 128:18,
Board of Adjustment 9-21-16
130:18
clarified 121- 67:21,
152:19
clarify 171- 98:19,
103:23, 127:19,
130:8,196:6.
202:15, 202:18
class 111- 21:21
classes 111- 33:7
classification 1221-
2:8, 38:25, 47:17,
48:4, 61:15, 61:18,
62:11, 63:21, 68:25,
69:15, 75:16, 81:16,
107:2,114:11,
184:5,187:15,
188:7,196:13,
196:14,196:22,
197:15
classifications 121-
146:25, 197:18
classified 11 1] - 43:15,
60:25, 62:8, 68:15,
69:2, 75:13, 102:1,
150:12,150:21,
161:6,18917
classifies 111- 117:21
Classify 121-116:16,
189:17
classifying 12] -
61:25, 197:23
clause 111- 101:16
clean Isl - 31:21, 77:7,
146:3.197:7, 202:8
cleanup 111- 157:3
clear 1221- 13:3,
26:19, 40:3, 60:21,
60:22, 61:14,61:25,
62:3, 64:5, 74:23,
87:11, 98:25, 99:10,
116:24,118:15,
121:11, 121:12,
131:25, 154:24,
156:15, 158:17,
174:14
cleared 111- 164:16
clearing 111-174:17
clearly 120] -11:2,
43:23, 55:18, 62:4,
65:20, 68:15, 69:8,
69:9, 108:7,108:19,
109:25, 115:6,
117:21, 126:10,
131:12, 133:1,
140:4,167:25,
173:23, 201:23
clerk 111- 18:5
clients 141- 115:18,
115:24, 145:24,
147:23
close Isl - 10:25, 86:6,
91:14, 131:18, 156:4
closed 121- 202:19,
203:4
closely [4] - 30:11,
112:2.112:4,122:10
closer I l l - 91:22
closet 111- 92:17
closing 12] - 80:21,
136:22
CO 121-157:21,
160:14
coat 111- 94:7
coats 111- 93:19
Code 1521- 6:20, 6:22,
6:23, 7:8, 9:15, 9:16,
9:18, 13:21, 16:1,
44:12, 44:13, 44:19,
48:4, 48:7, 62:2,
70:10, 70:11, 75:21,
106:9, 107:15,
114:5, 117:5,
132:16, 147:3,
147:7,147:18,
147;20,149:23,
149:24.151:2,
153:8.153:14,
153:23,153:24,
178:15,180:9.
186:24,186:8,
188:12,188:17,
190:6,190:18,
192:10,192:20,
192:25,193:1,
195:9,195:21,
198:4, 198:21,
199:10
code 11761- 2:10, 7:4,
7:14, 8:24, 9:2, 9:4,
9:6, 9:8, 9:21, 10:10,
10:20, 10:22, 11:2,
11:6, 11:13, 12:12,
12:18, 12:19, 13:7,
17:24, 18:9,18:25,
19:6, 21:7, 26:25,
27:14, 28:20, 28:21,
28:23, 28:25, 29:22,
29:24, 30:5, 30:16,
34:1, 34:19, 39:1,
39:9, 40:22, 41:20,
43:10, 46:19, 47:2,
47:14, 47:24, 48:2,
48:6, 48:10, 48:14,
48:24, 49:5, 59:19,
60:9, 61:2, 61:19,
61:22, 62:8, 63:22,
68:4, 68:7, 68:13,
68:16, 68:18, 68:20,
72:19, 75:16, 76:3,
88:17, 89:12, 89:15,
95:11, 99:7,100:16,
100:20,101:1,
102:5, 102:6, 102:7,
102:17,106:6,
107:6, 107:11,
107:17,107:25,
108:4,108:8.
109:17,111:6,
111:11, 111:15,
112:12, 113:5,
113:6, 113:7,
113:10,113:24.
114:4,114:6.
116:12,117:7.
117:20,118:9.
119:7.122:12,
122:13,122:16,
124:11,129:23,
130:12,130:17,
130:19,131:5.
131:20, 135:9,
135:12, 135:24,
140:23, 141:1,
141:10,141:14,
143:9.146:25.
147:6,147:17,
149:7,149:12,
160:15,150:18,
152:2,154:1,154:2,
164:2,164:7.164:8.
164:21.165:1,
166:21, 167:3,
171:8,171:16,
175:4, 176:2, 176:4,
177:12,177:16,
178:14,178:19,
181:12.183:6.
183:10,184:13,
184:15.186:12,
186:13,186:22,
187:5, 187:7,
187:22, 188:12,
189:13,189:19,
190:3.190:14.
190:25, 191:25,
192:14, 196:2,
200:4, 200:20,
200:23
code's [2] - 29:4,
69:14
code -compliant 121-
47:2, 47:24
codes 1161 - 16:7,
28:4, 32:16, 44:15,
62:13, 63:11, 63:14,
63:18, 76:2,113:19.
151:6, 173:5,
173:19, 176:10,
192:22
coding 111- 29:3
cognizant [1] - 70:20
coin [1]- 120:3
collaborate 11] -
137:14
collaborating 11) -
137:16
collaborative 11] -
138:12
collective [2]- 194:3,
199:17
collectively [21-
184:19,194:14
color 111- 126:4
column [11-134:7
combat 111-149:4
combination [3] -
20:16, 24:4, 46:8
combine 11]-20:20
combined ill - 23:8
comfortable 13] -
38:11, 169:15, 174:4
coming [12]- 17:21,
31:22, 42:4, 51:10,
83:11, 91:8, 91:13,
97:22, 145:18,
148:9, 148:11,
163:22
command [1] - 45:21
commencement 11] -
192:17
comment (11) - 25:15,
30:4, 56:10, 59:18,
77:22, 117:8, 117:9,
121:23, 123:4,
139:25, 167:8
commentary [4]-
130:17, 130:18,
130:20,131:12
comments [24] -
15:16, 16:17, 25:3,
27:6, 29:16, 76:18,
76:24, 77:24, 89:19,
98:19, 103:22,
104:11, 111:19,
115:13, 118:12,
118:13, 118:18,
119:9, 124:13,
125:2, 125:5, 126:6,
126:7, 201:13
commercial [121-
10:21, 41:19, 59:24,
82:7, 82:24, 92:25,
108:20, 108:23,
109:7,110:17,
111:13,136:7
commitment [1] - 8:17
committed [21-
115:20, 116:13
common f31- 13:15,
19:18, 63:12
Board of Adjustment 9-21-16
commonly [1] - 59:16
communication [31-
70:23,104:1, 204:16
communications [1] -
71:2
communities 11] -
17:15
community Lill -
17:2, 57:22, 85:10,
92:6,105:11,
123:12, 128:9,
138:19, 179:21,
180:15
community's (1) -
73:4
comparable 11] -
84:25
comparison [3] -
108:15, 108:25,
109:5
compatible [3] -
59:21, 189:4,189:18
compelled (31-
113:19, 137:4, 138:6
compensate 11] -
34:12
compensation p] -
34:13
competence [21-
137:21, 138:7
competently 11]- 10:4
compiled 11]- 109:13
complained [11 - 74:3
complaint [21- 53:10,
74:13
complaints [11-
107:24
complete 131- 18:3,
70:13.198:7
completely [sl -
28:10, 44:1, 143:1,
151:10,168:13
completes 11] - 94:21
complex 12) - 31:10,
150:19
compliance 1121 -
44:11, 48:11,
106:23,107:6,
115:6, 149:7.149:8.
149:20,149:22,
149:23,151:5,
188:11
compliant [31- 46:20,
47:2, 47:24
complicated [31-
32:9, 177:11,194:12
complied [21- 25:4,
106:13
complies [s] - 13:13,
25:8,115:11, 152:4,
192:13
comply [91- 9:6, 9:8,
13:25, 28:23, 42:7,
48:9.119:6, 151:1,
158:8
complying 131- 16:6,
39:8, 148:1
comports 111- 88:9
composed 111- 66:10
comprehensive 11o] -
53:25, 542, 58:9,
58:12, 58:23, 199:2,
199:14, 199:16,
199:24, 200:2
compromised [11-
43:10
computer 111- 206:7
computer-aided [1] -
206:7
concede 11]- 146:1
concept [21- 39:5,
61:5
conceptually [1]-
85:4
concern 1111- 20:23,
20:25, 25:14, 60:7,
69:8, 78:6,121:14,
127:7, 145:23,
173:18,176:1
concerned 191- 17:1,
44:10, 52:22, 57:2,
60:6, 66:20, 72:21,
73:1, 78:7
concerning [s] -
52:17, 65:10, 65:25,
68:19, 148:17
concerns [131- 5:6,
26:18, 49:20, 61:23,
65:6, 66:7, 70:22,
73:21, 74:23,
121:21, 142:25,
143:1, 152:19
conclude [1] - 139:2
concluded [11- 70:2
conclusion 141- 6:19,
26:14, 194:19,
200:13
conclusions [1] -
25:16
conclusory [2] -
11:18, 113:2
concrete [11- 32:18
condemned ill - 8:1
condition 131- 72:15,
162:12, 162:25
conduct 131- 120:19,
120:20, 187:6
confidence [1] - 86:22
confident [21- 75:8,
169:21
configuration [11-
47:3
configurations it] -
45:19
configured [1] -
110:16
conflict [2] - 10:1,
81:24
conflicted [1] - 86:21
conflicting 111-
102:18
conflicts 121- 199:4,
199:9
conform 111- 58:12
conformance ill -
128:12
conforms [4] - 61:2,
107:1, 107:16, 114:6
confounding ll] -
102:24
confused 121- 52:6,
153:6
confusing [11-102:23
confusion [51- 133:9,
133:20, 174:13,
174:18
congested 12] - 51:15,
52:14
congestion [1] - 54:10
congratulated Ill -
106:21
conjunction [1] - 36:6
connect [21- 83:10,
129:22
connected (2) - 92:17,
160:14
connection (3) -
76:22, 157:12,
157:21
Connie [1] - 1:7
conscience 111- 70:3
consequences 141-
21:20, 22:2, 47:19,
65:6
consequently [1] -
65:14
conservation [3] -
18:18, 38:21, 78:14
conservative Il] -
31:3
consider1201- 16:2,
28:12, 28:17, 30:1,
44:11, 51:12, 76:3,
76:5, 102:15, 113:1,
113:25.134:23,
137:14,141:6.
148:22,151:10,
152:2.187:19,
193:10, 194:10
considerable [21- 8:9
91:6
considerably 111-
92:1
considerate [1] -
87:23
consideration [ill -
28:10, 33:5, 37:16,
39:25,126:25,
130:21, 138:15,
138:16,138:23,
188:6,191:9
considered [11] -
24:7, 27:21, 28:7,
32:23, 32:24, 44:14,
88:15,113:20,
115:11, 136:8,
189:21
considering [4] -
26:11, 112:22,
115:3, 182:23
considers [21- 54:12,
133:18
consistent 121- 49:5,
53:25, 54:1, 109:16,
199:2, 199:13, 200:1
consistently [2] -
111:21, 114:24
consisting 111- 16:11
constant 111- 121:19
consternation [1]-
97:20
constitute [11- 28:15
constitutes 111- 19:12
constrained [1] -
93:10
constraints [21- 4:9,
183:5
constricted 111- 175:4
construction [15]-
34:9, 46:19, 47:10,
47:23, 48:15, 48:16,
70:4, 73:4, 76:3,
107:5.115:10,
189:9, 192:15,
192:17,192:24
Construction [1] -
35:14
consult [2]- 137:7,
198:10
consulted 11] - 73:17
contact [2) - 204:18,
204:19
contacted [21- 53:7,
126:2
contacting I1] - 72:9
contained [21- 24:6,
95:13
containing I21- 23:17,
25:19
contains [11- 190:10
contemplated [11-
109:8
contends [1] - 60:2
contention [11- 18:20
contentious It] -
124:24
context 13] - 16:22,
40:17, 121:8
contiguous 12] -
154:23,156:14
contingent 131- 53:2,
55:12,135:2
continuation 121- 2:3,
3:3
continue 121- 95:17,
150:24
continued 131- 1:17,
67:16, 83:23
CONTINUED [11-1:2
continuing [it - 94:1
contract It] - 134:23
contracts [21 -120:18,
120:20
contrast [11- 71:2
contribute [31- 46:23,
172:14, 188:25
control [5] - 79:23,
115:8,122:20,
129:5,159:13
controls It]- 168:10
controversial [51-
68:22, 74:25, 80:25,
85:8,177:8
controversy 141-
68:25, 84:16,
147:24, 201:23
convenience Ell - 8:2
convenient [t] - 2:25
conventional 11] -
24:14
conventionally it] -
26:23
conversation p] -
24:1, 57:4, 127:25,
141:19, 159:9,
161:1, 169:22
converted Itl - 190:17
convey [21-124:6,
124:7
convinced [il -
105:10
cooking [8] - 70:15,
108:18,113:11,
113:17,128:4,
176:7, 190:11,
190:24
coordinator It] -
137:17
copied [3)- 72:5,
73:9, 73:10
copies M- 15:14,
43:2, 105:19,126:4,
132:2, 202:6, 203:1
copy [9] -11:9, 18:1,
77:3, 77:7, 126:7,
130:15, 130:16,
197:5, 197:6
core [1]- 4:19
cornerlsl - 85:12,
93:17, 123:24,
156:1, 167:23
correct [19] - 27:8,
57:20, 75:7, 77:12,
107:11,133:17,
134:4, 134:11,
139:15, 146:8,
146:9, 146:21,
151:23, 163:25,
174:11,174:19,
176:15, 195:21,
206:9
corrections [11 - 75:9
correctly [141- 84:9,
89:15, 101:25,
112:3, 131:20,
132:23,133:25,
150:22, 151:7,
151:8, 161:6,
171:21, 175:3, 177:2
council [a] -10:23,
48:25, 67:8, 73:20,
84:12,106:7.150:2,
150:16
counsel [8] - 6:9,
11:6, 88:5, 105:20,
154:20, 184:17,
185:20, 202:12
Counsel Ill - 89:21
count [11 - 27:25
counted It] - 23:9
counts [t] - 111:14
County Itl - 5:17
couple [is] - 6:16,
11:23, 13:12, 46:14,
87:5, 90:1, 117:9,
127:13, 127:21,
130:9, 136:19,
142:8, 149:13,
181:10, 190:5,
193:17
course [11-193:23
court [91- 94:2, 94:4,
95:1, 95:3, 95:4,
109:24,154:21,
155:5,159:18
Court M - 49:17,
50:20, 50:21, 51:17,
51:24, 52:12,90:11
courteously i1]-
64:13
Board of Adjustment 9-21-16
courts 121 -109:22,
176:12
courtyard [4] - 93:6,
93:7, 93:20, 94:3
cousins [+l - 92:12
cover If] - 23:8
coverage [1] - 24:19
covered [t] - 19:14
Craig Ell -148:6
CRANDIC [s] - 16:13,
16:16, 30:23,103:3.
124:14
crash 111- 62:16
create 171- 49:24,
54:9, 61:14, 98:11,
130:24,134:10,
188:20
created C/1- 45:18,
61:20, 63:21, 78:15,
139:22, 165:2,
168:17
credible [t] - 109:3
criteria pl - 113:24,
175:23,175:25,
189:16,196:15,
196:16
critical [to] -19:21,
20:16, 20:21, 21:10,
26:20, 27:18, 66:24,
67:18, 76:4, 139:20
criticism [21- 74:22,
138:9
criticize It] - 73:25
cross [11- 50:17
CSR I1]- 1:22
cubbies [+l - 93:19
cubic 111- 31:19
curb Ill - 96:5
curious [tl - 111:7
current [71- 48:14,
76:11, 94:18,100:9,
159:8,166:21, 182:7
cursory I1] - 25:8
customarily [1]-
59:16
customary [11- 59:12
cut [t] -142:4
cutout [11- 96:3
I D I
dad It] - 90:12
daily It] - 149:11
damage 121- 47:21,
48:1
damages I1] - 141:25
dance [2l - 139:24,
140:16
dangerous [4] - 31:12,
52:8, 52:16, 52:23
date Is] -1:18, 2:25,
3:21, 173:10, 203:10
dated [2] - 43:24,
198:19
day-to-day It] -
149:17
daycare [11-189:2
days Ito] -48:1, 51:1,
51:14, 52:16, 67:11,
69:4, 73:23, 74:3,
74:14.143:25,
144:18, 146:2,
149:18
dead 1151- 44:23,
51:25, 52:7,130:4,
130:23.130:25,
131:3,131:7,
178:20,179:19,
179:21, 180:1,180:4
dead-end [12l- 52:7,
130:4,130:23,
130:25, 131:3,
131:7.178:20,
179:21, 180:1,180:4
deadline It] -152:25
deaf Ill - 126:18
deal 1191- 14:19,
18:25,19:1. 20:22,
22:24, 26:19, 30:19,
31:23, 33:9, 34:18,
37:6, 37:14, 41:15,
41:17, 52:22, 67:15,
88:3, 111:16, 128:13
dealing M - 22:10,
26:25, 45:10, 71:24,
88:16,115:16,
179:25
deals 111- 21:8
debates 0] - 80:11
decades I1] - 92:24
decide (it] - 9:7,
41:17.129:14,
150:21, 156:8,
163:13,186:18,
187:12,196:14.
202:13, 203:10
decided 141- 50:19,
153:18, 153:19,
157:11
decides I21- 147:5,
154:21
deciding [3] - 61:1,
192:2,193:4
decision [67] - 2:4,
3:24, 4:1, 4:5, 10:20,
29:20, 43:14, 54:12,
59:8, 61:6, 67:22,
88:9, 88:22, 106:9,
106:22, 108:1,
112:25, 116:16,
116:24,138:14,
142:10, 142:22,
143:3, 143:4,
146:14, 148:20,
151:9, 151:12,
164:10, 166:11,
177:14, 182:20,
182:22, 182:24,
182:25, 183:9,
183:12, 183:14,
184:4, 184:18,
184:22, 186:5,
186:7,186:11,
186:20,187:25,
188:2,188:4. 192:1,
193:3.193:10,
193:19,194:4,
194:12,194:17.
196:12, 199:8,
199:17, 200:1,
200:24,201:5,
201:7, 202:3,
202:23, 203:7,
203:15, 204:22
decisions [151- 5:10,
11:8, 53:23, 53:24,
106:6, 116:22,
137:10, 186:25,
187:3,187:11,
187:13, 187:14,
198:25,199:11,
203:10
declares [11- 199:19
Decorah [6] - 91:12,
91:21, 91:24,104:2,
145:1, 145:16
dedicated [t] - 38:21
dedication 11] - 88:7
deemed [2] - 66:19,
102:8
deep [1] -145:3
deoper [1l - 31:13
deeply [51- 44:10,
66:20, 72:21,
124:15,124:17
defend [31- 112:18,
112:19, 144:24
defer [11- 202:21
deferring 11] - 202:22
define [21- 152:3,
174:9
defined [131-13:4,
19:17, 23:15, 41:2,
126:15,136:4,
139:20,151:25,
153:15,186:15,
190:2, 190:20,
191:10
defines [31- 70:11,
147:19, 192:11
definite [21- 136:3,
198:7
definitely [1] - 145:8
definition 121] - 12:13,
12:14, 12:23, 12:24,
12:25, 13:18, 13:22,
19:13, 23:3, 23:15,
38:5, 39:6, 82:12,
117:6, 128:2,
153:19, 154:1,
154:4, 176:18,
176:21, 192:6
definitional [21-
152:5, 190:4
definitions 17] - 13:16,
23:13, 127:22,
151:1, 198:7, 198:9,
198:12
definitive 121- 89:3,
174:8
deflect [1] - 74:22
degree [21- 93:10,
103:25
deliberation [1]-
138:17
delineate 121- 26:4,
40:10
delivered [11- 146:3
demand 111- 154:16
democracy [ii -
146:12 1-
146:12
demolished (2) -
43:18, 123:20
demolition [21-
192:16, 192:18
demonstrate [1]-
45:1
demonstrative 111-
10:3
denial 111- 86:8
denied 121- 59:4,
112:9
Dennis 151-1:13,
10:3.10:12, 51:7,
79:14
density 151- 2:6,
59:17, 181:23,
181:25, 188:16
Denver [t] - 91:13
deny [51- 59:9, 61:13,
107:12, 111:5,
192:23
Department [31- 17:9,
17:12, 187:1
department [161-
45:2, 45:15, 68:24,
69:8, 69:9, 117:11,
124:19,124:20.
125:22,137:8.
138:11, 142:14,
147:5,186:6.
200:19, 200:20
departments 121 -
137:8, 138:13
depicted [11- 154:18
depicts [1] - 47:5
depriving Ell - 63:16
deputy [3] - 130:3,
130:6.137:19
Deputy 111- 166:14
describe 141- 5:6, 6:4,
61:15, 144:15
described 131- 52:11,
145:20,163:1
describes (4)-112:2,
112:4,145:21, 190:7
description 121- 35:5,
108:15
deserve 121- 63:17,
137:1
deserves 111- 4:3
design 1201- 8:11,
10:19, 60:2, 95:12,
107:5, 107:13,
109:8, 110:14,
112:18,112:19,
112:22,115:3,
115:25,121:14,
129:11, 170:10,
170:19,172:24,
173:1, 176:2
Design 111- 23:24
designated [41-
18:18, 26:1, 33:24,
39:13
designation [2]-
39:14, 39:18
designations 111-
38:23
designed [121- 62:4,
63:4, 93:7, 94:8,
94:14, 94:20, 131:1,
145:20,171:22,
176:24, 189:4
designee It] -186:21
designing 111- 106:4
designs [21-170:7,
170:8
desirable 11]-50:11
desire 111- 95:6
destabilize Ill - 32:6
destroying I1] - 32:2
destruction [11-
47:10
detached [4] - 189:22,
189:23,190:14,
190:15
detail [1l -170:13
detailed Ell - 30:12
determination 191-
Board of Adjustment 9-21-16
69:15, 82:17, 83:2,
89:13,102:3.
155:11, 178:12,
186:20, 187:25
determinations [31-
29:1, 42:2, 137:5
determine 1r6] -
22:16, 25:24, 26:5,
38:24, 40:7, 43:14,
68:3, 75:10, 75:17,
75:25, 83:4, 83:22,
101:10,150:25,
151:19,185:3.
185:5, 200:19
determined ilol-
68:5, 68:8, 68:14,
82:22, 98:7, 174:9,
177:6,191:20,
192:24
determines [1] -
189:18
determining [1] -
192:3
detracts p1- 60:4
developed [1] -
193:15
developer 111- 42:1
development [201-
20:3, 22:9, 22:13,
34:5, 36:7, 36:25,
59:14, 59:17, 60:5,
107:21, 124:10,
127:15,131:7.
131:9, 137:7,
137:17, 141:3,
149:15, 189:6
Development [2]- 2:5,
187:2
devoted 131- 109:11,
109:18, 110:2
diameter 11]- 23:7
dictate [11- 182:8
dictated [2] - 61:20,
185:23
dictates Ell - 68:16
diehard 111- 90:20
differ [11- 113:9
difference [41- 125:9,
165:3,165:4,170:18
differences [2]-
113:18, 165:2
different 1291- 63:13,
87:12, 99:18, 100:5,
112:13,112:14.
112:19, 112:21,
112:23, 113:2,
113:5, 113:6, 115:3,
117:15, 122:5,
126:12, 127:4,
137:11, 137:13,
144:16, 144:17,
158:14, 162:24,
163:20, 166:23,
170:7, 177:10, 199:4
differently [1l - 180:19
difficult [7l - 45:9,
79:3, 86:21, 115:20,
116:9, 116:22, 157:4
difficulty it] - 46:12
dig [t] -154:10
digital [2] - 1:19,
206:5
diligence Ell - 70:1
Dilkes Ell - 74:19
dimension [21- 45:25,
191:24
dimensions [31-
83:15, 83:19, 85:15
diminish [1l -138:7
Dina 14] - 1:12, 5:2,
5:14, 43:5
dining M - 92:21,
93:3, 93:9, 93:14,
93:15, 94:22,108:18
direct [1] - 176:10
directed lel- 18:11,
26:20, 97:9, 97:10,
119:9, 138:9
direction [1] - 206:7
directly [r] - 27:17,
28:6, 62:19.100:20,
102:17,106:14,
123:14
director[21- 137:17,
138:10
dlrt121-31:18,42:6
disagree 121- 21:4,
200:14
disagreed [11- 201:4
disagreement [21-
87:8, 169:24
disappear [1] - 144:18
discourage [1] - 53:18
discretion Ell -192:22
discuss f7]- 187:3,
187;17,188:4.
194:13, 205:7,
205:12, 205:13
discussed [41- 4:6,
9:14,128:23,165:18
discusses it] - 113:10
discussing 12] -
29:15, 104:10
discussion 1201- 2:4,
3:2, 3:17, 3:21, 4:2,
15:5, 15:10, 16:23,
25:22, 43:4, 80:23,
82:6, 117:23,
162:19,177:3.
180:25,191:5.
202:23, 204:20,
205:3
discussions 131-
14:12, 87:13, 106:7
disinterested [t] -
206:11
dislike [11- 145:24
disobey 111-108:14
disorders [1] -104:1
disparate [t] -138:17
disputed 121- 10:8,
193:9
disregard Ell - 62:1
dissension [11-166:9
distinction i1] -
180:12
distinguished 11]-
12:20
distribute ill - 202:10
District [1] -104:9
district [6]- 50:14,
78:15, 79:7,107:15,
107:23,154:21
disturbing 12] - 65:18,
124:17
disturbs [t] - 86:5
document [71- 10:2.
58:14, 68:22, 69:21,
122:2,136:17,
141:20
documentation [21-
89:5, 185:1
documented 111-
70:19
documents (fo) - 6:3,
6:17, 11:16, 17:23,
73:6, 75:21, 88:12,
109:12,141:1. 198:8
Don [1] - 90:16
done [25] - 3:22,
10:22,11:16, 22:15,
22:17, 24:13, 27:2,
29:22, 37:10, 64:16,
67:15, 68:5, 68:6,
80:19,119:14,
124:2, 138:18,
148:3, 150:17,
177:24, 180:18,
195:11, 195:14
door [8] - 62:18,
62:20, 63:6, 67:9,
74:2, 110:8, 143:16,
157:6
doors M - 55:16,
62:16, 93:4, 93:5,
94:3, 110:13, 171:23
dots 121- 83:10,
129:22
double [1] -170:9
doubt [5] -10:6,
145:15,14517,
148:24,197:15
doubtful 111- 149:1
doubting [t]-118:14
Doug [Is] -1:9, 74:19,
82:15, 124:21,
125:7, 126:9,
134:16, 138:24,
152:18, 168:1,
169:4, 169:5,
175:12, 176:16,
178:2
down 1291- 6:16, 19:4,
19:11, 21:15, 21:25,
31:18, 31:19, 32:7,
32:9, 32:22, 33:2,
34:15, 34:25, 49:12,
51:24, 76:13, 92:13,
94:15, 94:22, 96:1,
96:9, 96:14, 97:23,
101:22, 138:25,
155:23, 156:3,
178:2, 179:4
downhill 11) -182:4
downslope [s] -
20:15, 22:1, 23:10,
23:11, 24:20
downstream It] - 71:9
drafted [t] - 90:19
drafting [1] -106:6
drainage 111)- 17:16,
20:25, 21:3, 21:6,
21:8, 26:17, 26:19,
41:14, 65:9, 88:17,
115:8
dramatically Ill -
51:11
draw [21- 52:4,150:19
drawing 1t] - 8:3
drawn [tl - 39:22
dream 121- 105:4,
145:7
Dreams It] -145:6
drew 111- 139:8
drinking [11- 191:12
drive [41- 8:6, 51:23,
52:7, 96:7
Drive Ill - 1:23
driven Ill - 96:9
drivers 111- 52:6
driveway M - 44:4,
50:17, 55:10, 63:9,
69:22, 96:3, 96:8
driveway's Ill - 96:21
driveways [21- 52:1,
52:2
driving 111- 52:17
due 121-70:1, 98:7
Dulek [21-1:9, 125:16
DULEK it] -125:16
dumping [1] - 21:9
duplexes [ll - 189:24
during [6]- 51:20,
53:3,105:18, 111:1,
191:16,197:25
duty 111- 86:1
dwelling [381- 12:21,
12:24, 12:25, 13:8,
13:9, 13:19, 18:22,
70:12, 90:2, 90:8,
107:21, 108:3,
116:17,117:6.
118:5, 128:2, 152:6,
153:16,154:2,
154:3, 154:5,
161:10,166:8,
176:9.176:20,
176:21, 187:16,
187:17,188:11,
188:22,190:8.
190:9, 190:14,
190:18,190:20,
190:22, 191:21,
191:23
dwellings [71- 36:23,
107:22,140:11,
189:23,189:24,
190:15
dynamic It] -19:15
E
eager [2] - 72:2, 98:4
early [z] - 69:6, 70:8
Earth [1l -17:9
easementl17l - 70:5,
100:9, 117:12,
117:15, 147:25,
154:7, 154:19,
154:25,155:1,
155:11, 155:21,
157:3, 159:2, 159:3,
162:4, 162:13
casements 121 -
65:14, 148:14
easier 121- 116:4,
194:11
easily [3] - 85:5,
86:10, 168:25
East [t] -123:10
east ill - 8:6
easterly [11- 51:24
easy [41- 74:25,
93:13, 115:19, 138:2
eating Is] - 70:15,
93:2, 113:12,
113:18, 128:4,
190:11,190:24,
191:12
echoed Ill -143:1
edge I7) - 24:17,
Board of Adjustment 9-21-16
24:24, 25:6, 25:12,
32:7, 33:17, 38:8
Education p] - 104:3,
104:6,104:7
education [1] - 33:13
effect [21- 43:25,
72:25
effectively [t] - 51:25
effects [1] - 47:8
efficient 13] - 4:15,
15:15, 29:6
effort 121- 74:21,
115:9
efforts [11- 138:12
egress [3) - 63:6,
93:13, 95:3
eight 161- 37:12, 51:1,
56:1, 64:21, 64:24
eight -fifteen [2] -
64:21, 64:24
eight -fourteen 111 -
64:24
either[lel -13:25,
16:2, 16:4, 22:15,
24:9, 27:20, 28:7,
44:11, 46:21, 58:7,
75:22, 86:4, 86:10,
146:24, 146:25,
147:2,147:18,188:1
Eleanor [t] - 74:18
electronic [2] - 76:17,
76:24
elementary [21-
50:14,80:21
elements It) - 13:23
elevations [2] - 170:7,
171:21
eleven it] - 152:25
eliminate Ill -182:24
elsewhere [21.61:16,
135:22
Elvis's It] - 145:10
email Is] - 82:20,
83:17,113:15
smalls M - 65:16,
71:25, 83:14,
104:12,125:22,
128:23, 128:25
embrace 111- 138:5
emergency [31-
46:25, 130:22,131:2
EMMA Ill -1:4
emphasis [1] - 105:5
emphasize [1l -135:7
emphasized [1] -
73:16
employee [11-104:9
empowered Ill -
186:14
empowers it] - 75:6
emptying Ill - 69:23
encompass [11-
17:13
encouraged ill -
121:15
encroach [3] - 8:10,
28:6,139:10
encroaches lt]-
140:16
encroaching [3] -
126:25, 168:19,
168:20
encroachment [71-
18:17, 36:9, 36:16,
37:3, 38:19.140:13,
140:15
end [33) - 3:15, 3:16,
3:22, 4:1, 51:25,
52:7, 56:5, 59:14,
59:17, 60:5, 85:7,
96:14,117:10,
124:12, 130:4,
130:23, 130:25,
131:3.131:7.
169:25,178:20,
179:19,179:21,
180:1, 180:4,
185:13, 188:1,
190:13,190:24.
191:4
ended 111- 96:14
ends [21- 44:23, 156:1
energies [1] -149:15
enforce I6] - 122:12,
122:16, 143:9,
147:10,147:14,
179:13
enforceable (1) -
122:2
enforced [1] - 147:15
enforcement [41-
52:25, 128:14,
186:11, 186:21
enforcing [11-122:13
engage [1] - 143:7
englneerl31- 17:10,
34:16, 137:20
engineering [31- 4:23,
33:10,167:10
Engineering 111-
17:12
engineers It] - 33:11
engines [z] -133:3,
133:4
enjoy [2] - 91:13,
92:12
ensure 16] - 34:14,
39:8, 40:1, 185:12,
185:21, 185:24
enter[3]- 88:11,
93:17, 94:6
entered [s] - 89:21,
89:23,109:12.
144:20, 154:7
entering [21- 94:5,
103:4
enterprise [3]-
108:20, 110:17,
111:13
enters [ll - 92:21
entertainment Its] -
10:16, 10:18,14:2,
14:5,14:6. 14:7,
14:8, 47:6, 64:7,
68:10, 68:11, 82:7,
145:12,150:20
entire It 11-18:1, 18:3,
22:7, 25:2, 25:11,
43:2, 52:18,104:4,
104:19, 138:3,
167:23
entirely It] - 54:8
entitle 111- 62:5
entitled Ill -124:11
entrance [2] - 74:6,
110:10
entry Isl - 93:17, 94:6,
94:17,144:16.
154:13
environment [1] -
140:24
Environmental [21-
17:10, 17:12
environmental [211-
17:17, 22:7, 29:15,
30:12, 30:13, 32:1,
33:10, 33:11, 34:13,
37:9, 37:15, 37:20,
37:22, 38:10, 39:9,
140:1, 140:18,
141:12,141:18,
142:3
environmentally [41 -
24:3, 25:20, 25:25,
40:8
envision It] - 45:9
equals It] - 45:11
equipment [2] - 44:21,
109:11
equipped [21- 62:16,
130:25
ERICKSON [ts]-
49:13, 49:16, 54:20,
54:23, 55:24, 56:3,
56:9, 56:18, 57:3,
57:10, 57:14, 57:20,
58:5, 58:10, 58:15,
59:1
Erickson [31- 1:12,
5:4, 49:17
erosion (2] - 115:8,
142:1
err [11- 64:3
erratically [11- 52:7
erred M -15:23, 16:6,
89:10, 151:14,
192:2, 193:5, 200:21
error (221- 2:8, 87:12,
89:14, 101:9,
112:20, 115:1,
137:3, 151:22,
183:3, 183:4, 183:8,
186:19, 187:24,
188:2, 188:3, 200:8,
200:9, 200:15,
200:24, 201:16
orrom (e) - 28:15,
30:14, 43:23, 66:24,
75:7, 151:23
escape 11] - 13:6
especially [5] - 31:11,
50:9, 70:25, 97:5,
130:22
essence ill - 146:17
essentially (41- 66:10,
185:13, 187:10,
188:9
establish (5)- 13:3,
115:6, 120:18,
157:11, 195:10
established [31-
16:14, 99:24.124:9
establishment [11-
75:6
estate [1] - 149:14
esthetics [1] - 50:4
estimate 111- 46:1
at [8]- 139:23, 141:3,
141:25, 142:1
ethics 111- 137:22
evaluate is) - 16:7,
26:11, 28:23
evaluating [1] - 29:7
evaluation (31- 22:8,
172:19, 196:16
evaluations [2] -
22:14,30:13
evenhanded[11-
72:20
evening 16) - 15:11,
65:1, 88:19, 130:6,
202:17, 204:3
event [6] - 51:5, 51:21,
55:17, 119:13,
126:3, 145:12
events [141- 6:11,
51:3, 51:4, 51:9,
86:6, 91:9, 91:14,
92:4, 92:5, 92:6,
96:8,111:25,
Board of Adjustment 9-21-16
121:17,191:16
everywhere (1] -
179:8
evidence [12] - 4:15,
27:22, 82:11, 113:3,
122:12,184:25.
193:7.193:8.
193:11, 193:12,
194:3, 199:9
ox (11- 204:16
exact 1t] - 45:25
exactly [51- 45:10,
89:16, 103:1, 160:5,
177:7
examination [2) -
25:8, 138:22
examine 11] - 43:13
example [131- 3:12,
7:16, 7:21,12:21,
33:9, 73:8, 98:2,
108:7, 167:1, 167:6,
179:20,183:11,
201:9
examples pi - 7:19,
100:19
excavated [1] -124:15
exceed 17] -18:15,
36:8, 36:12, 36:13,
36:14, 36:15, 36:25
exceeding 111- 98:8
except [4] - 18:14,
36:23, 140:11, 177:7
exception [31- 107:2,
118:22, 201:1
exceptions [21-
189:15,201:10
excerpted [1] - 9:18
excerpts 111- 198:10
excess [1] - 178:20
excessive [11- 131:10
excessively [11-
59:22
exclusively [1] - 95:13
excuse 151- 53:5,
53:8, 53:20, 125:10,
196:10
executive 111- 143:3
exempt 131- 18:2,
140:11, 183:10
exempted [1]-118:5
exemption [71- 18:11,
18:21, 35:3, 35:10,
140:10,140:20
exemptions 14) - 9:5,
18:9, 38:19, 140:8
exempts 111- 187:7
exercise [3] - 94:4,
109:20,181:13
exhaustively [1] -
106:11
Exhibit M - 6:22, 7:2,
8:14, 9:12, 9:23,
76:25, 125:17
exhibit DI - 6:25,
10:3,11:23, 12:1,
15:9, 44:25, 164:9
exhibits 141- 6:2,
11:21, 11:24,15:13
exist [3] - 61:16,
126:13,178:20
existed 11] - 78:12
existence 111- 155:25
existing 121] - 43:10,
43:18, 43:22, 68:15,
100:9,117:12,
118:9,128:25,
129:1,130:4.
131:11, 179:11,
179:16, 179:22,
180:1, 180:13,
180:14,181:17,
192:16
exists [31- 48:4,
131:8,197:20
exit [3]- 62:17, 63:1,
63:8
exits [1] - 62:19
expect 161- 2:12,
26:23, 47:19, 63:17,
84:5, 146:15
expectations P1-
60:11, 68:18, 72:19
expected 141- 67:18,
104:13,181:23,
198:9
expediency [11-
15:15
expenditure [1] -
47:22
expense [4) - 8:10,
47:24,157:13,
158:15
expenses 111- 49:4
expensive [21- 31:10,
180:3
experience [31-
51:22, 137:9,157:16
expertise [41-137:9,
137:12,140:9,
167:10
explain 151- 4:4,
95:22, 95:24,
101:20,110:22
explained 11]-100:6
explaining 121- 21:2,
163:16
explains 11]- 70:7
explanations [11-
103:21
expliclt (21- 39:11,
140:22
express 12] - 7:4,
123:13
expressed 121- 70:21,
150:1
expression [1]-
178:11
expressly le] - 6:23,
7:6, 9:17, 48:2,
107:16,114:5
extend [6] - 8:9, 31:5,
38:7, 60:7,127:9,
181:9
extended 15] - 90:9,
114:15, 129:8,
160:12,160:19
extending [21- 34:22,
38:7
extends 121- 38:9,
48:18
extension [31-
117:19, 169:17,
181:8
extensive 11] - 141:19
extent [71- 6:24, 71:1,
143:8,143:14,
145:13,162:21,
201:20
externalized [1] - 8:4
extra [31- 2:18, 53:22,
178:25
extraordinarily [1]-
49:6
eyes Ell - 64:5
face (21- 67:10,
106:24
Facebook [2] -
144:16, 163:12
facilitate 111- 91:16
facilities J71- 66:5,
70:14, 108:17,
113:11, 189:2,
190:10, 190:23
facility I61- 13:12,
14:5, 14:7, 66:5,
109:25, 121:17
facing 121- 45:1, 53:6
fact (401- 5:25, 7:21,
7:24, 10:14, 10:22,
18:22, 20:15, 21:4,
21:6, 24:20, 26:18,
26:25, 27:22, 30:9,
38:5, 38:23, 44:1,
44:3, 64:12, 66:17,
70:1, 71:10, 82:18,
101:25, 130:3,
131:8, 139:9,
142:17, 146:8,
148:2, 150:5,
170:20,185:14,
194:6, 194:18,
200:9, 201:3,
201:16, 203:9
tactor 121- 181:3,
205:1
factored 111- 47:9
factors 1111-108:10,
114:9, 165:17,
166:1, 175:6,175:8.
184:22, 196:24,
197:13,199:4, 201:9
facts 1111- 43:13,
64:4, 67:20, 87:19,
89:6,113:21,
138:16, 200:22,
201:7, 201:22,
204:25
factual [51- 14:18,
87:6, 87:13,123:5,
172:18
factually [1] - 87:11
faculty (1] - 17:9
FAGAN 137] - 88:5,
95:22, 98:17, 99:6,
100:1.100:23,
101:2,101:12,
101:18,102:5,
102:10, 102:21,
103:11, 103:16,
105:14,105:17,
117:9,118:4,
118:22,119:1.
119:5,119:12.
119:20,120:1.
120:8,120:20,
120:24,121:3,
121:5, 121:21,
121:23,122:3.
123:1, 126:8, 163:6,
164:5.164:13
Fagan (1a] -1:14,
88:6, 89:22, 98:16,
117:1, 120:15,
126:6, 152:18,
163:4, 204:12
fall 141- 21:14, 71:4,
144:11, 146:9
failed [a]-44:11,
46:18, 65:18, 76:3,
76:5, 84:11, 108:5,
151:10
failsafe [1] -159:19
failure [3] - 28:17,
48:9, 48:11
failures 11] - 28:12
fair[16]-2:13, 2:15,
2:20, 2:24, 46:24,
67:2, 68:19, 102:19,
102:26,164:5,
164:11,177:9.
185:12, 185:25
fairly [51- 13:3, 38:11,
39:11, 152:2, 194:12
faith [21- 128:10,
151:21
fall 123- 27:14, 167:22
familiar 121- 71:17,
71:25
families R] - 50:9,
95:8
family [1021- 2:7, 5:3,
18:12,18:22,35:14,
36:23, 40:19, 40:20,
50:12, 50:15, 50:16,
50:22, 54:3, 59:17,
59:23, 61:8, 62:5,
66:6, 66:11, 75:18,
82:14, 82:17, 89:14,
90:2, 90:7, 90:9,
91:4, 91:9, 91:15,
91:18, 91:21, 91:25,
92:3, 94:1, 101:14,
102:1, 102:8,
104:14, 105:1,
105:6, 106:1,
106:11, 106:15,
107:1, 107:5,
107:21, 107:22,
108:3, 108:22,
109:20, 110:8,
111:25, 115:21,
116:2, 116:4, 116:5,
116:7, 116:14,
116:17, 117:6,
118:4,119:19,
122:18, 128:8,
140:9, 140:11,
145:1, 145:5, 152:5,
153:12, 153:16,
154:2, 154:5,
161:10, 166:7,
166;8.174:2.174:4.
175:11, 176:9,
184:5, 187:8,
187:16, 187:17,
188:10.188:11,
188:16,189:22,
189:24,190:14,
190:15, 191:21,
191:23,192:3,
192:6, 192:8
family's 11] - 144:23
famous 111- 93:24
fan 11] - 90:21
fans (21- 108:22,
145:4
far(e) - 13:17, 14:23,
56:4, 100:18, 103:1
127:17, 163:10,
194:1
farm 111- 190:15
fashion 111 - 90:23
fast 111- 15:21
fastest 111- 150:22
fatally Ill - 43:21
father (2] - 91:20,
94:10
favorl4l-49:1, 80:1,
114:14, 193:22
favorites [1] - 125:1
fear [21- 50:18, 79:21
fears [1]- 97:7
feature [3] - 26:5,
27:11,140:2
features [131- 16:1,
17:25, 18:7, 24:4,
25:20, 28:24, 44:13,
48:10, 63:3, 63:16,
66:2, 73:21, 110:1
Februaryll] - 90:14
federal [1]- 103:6
fee [2] - 191:17,
191:18
feelings [21- 87:7,
87:9
foot (361- 7:9, 7:11,
9:7, 18:15, 18:16,
20:2, 22:21, 25:1,
32:19, 36:25, 43:7,
44:2, 44:20, 44:23,
45:11, 45:12, 46:1,
46:3, 47:15, 52:13,
98:9, 130:1, 130:13,
130:25, 131:4,
131:9, 132:23,
147:9, 160:19,
178:11, 178:13,
178:16, 178:20,
178:25, 180:10
fellow 12] - 55:14,
173:4
toll l4]-48:21, 93:11,
100:14, 174:4
FIRMA Ill - 41:15
fence (11-124:23
few 141- 69:4, 103:22,
119:17, 164:18
field [1] - 14:4
Field [1] - 145:5
fifteen [21- 64:21,
64:24
fifth ill - 28:12
fight 11] - 46:9
figure 13] - 30:7,
55:14,196:22
file it] - 67:14
filed (31- 72:22, 73:3,
159:1
Hoard of Adjustment 9-21-16
files 121- 69:6, 70:19
filing Ill -86:7
fill 121- 47:7, 64:17
filling (t] - 130:8
final [3]- 25:15, 30:4,
143:3
finally [41-28:21,
140:7, 140:22, 192:9
findings [7] - 5:12,
26:16, 194:6,
194:18, 200:13,
201:3, 203:9
fined [11- 53:14
finish [3]- 3:21, 82:9,
175:19
finished 121- 3:19,
175:18
finishing 111- 3:2
Fire [141- 6:20, 6:22,
6:23, 7:8, 9:15,
44:12, 44:19, 48:7,
62:2, 132:16, 147:3,
147:7, 149:23, 180:9
fire [521- 7:14, 7:15,
9:5, 9:8, 44:5, 44:21,
45:2, 45:15, 45:17,
45:21, 46:10, 46:16,
47:15, 56:19, 57:18,
62:22, 76:2, 88:17,
98:9, 115:7, 129:20,
129:23, 129:24,
130:7, 130:9,
130:10, 130:12,
131:16, 131:20,
131:21, 132:10,
132:11, 132:14,
132:17, 132:20,
133:2,133:6.
133:15,133:17,
134:1, 137:19,
147:5,147:6,
147:13, 147:17,
149:7.169:18,
177:22,179:23
firefighters [1] - 146:4
firewalls 11]- 86:4
firm [11- 86:4
firmly [1] - 90:6
First [il -127:5
first [491- 4:8, 4:21,
6:7, 6:9, 12:3, 12:25,
15:7, 15:19,17:2,
18:6, 21:1, 21:2,
25:18, 30:20, 36:4,
41:10, 49:13, 67:5,
69:20, 82:20, 87:9,
87:14, 88:11, 100:1,
103:19, 123:17,
125:9,126:10,
128:21, 130:10,
135;14,137:18.
139:7, 145:15,
14816,151:3,
151:4,165:19,
170:6,170:11,
170:25,172:3,
172:24,187:19,
188:13,193:17,
200:8, 202:15
firsthand 111- 55:2
fit (4) -12:1, 38:25,
166:22, 171:16
fits 141-147:8, 175:7,
175:22, 196:14
Five 121- 134:18,
134:19
five 1101-37:12,
45:18, 45:19, 46:9,
49:18, 50:21, 56:1,
149:13, 178:25,
203:12
fixed 111- 99:21
fixtures [3] - 97:14,
171:11, 172:2
flamboyant (11-
146:19
flanked It] - 74:2
flawed [31- 33:2,
43:21, 141:7
flexibility [4]- 50:1,
93:2, 93:13,188:22
flood 11]- 22:25
floodplain 111- 41:14
floor [8]- 44:25, 92:7,
92:9, 92:20, 97:2,
109:11, 109:17,
110:2
Florida (21- 96:4, 96:6
flow [231- 26:17,
26:21, 44:6, 47:16,
129:21,129:24,
130:9,131:15,
131:16,131:21.
132:10,132:17,
132:20,133:2,
133:6, 133:12,
133:15,133:18,
134:1, 134:10,
154:14,169:18,
182:4
flowed [11-131:17
focused (1] - 68:25
focusing [2] -19:16,
163:14
folks 11] - 166:9
follow 1111- 3:15,
18:10, 18:13, 68:2,
140:20, 141:9,
152:18, 152:24,
164:16, 166:18,
195:12
follow-up 141- 3:15,
152:24,164:16,
166:18
followed 161- 67:2,
68:13, 82:8, 83:22,
86:11, 200:20
following 191- 1:17,
17:4,18:14, 25:20,
30:7, 43:10, 47:19,
137:15,153:14
foot 131- 20:2, 36:8,
51:10
footage 1t) -136:14
football [101-14:3,
50:5, 51:1, 53:3,
90:17, 90:21, 90:22,
92:1, 105:2,191:11
footings (11- 32:8
footprint [11- 62:15
force 121-154:16,
155:4
foregoing 121- 206:5,
206:8
foresee 11] - 203:22
forgetting p] - 167:9
form 121- 10:5, 10:6
formed [11- 77:13
forming It] -190:22
forth (61- 48:7,
101:17, 105:20,
121:20, 133:13,
133:18
forum (2] - 122:5,
122:6
forward [111- 11:1,
11:4, 11:24, 42:5,
56:16, 71:7, 72:2,
72:6, 80:3,141:6,
149:6
forwarded 111- 69:7
foundation it] - 65:8
founded [1]-111:9
four [141- 2:16, 45:23,
45:24, 63:24, 72:5,
73:8, 90:25, 91:10,
92:10, 145:2, 150:8,
154:23,156:14,
203:12
four-hourp] - 2:16
fourteen 111- 64:24
fourth 111- 28:2
fracturing (11-138:19
frame [11- 142:15
Frank [41- 1:11, 4:21,
15:8, 16:23
frankly 111- 170:18
Frederic (1] - 89:25
free [11- 87:16
frequency 141- 85:21,
118:13, 135:23,
136:13
frequent 121- 71:2,
118:16
frequently 111- 73:16
fresh (21- 64:5, 84:6
Friday le] - 55:25,
203:12, 203:13,
203:23, 203:24,
204:2, 204:7, 205:4
Friend 111- 104:6
friend [2) - 96:17,
144:25
friendly [31- 50:15,
50:22,83:12
friends (3] - 90:10,
91:14, 96:2
frivolous 121- 71:6,
144:10
front [151- 44:25,
50:16, 56:19, 57:18,
61:9, 65:24, 74:2,
96:7, 96:8, 110:8,
116:22, 132:1,
170:8, 193:15
Frain Ill - 73:11
fulfilling Ill- 39:18
full (81- 43:1, 69:10,
141:1, 149:22,
149:23, 198:12,
198:13, 206:8
fully [51- 26:3, 40:10,
70:18, 70:20, 159:23
fun Ill- 95:4
function (11-185:4
fundamental[1]-
150:11
fundamentally [1] -
50:7
fundraisers 111-
111:2
future [a] -15:5,
53:18, 63:16, 91:2,
92:3, 146:16, 162:3,
175:1
G
gallons [al - 47:16,
131:17, 131:18,
131:20, 132:18,
132:22, 133:1, 133:6
game 11 1] - 48:1, 51:7,
51:16, 51:20, 52:16,
53:3, 65:5, 92:1,
95:25,156:25,
191:11
games [41- 51:1,
90:21, 90:24, 93:8
garage 181- 12:22,
62:23, 93:5, 94:5,
94:18,109:20,
110:11
garbage 111-146:2
Gary 121-1:14,123:9
gas p] - 13:10, 13:14
gathering 121 - 92:2,
191:11
gatherings 121- 63:4,
121:15
gavel (11- 203:3
Gone [41-1:7, 120:15,
195:9.196:20
General [1]- 153:15
general [61- 16:24,
17:5, 27:8, 129:11,
161:3.185:7
generated [21- 73:13,
110:21
generates (1] - 110:23
generations (11-
145:2
gentleman 121- 167:9
Geoff [11- 73:11
geomorphology[11-
17:14
geotechnical[1]-
32:10
germane [1]-131:13
get-togetherslg-
119:19
gift It] - 109:6
GIS Ill - 20:7
given [151- 2:21,
71:19, 74:23, 96:17,
106:19, 148:23,
149:2, 155:2,
155:14,156:15,
191:18, 194:1,
196:17, 197:13,
199:3
glad [21- 58:20, 87:17
glass 121 - 93:4, 93:5
goo[ [51- 4:14, 7:1,
61:22, 185:11,
185:24
Goeb [1] - 1:7
Goerdt [111- 71:11,
71:12, 71:17,71:21,
82:1, 82:11, 82:22,
83:17, 84:7, 84:15,
124:21
Goerdt's 11] - 71:25
goers Ill - 51:15
goodness 121- 32:1,
149:6
goods Ill - 191:17
Google (21- 24:13,
24:14
govern [21-106:14,
Board of Adjustment 9-21-16
164:10
governance Ill -
146:11
governed 12] - 3:18,
164:6
governing I1] - 147:13
government (3) -
142:11, 146:18
gpm [11- 133:13
grade [1] -124:16
graduated 111- 91:11
grandchildren [5] -
91:1, 91:2, 91:4,
104:24, 145:6
grandfather[11-
179:10
grandkids 01- 95:5
grandparents l2]-
90:14, 95:5
grant(41-14:20, 48:8,
154:24, 155:21
granted (21-160:1,
195:5
granting [4) - 43:19,
47:9.114:20
grateful Ill - 75:5
gravity [1) - 182:4
great [61- 20:22,
20:25, 115:23,
134:23, 144:6, 199:6
greater[l]- 145:4
green Ill - 33:20
Greer s I1] - 133:10
greet [11- 66:19
grew (21- 90:10, 90:20
grill (q - 93:1
ground [41- 92:20,
94:17, 94:21, 97:5
ground -level 111-
94:21
group 111)-4:23, 5:9,
5:16,16:25, 80:1,
138:3, 143:5, 170:2,
189:24, 190:9,
190:21
groups (2) - 61:9, 78:4
grove [121-15:24,
16:10, 23:2, 23:4,
23:5, 23:6, 23:12,
23:20, 24:20, 28:2,
31:2, 139:16
groves p] -19:13,
28:5
grows [11-116:2
guess [14] - 56:23,
65:10, 80:8, 80:14,
81:13, 97:7, 118:2,
156:18, 164:20,
171:5,171:18,
180:8,181:21, 198:6
guest [11- 92:13
guests Il] - 53:13
guidance (31- 152:21,
194:2
guide 111- 58:24
guideline (41- 87:14,
87:15, 182:19, 185:7
guidelines [4]- 2:12,
3:7, 87:5, 90:7
guy Ill - 144:6
H
habitable [2)- 190:20,
190:21
habitat [3] - 21:25,
32:3, 47:13
half [s1-7:11, 17:2,
21:2, 93:18, 93:19
hall p] - 92:13
HALL (21- 1:4
hallmark [11- 47:12
hammerhead I1] -
47:3
hand [8] - 6:6, 128:15,
136:17,136:19.
149:4,150:24,
206:12
hand-to-hand [1] -
149:4
handed [21- 35:6,
135:18
handicap (2] - 94:13,
94:14
handle [31- 33:12,
60:23, 201:2
handled [2] - 21:3,
33:4
handouts 12] -15:12,
127:21
hands (11- 64:3
hang ill -93:19
hard [4] - 86:19,
98:14, 130:15,
130:16
HARVAT I1] -1:4
Hawkeye (31- 51:3,
90:21, 145:3
hazard I1] - 52:20
hazards [1] - 130:21
H[3K[121-6:10, 6:19,
7:18, 9:24, 44:22,
47:4, 47:14,129:21
130:11, 131:16,
131:22,132:23
HDK 121- 26:15, 27:3
head [11-167:6
heads [11- 64:5
health [1] - 70:18
healthy (il - 132:21
hear[al - 14:17,
42:22, 57:5, 87:18,
97:6, 102:22, 163:5,
186:18
heard [lel - 9:9, 21:1,
51:7, 57:11, 66:18,
69:21, 88:19, 96:24,
105:24,116:7,
121:21, 125:8,
136:24,138:8,
148:13.18616,
188:8, 191:5, 193:6
hearing [7] - 76:22,
136:24,161:3.
162:5, 199:25,
202:18, 203:4
Heights [d01- 4:24,
5:8, 50:6, 50:11,
50:20, 50:21, 51:12,
66:13, 68:21, 68:23,
69:18, 71:12, 71:21,
72:22, 73:3, 82:2,
82:4, 82:12, 82:16,
83:16, 84:3, 84:20,
84:23, 85:3, 85:9,
86:7, 88:21, 98:5,
112:7, 112:8,112:9,
112:16, 112:19,
113:6,113:15,
113:16,114:1,
140:19,186:25
Heights' [41- 84:10,
112:21, 112:24,
115:2
Hektoen Isl - 72:23,
72:24, 73:2, 74:19
held [sl -1:18, 15:10,
21:18, 43:4, 51:3
hello 12] - 66:12,
103:18
help [81- 6:3, 17:19,
53:19. 59:20, 65:23,
92:8, 143:11, 174:8
helped Ill - 87:18
haIpfu1151- 5:25, 6:1,
6:25, 7:2, 123:6
helping 111- 166:6
Hennes 131- 1:10,
124:21, 173:16
HENNES [111-
173:16, 174:3,
174:11.174:14,
174:19, 174:21,
174:24, 175:17,
175:20, 176:6,
176:15
hereby fl]- 206:3
hereupon Ill - 206:12
herring 141- 112:14,
112:23,113:5,
163:20
herrings Ill- 115:9
herself [0 - 193:24
high [t] - 32:19
highest[l]- 124:22
highlight 0] - 190:5
highlighted [3l - 24:2,
35:25, 140:25
hill ll] - 21:11
himself (5] - 15:8,
55:11, 111:12,
143:24, 154:25
his-and-her[11-
172:1
historic [6] - 78:14,
78:18, 79:7, 79:11,
79:16, 80:19,
107:15, 126:11
hit (21- 121:4, 125:24
hold (41- 17:11,
36:20, 36:21, 145:22
holder [0 - 90:23
holidays 121- 91:9,
92:4
home iso] -13:15,
25:8, 33:18, 40:19,
40:20, 51:1, 54:3,
89:14, 902, 90:24,
91:15, 91:24, 93:18,
93:22, 95:15, 98:24,
101:14, 102:1,
105:1, 105:4, 105:6,
106:1, 106:4,
106:11, 106:16,
107:1, 107:6, 110:6,
110:8, 110:20,
110:23,111:19,
111:23,113:13,
113:23, 114:17,
115:21, 115:24,
116:1, 116:2, 116:7,
116:13, 122:18,
124:5,145:10,
147:19,158:17,
178:3, 191:11, 192:7
homeowner (4] - 5:2,
29:19, 41:16, 99:12
homeowner's [2] -
29:24, 59:4
homeowners [41-
16:25, 27:23, 79:1,
80:11
homes 114] - 18:12,
25:7, 59:23, 79:18,
110:1, 110:11,
115:17, 147:16,
187:7, 187:8,
190:16, 190:17,
192:8
hometown [t] -145:1
honest 121- 33:6,
172:3
honestly [1] - 97:21
hooked 121- 158:24,
159:15
hooks [21- 94:7,
171:5
hookup Itl -161:16
hoop [11- 95:1
hope [6] - 87:21, 90:4,
91:7, 94:11, 95:3,
116:14
hopeful [1] - 5:24
hopefully [1] - 17:22
hopes [31-6:2, 91:1,
110:19
horribly 11)- 86:17
hoses 113 - 46:13
host It] - 51:8
hourlt]-2:16
hours (1] - 123:22
house [331- 25:3,
32:7, 33:17, 43:19,
46:14, 50:3, 54:6,
60:7, 60:18, 65:3,
90:6, 92:8, 93:11,
93:21, 94:5, 94:18,
94:20, 95:6, 95:12,
95:14, 97:4, 97:14,
97:17, 123:24,
128:8, 128:11,
144:3, 145:19,
145:20,182:10,
192:3,192:6
household [131- 50:2,
50:3, 128:3, 135:11,
135:14, 146:4,
176:25, 188:23,
189:21, 190:6,
190:9, 190:23
households [3]-
49:24, 188:19,
189:25
houses 13] - 25:6,
94:24, 190:16
housing [5] - 49:23,
50:2, 81:25, 188:18,
188:23
Howard 121-104:7,
104:9
huge Eli -70:17
human [2]- 64:3,
139:22
hundred 121- 51:9,
51:13
hurdles [t] - 95:20
husband [7] - 5:2, 5:4,
43:5, 49:18, 50:19,
60:16,103:21
Hutchinson It] -
Board of Adjustment 9-21-16
79:15
hydrant [141- 44:5,
47:16, 56:19, 57:18,
131:16,132:10,
132:21, 132:23,
132:25,133:12,
133:14, 133:15,
134:2,158:9
hydrants p1] - 47:15,
129:20, 129:25,
131:14.131:15.
132:11, 132:15,
132:19, 133:25,
134:7, 134:9
Hydraulics It] - 17:11
hydrology [11- 17:13
hyphen [1]-105:3
hypothetical [41-
162:3, 162:15,
175:11, 175:22
hypotheticals (1] -
162:21
IA It] - 1:23
iconic 13] - 93:22,
145:10,150:20
idea [2] - 97:19, 144:6
Identified M - 54:24,
55:4, 55:7, 55:11,
135:9,187:4,189:12
Identifies [sl - 131:21,
132:18, 132:23,
188:13,189:13
Identify (6] - 49:15,
55:18, 99:20,
173:23,187:2, 188:3
Ignore [t] - 60:12
ignored [3] - 28:10,
48:8, 48:24
Ignores 121- 43:22,
44:3
Ignoring I1] - 61:24
II Ill - 90:12
Illegal Ili] - 52:23,
53:1, 53:7, 53:8,
53:11, 53:15, 53:18,
57:6, 78:5, 143:7
Illegally [7I - 55:8,
56:6, 56:12, 56:14,
56:15, 56:19,12813
Images 111- 45:19
Imagine [3] - 62:24,
149:3, 156:25
Immediate 141- 5:15,
23:10, 66:7, 91:18
Immediately [s] -
5:18, 20:15, 65:2,
74:13, 74:14,74:18
impact Ila) -26:21,
41:12, 47:20, 76:5,
116:23, 201:10,
201:11, 201:13,
201:14
Impacted [t] - 186:5
impartial It] - 68:19
Impel Ill - 45:23
imperative [11-
137:14
Implementation It] -
186:11
Implemented 131-
67:3, 72:20,106:8
implicated [21- 6:21,
7:12
Implication (2] -
114:16, 137:25
Importance [11- 69:14
Important [1e] - 23:25,
27:25, 33:5, 33:13,
34:14, 39:7, 63:23,
72:3, 75:1, 76:2,
123:21, 124:7,
136:1, 142:2,146:7.
172:8,199:16,
202:22
Importantly [11- 8:10
imposing [21- 112:21,
115:2
impotent (t1- 60:9
Impression It] - 99:15
impressions [11- 67:6
improvement [1] -
192:12
improvements [1] -
129:13
impugn It]- 142:12
Impugned It] - 143:5
Impugns It] -143:10
IN 11] - 206:12
inability [tl - 85:12
Inadequate [it -
129:21
Inappropriate 121-
89:6, 185:10
Inaudible [11- 134:21
Inaudible 141- 45:3,
46:6, 77:23, 79:8
Inaudible) ill - 4:11
Inch [l1- 45:11
Inches ]4] - 23:7,
44:23, 46:3, 46:14
incident 111- 105:10
Incidental [1]- 59:16
Include 111] -46:4,
75:18, 93:19, 154:4,
156:12,171:2.
189:22,191:2,
191:12, 195:7, 198:9
Included p] - 9:19,
15:25, 42:19,
100:21, 101:9,
101:13, 167:17
Includes 13] - 13:21,
95:1, 154:3
Including M -20:4,
70:14, 88:18, 89:12,
91:19, 113:11,
153:20
inclusion [3] - 89:5,
89:19, 194:21
incompatible 11] -
54:8
inconvenience [t] -
52:18
incorporate [21-
28:13, 28:18
incorporated l3]-
6:24, 7:6, 68:17
Increase I21- 51:11,
167:3
Increased I51- 26:17,
26:19, 26:21,
181:25,182:8
incredibly [1]- 48:6
incurrence [11- 49:3
indeed [31- 99:16,
174:2, 177:5
Indepandence [11-
124:18
independent [5]-
70:4, 70:13, 75:18,
75:19,153:21
indepondently [1]-
75:11
Indicate [3] - 69:4,
83:7,129:12
indicated 161- 27:4,
32:15, 82:5, 82:6,
88:15, 99:22
Indicates Ill -129:21
Indication [2I - 53:4,
197:13
indicative [11- 66:5
indicator(l) - 81:15
Indicia ll] -66:2
Indiscernible [z] -
46:14, 60:15
individual [s] - 23:6,
49:24, 64:10, 85:13,
87:22,115:16,
153:11, 188:18,
203:9
individually [2] -
204:22, 205:3
individuals 12] -
137:23, 138:11
Industrial [1] - 92:25
Inexpensive [it -
to 15
34:17
Inference [t] - 136:25
Infill I51- 131:7, 131:9,
147:9, 179:20, 180:7
Inform 12] - 71:4,
137:10
Informal Ill - 191:11
Information [291- 4:3,
40:14, 58:19, 66:17,
72:10, 72:15, 75:12,
83:10, 87:6, 88:20,
99:1, 99:10, 123:6,
141:11, 162:17,
168:22, 172:18,
173:6, 173:21,
173:22, 174:7,
186:2, 194:1,
194:10, 197:8,
197:22, 200:17,
202:2, 202:24
informative 111- 174:8
Infrastructure Ill -
43:23
inherent(21- 20:23,
130:21
initial [4] - 6:19, 9:19,
11:8, 184:4
Initials [21-71:13,
71:14
injected 11] - 143:24
Injured 111 -104:24
Inland [1] - 24:25
Innuendo 141- 88:25,
110:6, 137:4, 150:7
input [71- 3:23, 4:6,
17:22, 67'9, 67:12,
153:5, 204:4
Inquired 111 - 126:2
Inquiries [11.27:8
inquiry Ill -78:17
Inside 121- 34:6, 34:8
Insinuate p] -137:3
Insist 111- 48:11
insistence Ill - 93:25
inspections ill -
63:10
Inspector [41- 81:25,
82:1, 137:18, 17316
instance lel - 11:7,
11:22, 75:4, 100:7,
143:4, 147:16,
154:9, 188:14
instances Ie] - 78:3,
142:24, 147:4,
154:8, 166:24,180:6
instead (1) - 102:23
Institute It]- 17:11
institutions [1]- 189:2
instructions 11] -
53:20
Integrity 141- 124:18,
124:22,142:12,
143:11
Intend 141- 14:15,
90:6,118:15. 121:10
intended [231-11:22,
13:1, 22:23, 44:18,
49:23, 62:4, 90:8,
110:17,111:22,
113:13,128:1,
128:3,128:5,
143:17,150:19,
166:8,176:22,
176:23,176:26,
188:18, 188:20,
190:23,191:22
Intending [1] -196:8
intense It] -149:16
intensities (11-
149:17
Intensity (1] - 108:24
intentilel- 10:19,
13:6, 111:18,
119:20,119:21,
120:17,121:6.
121:8, 122:1, 126:1,
127:23, 130:19,
143:21, 145:17,
145:20, 173:23,
199:1, 199:13
Intention [3) - 81:19,
105:25, 119:1
Intentions [4]-
103:23, 104:21,
107:8, 120:18
Interaction 111- 56:24
Interest pot - 15:15,
47:21, 53:24, 78:18,
78:20, 85:23,
162:10,199:1,
199:12,199:15
Interests [3] - 67:5,
71:9, 76:21
Interfering 111- 31:1
Interject 111- 134:12
internal [3] - 72:2,
72:4, 73:9
International (241-
6:20, 6:22, 6:23, 7:7,
9:15,13:20, 44:12,
44:19, 48:7, 62:2,
70:10, 75:20,
132:16,147:3.
147:7,147:18,
147:20,149:23,
149:24,153:24,
180:9, 188:12, 193:1
Internet [1] -144:20
Interpret 11] - 36:19
Interpretation [14]-
Board of Adjustment 9-21-16
101:16, 102:13,
102:16, 114:16,
143:12, 164:21,
165:1, 168:14,
171:15, 171:22,
173:4,178:14,
178:15, 200:23
interpretations It] -
102:19
Interpreted It] - 168:7
interpreting 11] -
170:16
Interrupt111- 184:1
Introduce [51- 14:14,
15:8, 89:18, 103:16,
205:1
Introduced 11]- 185:1
Invent It] - 85:2
Inventory [21- 2523,
40:6
Investigate 13) - 26:3,
40:10, 42:13
Invite 131- 14:8, 46:7,
59:24
involve [it -128:24
Involved [20l - 3:1,
21:5, 33:25, 57:3,
69:11, 71:11, 77:20,
78:11, 80:23, 84:16,
87:23,109:7.137:2.
137:16,138:13,
167:5, 169:9, 172:4,
172:24, 176:20
involvement [11-
71:20
Involves 0]- 72:18
Involving [31- 67:2,
73:6.146:14
inward 11]- 62:18
IOWA 121- 1:5
Iowa [1321- 4:22, 6:21,
9:16, 9:22,14:3,
16:1, 17:19, 40:20,
44:13, 44:20, 48:4,
53:3, 54:13, 63:18,
67:3, 68:23, 69:3,
71:14, 71:23, 72:19,
72:24, 73:7, 75:5,
83:24, 84:4, 84:5,
84:23, 85:1, 85:18,
90:10, 90:12, 90:13,
90:15, 90:17, 90:21,
91:3, 91:6, 91:11,
91:13, 91:15, 91:16,
91:17, 91:23, 91:25,
92:5, 95:10, 95:25,
104:2,104:21.
104:24,105:9,
109:23, 110:1,
110:12, 111:12,
112:8.112:11.
112:17,112:18,
112:22,113:4,
113:7, 113:9,
113:24, 114:4,
115:22, 116:5,
123:10, 124:9,
136:24,137:1.
144:23,145:3,
145:4, 145:25,
147:6, 152:6,153:8,
153:14, 153:15,
153:23, 154:23,
164:3,164:6.
178:11, 178:17,
178:21, 185:23,
185:24,186:4,
186:8, 186:13,
187:7.187:22,
188:11, 188:17,
189:12,189:19,
190:3.190:6,
190:18,190:25,
191:7, 191:25,
192:10, 192:20,
192:25,194:22,
195:4, 195:6, 195:7,
195:9, 195:12,
195:13, 195:14,
195:15, 195:16,
195:21, 195:25,
196:2, 198:4,
198:21, 199:10,
206:3
Iowa's 12) - 68:20,
149:12
Iowa -Iowa [t] - 53:3
Iowans 111-153:18
IRC 121- 13:21, 70:11
irrelevant 141- 88:13,
89:4, 105:23,107:25
irreparable 111- 48:1
island Ill - 92:23
issuance [6] -101:10,
106:18,116:18,
163:14, 187:16,
192:10
issue 1911- 2:5, 14:13,
14:18, 19:9, 30:21,
31:24, 31:25, 44:9,
44:14, 61:7, 61:23,
65:3, 69:1, 70:3,
73:18, 79:16, 81:24,
82:6, 83:16, 84:18,
85:4, 85:9, 85:15,
87:21, 89:16, 95:16,
95:17, 95:19, 95:23,
97:24, 98:2, 98:17,
99:8, 99:15, 100:2,
100:3,100:8, 101:3,
102:15,103:1,
103:7, 106:22,
107:18,110:15,
114:8, 117:17,
122:21,127:1,
127:3, 127:9,
129:18,137:4,
137:16,138:21,
150:6, 156:17,
156:18, 159:16,
161:5,161:9,
162:11, 162:15,
163:16,163:22,
164:1, 168:22,
168:24,171:8.
173:20, 179:22,
182:6,182:20,
183:13,188:7,
195:20,195:22,
204:4, 205:4
Issued [241- 42:20,
43:25, 48:16, 49:9,
53:11, 56:23, 57:17,
57:19, 67:11, 69:16,
117:11.148:7.
148:24, 158:19,
160:9.160:13,
160:14,161:18,
162:25,176:8,
179:18,181:19,
193:2
Issues [561- 4:24, 5:3,
17:15, 17:17,17:20.
19:1, 19:19, 21:3,
21:25, 22:25, 26:23,
27:4, 27:11, 27:12,
30:1, 33:9, 34:25,
41:15, 41:17, 57:2,
61:25, 65:13, 67;21,
72:18, 79:24, 85:1,
88:9, 88:13, 88:16,
94:11, 94:15, 95:20,
97:25,100:17,
105:22,105M,
111:16,115:7.
115:16, 128:16,
130:9.137:15,
138:22,142:25.
146:18,147:12,
149:2, 153:7,
169:19,171:12,
182:3, 187:4,
187:18, 187:19,
188:5,195:7
Issuing 11] - 193:5
IT ill - 125:22
item it] - 178:9
Items 121- 75:23,
182:23
itself [121- 2:15,
Pane
to 16
10:20, 20:12, 27:9,
32:4, 60:8, 65:19,
66:23, 111:15,
111:17, 115:22,
125:14
Jacobson [71- 144:20
James [1]-1:11
JANZEN [31- 43:5,
46:17, 49:12
Janzen 14] -1:12, 5:2,
5:14, 43:5
JENSEN 1141- 130:6,
132:5,132:13,
133:19,133:22,
133:24,134:4,
134:8, 134:11,
178:6,178:15,
178:19,179:2,179:5
Jensen 15] - 1:10,
129:20,130:6,
131:24, 166:14
jeopardy [2] -104:17,
104:23
Jesse [21- 127:5,
127:9
Jim [16] - 4:8, 12:5,
43:6, 64:14, 64:25,
87:3, 125:8, 134:16,
136:20, 152:9,
152:12, 152:18,
163:4, 176:17,
204:1, 204:12
Joanne [31- 1:13, 5:7,
59:2
job [31- 30:7,114:3.
163:16
John [21- 1:10,
173:10
Johnson [1]- 5:17
join (11- 96:11
Joint [4] - 36:16, 43:9,
72:16, 154:15
judges (11-185:14
judgmentle] - 146:20,
200:9, 200:10,
200:11, 200:12,
200:21, 201:16
judicial [2]- 185:4
Julie [2]- 1:22, 206:2
July 111-123:19
jumped ill - 96:4
June I11- 73:9
jurisdiction 111- 39:14
jurisdictional (41-
18:17, 37:4, 38:20,
39:5
justified pl - 102:14
Justify [21- 176:4,
181:22
K
Karin 14] - 1:13, 5:20,
66:12,81:22
keep 161- 3:11, 53:19,
54:14, 72:6, 141:24,
188:4
keeps 111- 95:12
key [51- 40:9, 67:20,
67:21, 72:2, 73:9
kibosh (1) - 151:9
kicked 111- 22:10
kids [21- 50:13, 50:16
kids' It] - 92:10
kind 125] - 7:14, 9:10,
11:18, 11:19, 23:1,
24:15, 33:9, 45:14,
65:11, 79:6, 79:19,
85:13, 99:19,
128:17, 144:5,
145:12, 149:10,
150:14, 150:19,
155:13, 157:4,
163:1, 165:8,
165:13, 169:22
kinds 112] - 7:17,
17:20, 20:22, 32:8,
32:9, 32:11, 34:11,
37:10, 50:9, 85:1,
86:20, 141:4
Klnnick 1121- 14:4,
62:12, 62:13, 62:15,
63:3, 63:9, 70:25,
73:5, 93:21, 97:17,
105:3,145:5
kitchen (16] - 13:12,
46:16, 62:21, 66:3,
66:5, 92:21, 92:22,
92:24, 92:25, 93:9,
93:15, 94:22,109:7,
109:20,175:9
kitchens (2] - 66:4,
110:12
Klinefelter [41-1:14,
123:9, 123:25,
155:19
KLINEFELTER 13] -
123:9, 124:2, 124:4
Klinefelter's [11-
156:7
Kluber [21- 1:22,
206:2
knock Ill - 157:6
knocked [11- 55:15
knocking [1] -143:16
knowing [31- 4:16,
41:3, 84:15
Board of Adjustment 9-21-16
knowledge is]- 71:1,
74:23, 82:10,
137:10,179:2, 179:5
known [4] - 52:24,
56:14, 83:12, 147:24
knows 11]- 5:24
Koza 141-1:12, 5:13,
44:25, 60:16
KOZA (121- 45:3,
45:9, 46:7, 60:16,
78:3, 78:9, 78:11,
78:16, 78:21, 78:24,
79:4, 81:5
L
labeled [11-132:16
lacking Ill - 63:15
ladder [2] - 46:2,
133:4
ladders [t] - 130:23
Lahey [51- 1:13, 5:17,
45:13, 65:1, 148:8
LAHEV [11- 65:1
laid [t] - 43:20
land [zol - 8:1, 12:19,
16:10, 17:16, 25:13,
27:4, 27:11, 39:19,
40:16, 42:8, 47:5,
47:8, 48:2, 112:1,
114:14,140:5,
145:4.148:5, 155:3,
156:7
landlord ill -164:8
Landlord [11-153:16
landlord -tenant (1] -
164:8
Landlord -Tenant ltl-
153:16
landowner 111- 41:22
landowners ill -
154:13
lands [61-15:25,
17:25, 18:7, 44:12,
48:10,140:2
landscape [1] - 24:21
landslide 121-19:19,
31:16
language 120] - 7:3,
7:4, 9:5, 9:14, 9:21,
10:11, 11:13, 13:2,
13:13, 28:21, 35:10,
36:9, 38:17, 39:25,
42:4, 55:23,102:6,
102:13, 102:19,
104:3
LAREW [301- 4:10,
12:6, 12:9, 12:11,
12:16, 13:5, 14:22,
15:2,15:7. 58:16,
58:18, 58:24, 64:17,
83:15, 84:25, 85:19,
134:18,139:1.
142:8,152:10,
153:10.153:13.
154:12,155:12,
156:11,156:14,
156:21, 157:14,
162:10, 162:20
Larow, [lo] - 1:11, 3:3,
3:12, 3:13, 58:8,
136:24.137:21,
138:6, 163:3, 163:18
large le] - 47:6, 59:11,
59:22, 62:15, 69:22,
92:22,121:15
larger 141- 62:13,
63:4.130:22
largest [t] -131:1
Larry 14] - 1:7, 41:1,
79:13,184:7
last pal - 6:25, 7:3,
9:16, 17:3.17:4,
21:1, 21:2, 25:17,
26:13, 51:7, 52:9,
53:12, 55:3, 56:10,
56:23, 60:19, 63:20,
64:18, 65:15, 66:18,
67:24, 72:11, 74:1,
75:12, 91:5, 92:23,
96:24,124:6,
124:22,126:19,
133:11, 135:6,
163:8, 175:12,
175:21, 180:20,
198:24
late [5] - 6:11, 90:18,
128:21, 203:12,
203:18
laundry [21- 92:16,
108:18
law 1531- 7:18, 9:22,
67:3, 72:19, 73:12,
75:5, 75:15, 85:21,
86:3, 86:4, 88:10,
103:7,104:16,
105:21, 106:14,
106:24,108:14,
111:11,113:7,
116:23, 118:24,
119:2,128:12.
142:15,142:20.
144:11, 148:3,
148:13,150:5.
151:13, 151:24,
153:8,153:14,
153:18,154:24,
164:3, 179:11,
185:5, 185:15,
185:23, 186:4,
187:18, 192:21,
194:22,195:4.
195:6, 195:7,
195:12,195:15,
195:16.195:25.
199:18
lawn [1]-123:22
laws [81- 52:25,
68:20, 107:18,
113:7, 114:7,
144:12,149:22.
164:7
lawsuit [3] - 72:25,
73:3, 86:7
lawyer [11- 72:22
lawyers [1] - 86:15
lay [21- 2:11, 86:5
layout Ill - 93:10
leading [t] -171:13
league n] - 33:19
lean [1] - 126:20
learn [2] - 146:8,
157:7
learned [t] - 59:6
least [211- 4:12, 4:13,
8:18, 8:19,11:10,
20:20, 23:7, 23:8,
23:11, 23:19, 24:10,
24:18, 63:5, 71:10,
84:1, 85:11, 91:25,
98:22, 98:25,
100:18,154:20
leave [2) - 122:3,
178:5
leaves [11- 147:22
lectured [11- 21:21
leeway 111- 178:25
left [5] - 53:9, 55:14,
55:17, 74:9, 96:5
legal [151- 3:18,
68:24, 69:7, 69:9,
71:24, 86:13,
117:15, 122:4,
146:11, 152:21,
154:19, 155:5,
184:17, 185:20,
194:2
legally [31- 55:16,
56:5, 85:25
legislated [21- 48:25,
150:16
legislative [1] - 199:25
length [5] - 44:21,
44:23, 98:8, 181:9
less (61- 23:17, 29:16,
50:8,133:16,
140:12, 199:16
letter (3]-27:23, 79:6,
198:19
letters (2] - 27:7, 79:5
lotting [21 - 15:4,
152:16
level it l]- 62:19,
62:21, 63:3, 63:7,
94:17, 94:19, 94:21,
94:23, 94:25, 97:5,
149:4
levels If] - 141:21
Lexington 141- 60:17,
132:24, 156:1, 156:3
liable 111-144:13
liberty [t] - 64:23
Has [1] - 8:18
life [21- 60:12, 91:9,
92:4, 104:19,
111:25, 131:13,
179:22
lifted Eli - 116:19
light [2] - 7025, 93:6
lighted It] - 62:17
lightly 121-116:11,
116:12
lights [11- 6:15
likelihood Ill- 129:7
likely [91- 46:16.
62:22, 106:17,
106:21, 157:1,
165:15, 165:16,
165:24, 165:25
limit [e] - 2:16, 14:16,
61:11, 63:10,
135:25, 176:3
limited 111- 94:9
limiting It] - 136:14
limits [1) - 125:11
Lincoln [1l - 80:21
line [75) - 16:12,
16:15, 24:23, 30:13,
31:6, 38:8, 39:21,
139:9, 139:13,
155:25, 156:3,
156:8, 160:20,
189:23
lined [1] - 87:2
lines [31- 48:19, 90:8,
90:9
link ll] -42:11
list [91- 4:18, 7:5,
63:25, 100:21,
165:17,166:1.
197:19,197:20,
198:7
listed [5] - 11:21,
100:14, 108:3,
137:23, 189:15
listen [31- 86:12,
116:10, 123:3
Listen (1) - 201:21
listened [3] - 64:13,
148:6, 201:24
listening [21- 60:19,
175:3
lists [3] - 13:19,
135:16, 189:20
litany 111- 114:19
literally Is]- 21:17,
21:21,52:12
litigated [31- 103:10,
159:3, 159:4
litigation Ell - 158:11
livability [t] -188:25
livable 141- 49:25,
50:8, 54:9, 188:21
live lel - 5:5, 49:17,
52:21, 56:16, 65:2,
91:21, 123:10
lived VI - 54:6, 56:24,
59:2, 60:17, 60:18,
66:13, 90:14
lives [31- 4:24, 91:3,
91:18
living [13] - 20:12,
60:11, 70:13, 70:15,
93:16, 108:21,
128:3, 175:9, 176:7,
189:21, 190:6,
190:10, 190:24
load [2] - 21:13,
129:24
local [6] - 80:21,
88:10,106:14,
106:24, 144:12,
144:20
located p1- 2:6,
56:19, 91:17,
188:14, 188:15,
190:21, 191:15
location [21- 25:24,
135:23
locations 11) - 40:7
Lochwood 111 - 1:23
locker [4] - 93:22,
93:23, 97:19
lockers 161- 74:11,
74:12, 74:15, 171:2,
171:6,171:24
look 1421-13:13, 14:3,
21:19, 22:16, 22:18,
24:12,30:11,39:19,
40:16, 41:4, 41:8,
41:13, 43:2, 43:13,
58:23, 64:4, 66:4,
98:14,98:25,
101:19, 103:9,
111:7, 122:13,
127:14, 127:23,
128:19, 139:18,
141:14,145:19,
156:23,166:2.
166:4, 166:23,
Board of Adjustment 9-21-16
167:22, 170:13,
171:19, 175:7,
177:12, 190:4,
196:24
looked [to] - 12:13,
17:6, 25:1, 84:13,
122:10, 125:22,
132:25, 151:7,
166:19, 171:10
looking 111]-25:6,
32:23, 35:24, 94:15,
102:12, 103:2,
129:2, 131:21,
133:10, 166:22,
171:7
looks M - 2:17, 23:20,
24:2, 24:15, 81:18,
125:18, 157:1
loop 121- 72:6, 132:25
lose [4] - 66:19,
177:18
lose -lose Ill - 66:19
loss Ell - 47:24
losses 11) - 49:3
lost 121- 73:20, 74:17
Louis 121- 91:19,
104:1
love 121- 50:12, 76:21
low 141- 2:6, 59:16,
94:23.188:16
lower 141- 63:3, 63:7,
94:23, 94:25
lower -level I1] - 94:23
lowest Itl - 20:17
Lucon [31-179:17,
180:6, 181:18
Lusk [261- 2:7, 7:10,
8:9, 24:20, 43:12,
44:1, 44:22, 45:2,
45:11, 49:10, 49:21,
50:24, 51:6, 51:24,
53:1, 54:1, 60:23,
65:2, 72:25, 75:24,
90:3, 96:3, 103:19,
123:15, 131:17,
132:21
M
ma'am 19 - 49:11
MADSEN [3] - 59:2,
81:6, 81:9
Madsen [31-1:13, 5:7,
59:2
main [a] - 62:19,
62:21, 74:6, 92:20,
93:17, 94:19, 97:2,
155:23
maintain 131- 49:25,
54:9.188:20
maintaining [1] -
85:17
major Ell -142:9
majority [4] - 78:22,
79:1, 91:23,109:17
makings Ill - 176:7
malfunctioning It) -
157:2
managed [11- 67:1
Manager 1t] - 73:11
manager 11] -186:21
mandated [tl - 44:9
manipulates [21-
184:7, 184:8
manmade [41-
124:15, 127:18,
139:18,167:11
manner [3] - 28:3,
64:2, 72:21
manufactured [1] -
190:16
Manville [121- 4:24,
5:8,16:24, 24:18,
50:6, 50:11, 50:20,
51:12, 66:13, 84:20,
140:19, 186:25
map [13] - 20:7, 24:3,
24:12, 24:13, 25:23,
26:1, 28:25, 30:10,
39:23, 40:2, 40:6,
40:12
March [1] - 43:24
marital RI - 85:20,
86:6
Mark [31-1:11,
182:18, 203:2
mark It) - 199:23
marked [21- 20:8,
62:17
married 121- 90:13,
90:25
marshal 121- 137:20,
177:22
marshal's Itl - 130:7
massive [41- 31:16,
33:3, 47:2, 70:3
master 141- 92:16,
92:17,108:18,
108:19
master's If] -103:25
material [1) -170:6
materials [41- 5:23,
17:3, 22:14, 27:6
maternal [ti - 90:14
math [11- 63:7
ma"or1211-7:13,
26:2, 41:19,121:16,
128:14, 137:2,
138:1, 138:23,
139:17,142:4.
144:9.146:23,
156:23,158:11,
158:15,159:4,
166:10,179:15.
193:12, 194:2
matters [21- 146:11.
203:25
Matthew [2j - 72:23,
73:2
mature Ell - 8:8
maximum [31- 36:8,
36:12, 61:20
maximums [1]- 76:7
meals [4] -113:12,
128:4,190:11,
190:24
mean [tel - 27:9, 33:8,
38:10, 39:3, 42:3,
97:13, 138:25,
151:11, 159:3,
159:11, 160:4,
161:14,174:8,
179:8, 180:2, 194:8,
196:7, 201:20
meaning [41- 80:3,
136:6,186:12,
186:22
means [3] - 51:4,
141:7,188:1
measure 121- 7:10,
25:7
measured 121- 20:11,
23:9
measurement [tl -
44:22
mechanical [1]-
94:24
meet1141-37:1, 37:8,
39:24, 66:19,
124:16,133:2.
133:14, 133:21,
134:1,134:3. 199:1,
199:12, 202:14,
203:6
meet -and -greet [11-
66:19
meeting 1261-1:18,
2:2, 2:16, 2:25, 3:24,
3:25, 4:5, 6:14,17:3,
17:4, 21:1, 40:2,
65:15, 91:5.125:19,
126:22.128:17,
128:24, 133:11,
153:5,170:6.
170:25,194:14,
198:1, 202:13,
203:22
MEETING [1] - 1:2
Meeting 111- 205:17
meetings 131- 65:11,
Pane
to 18
104:12,186:17
meets [5] - 39:20,
39:21, 90:7, 124:9,
192:6
Melrose 12] - 90:11,
179:18
member Ilsl - 5:9,
16:25, 17:2.17:9,
86:14, 138:1, 150:1,
150:9, 193:23, 205:1
members 12il - 3:4,
4:16, 6:5,10:6,
70:21, 73:9, 88:5,
91:9, 91:18,105:20,
123:11, 137:7,
148:21, 149:13,
149:25,150:8,
163:6, 173:4,
185:20,193:6,
193:21
Members 121- 1:7, 1:8
memo [41- 86:10,
133:10, 135:18,
147:3
memoranda Ell -
115:6
memorandum [91-
72:3, 72:4, 73:9,
73:11, 73:12,
128:15,135:6.
198:20
men's [51- 74:2, 74:8,
74:9, 97:15, 97:18
mention 141- 46:18,
117:7,127:21.
164:21
mentioned 1141- 61:4,
65:7, 81:10, 81:11,
94:9, 96:16, 98:17,
117:25,119:4,
121:5, 126:12,
127:18,135:21.
166:5
mere 111-52:12
merely [2] - 63:6, 64:6
merit [t] - 112:12
mess [2] - 34:8, 34:23
message [21- 4:20,
61:14
messing 111- 37:9
met [12]- 29:3, 37:11,
37:13, 41:5, 63:11,
89:12, 90:11,
123:16,123:17,
191:24, 192:22,
192:24
metaphoric Ill -149:4
method If I - 25:11
methods 111- 117:18
mic ill - 165:20
microphone [2] -
45:7, 77:25
middle [6] - 13:10,
51:18, 52:12, 54:7,
56:7,158:20
might [221- 2:17, 6:15,
7:17, 9:20, 14:5,
56:16, 102:25,
108:21, 110:25,
113:25,114:23,
120:14,141:6,
154:9,160;9.
164:20,167:24,
174:13, 194:11,
197:16, 197:17,
200:14
MIMIC (21- 93:21,
144:4
mind [1 sl - 4:9, 83:21,
83:22, 94:15, 94:16,
131:25, 141:24,
145:11, 159:11,
170:4, 174:1,
174:13, 177:20,
188:4, 205:2
mindful Ill - 94:20
mindset [11- 71:23
mine (2] - 50:10, 96:17
mini 11]-73:5
minimum [131- 16:11.
24:24, 124:16,
129:25, 132:17,
132:19,133:2,
133:14,133:16,
133:25,134:1,
152:5, 176:13
minor [21- 21:24,
124:24
minute lial - 47:16,
130:5, 131:18,
131:20,132:`18,
132:22,133:7.
175:24.185:7
minutes [5] - 87:17,
134:18,134:19,
139:5,156:25
mirrors If] - 195:14
misapplied [1]- 48:24
mischaracterization
111- 200:2
misclassification Ell
119:10
misclassified (3)-
102:4, 102:10,
184:10
misdirect ill - 67:22
misquoted [t] - 121:8
Miss 111- 75:13
missed [21- 86:20,
165:19
Board of Adjustment 9-21-16
missing [t] - 177:11
Missouri it] - 104:2
misspoke [t] - 196:10
mistake 121- 143:14,
146:9
mistakenly [ti -
142:17
mistakes [51- 64:2,
146:8,146:20,
146:21, 148:19
misunderstanding [11
-174:22
mitigate [2]- 26:21,
31:10
mitigated (11- 48:15
mitigating [tl - 30:17
mitigation (5] - 31:9,
32:12, 33:3, 34:11,
48:18
mixed Ill - 128:25
mobile 111- 190:16
mobility 121- 94:9,
94:11
modification [51-
169:3, 183:15,
183:18,183:21,
184:11
modifications (3) -
184:15, 184:17,
184:21
modified [t] - 183:4
modify 191- 74:21,
182:22, 182:25,
183:2, 183:5,
183:13, 183:23,
187:24.188:3
modularlt] -190:16
moment 151-19:5,
19:13, 23:20, 84:17,
147:11
Monday 11] - 55:24
month [21- 190:12
month-to-month 111 -
190:12
months [31- 69:10,
76:4, 83:21
moot [it - 156:20
Moreover Ill - 60:1
moreover [31- 27:12,
88:24, 115:1
morning 11] - 72:1
most [281- 24:7, 31:3,
31:12, 33:5, 51:23,
61:23, 76:10, 76:20,
85:8, 87:18, 90:24,
91:21, 91:25,
109:23,112:2,
112:4,119:18,
123:6.146:1, 146:2,
147:3, 150:11,
150:23,151:1.
165:14,165:16,
165:24, 165:25
mostly 11]- 104:16
mother [s] - 90:10,
90:20, 91:19, 94:10,
145:2
motion is] - 193:18,
193:22,194:16,
203:8, 204:14,
205:8, 205:10,
205:11, 205:12
motives Ill - 137:3
move [4] -10:25,
50:19, 71:6, 87:25
moved pl - 56:16,
80:3, 80:16, 84:2,
85:10, 91:7,104:1
moving [2] - 94:22,
158:8
mowing (t] - 123:22
MR 1377] - 4:10,12:6,
12:9, 12:11, 12:16,
13:5, 14:22, 152,
15:7, 15:11, 16:19,
16:21, 22:5, 29:7,
29:9, 29:10, 29:11,
29:13, 29:14, 29:18,
29:21, 30:17, 30:19,
33:23, 34:1, 34:3,
34:8, 35:4, 35:7,
35:12, 35:16, 35:21,
35:23, 36:3, 36:11,
36:22, 37:20, 37:24,
38:2, 39:1, 39:3,
39:7, 39:11, 39:16,
39:18, 40:5, 40:15,
40:21, 40:25, 41:1,
41:4, 41:5, 41:8,
41:23, 42:3, 42:10,
42:11, 42:15, 42:16,
42:17, 42:18, 42:21,
42:24, 43:1, 55:3,
56:7, 56:10, 57:21,
58:1, 58:7, 58:11,
58:16, 58:17, 58:18,
58:22, 58:24, 58:25,
64:17, 79:10, 79:14,
80:5, 80:8, 80:14,
80:16, 80:19, 80:25,
81:2, 81:8, 81:13,
81:17, 81:18, 81:21,
83:15, 84:25, 85:17,
85:19, 88:5, 89:22,
89:25, 95:22, 95:25,
97:3, 97:11, 97:13,
97:16, 98:3, 98:7,
98:13, 98:17, 99:4,
99:6, 100:1,100:13,
100:23,100:24,
101:2,101:7,
101:12,101:18,
101:24, 102:5,
102:9, 102:10,
102:21.103:11,
103:16.105:14,
105:17.117:9.
117:25,118:4.
118:10,118:11,
118:22,118:25,
119:1, 119:3, 119:5,
119:9,119:12.
119:15,119:20,
119:22,120:1,
120:2, 120:6,120:8.
120:10,120:20,
120:24,121:3,
121:5,121:21,
121:23, 121:25,
122:3, 122:7.122:8,
122:22,123:1.
123:9, 124:2, 124:4,
125:10, 126:8,
126:10,126:20,
130:6.132:3.132:5.
132:6, 132:9,
132:13, 133:19,
133:22, 133:24,
134:4, `134:6,134:8,
134:9, 134:11,
134:18, 134:19,
134:25,135:2.
135:5,136:5.
136:12,139:1,
139:4.139:7.
141:11,141:13,
141:16,141:17,
142:8,152:10,
152:11, 152:13,
153:2, 153:6,
153:10,163:11,
153:13, 154:6,
154:12,155:7.
155:12,156:9,
156:11, 156:12,
156:14, 156:17,
156:21, 157:9,
157:14,157:17,
157:20, 157:23,
157:24,157:25.
158:1,158:3, 158:4,
158:5, 158:7,
158:12, 158:13,
158:18, 159:9,
159:17,159:19,
159:23,160:2,
160:7, 160:16,
161:4, 161:12,
161:16, 161:21,
162:1, 162:7,
162:10,162:20,
163:6, 163:24,
164:5, 164:13,
165:1, 165:5,
165:10, 165:12,
165:19, 166:2,
166:15, 166:18,
167:1, 167:13,
167:15, 168:2,
168:7, 168:9,
168:10, 168:17,
168:19, 168:23,
168:24, 169:1,
169:2, 169:14,
170:2, 170:4,
170:12, 170:17,
170:22, 171:4,
171:10, 172:1,
172:7, 172:11,
172:15, 172:21,
173:1, 173:9,
173:13, 173:16,
174:3, 174:11,
174:14, 174:19,
174:21, 174:24,
175:13, 175:17,
175:20, 176:6,
176:15, 176:22,
176:24, 177:4,
177:7, 177:18,
177:20, 177:24,
178:1, 178:3, 178:5,
178:6, 178:15,
178:19, 179:2,
179:5, 179:7, 179:9,
179:13, 179:17,
179:24, 180:12,
180:24, 181:4,
181:16, 182:2,
182:9.183:1,
183:19,183:24,
183:25,184:12,
184:24,185:19,
194:6, 194:8,
194:20, 194:24,
195:1, 195:2, 195:5,
195:8, 195:19,
195:21, 195:23,
196:1, 196:3.196:5.
196:7, 196:8,
196:10, 196:19,
196:21, 197:2,
197:4,197:6.
197:10, 197:16,
197:20, 197:24,
198:2, 198:3,
198:12, 198:14,
198:16,198:23,
199:6, 199:20,
199:22, 200:3,
200:6,200:16,
201:19, 202:7,
203:16,203:19,
203:21, 203:23,
203:25, 204:6, 204:9
MS (142) - 35:2, 35:5,
35:9, 35:13, 35:20,
35:22, 36:1, 36:4,
36:18, 37:16, 37:22,
37:25, 38:14, 43:5,
45:3, 45:6, 45:9,
46:7, 46:17, 49:12,
49:13, 49:16, 54:16,
54:20, 54:22,54:23,
55:20, 55:24, 56:2,
56:3, 56:9, 56:18,
56:21, 57:3, 57:8,
57:10, 57:13, 57:14,
57:20, 58:5, 58:10,
58:15, 59:1, 59:2,
60:16, 65:1, 66:12,
77:4, 77:6, 77:9,
77:10, 77:11, 77:12,
77:13, 77:14, 77:16,
77:17, 77:19, 77:22,
78:1, 78:3, 78:6,
78:9, 78:10, 78:11,
78:13, 78:16, 78:20,
78:21, 78:23, 78:24,
78:25, 79:2, 79:4,
79:9, 79:12, 80:2,
80:7, 80:13, 80:15,
80:18, 81:5, 81:6,
81:9, 81:23, 82:3,
82:19, 83:1, 83:9,
96:25, 97:9, 97:12,
103:18, 105:15,
117:2, 117:22,
125:16, 158:16,
160:4, 160:15,
161:2, 161:8,
161:14, 161:19,
161:25, 164:18,
165:4, 165:7,
165:11, 165:13,
165:21, 166:13,
166:17,167:8.
167:14,177:23,
178:7, 178:17,
178:22, 179:4,
179:6, 182:15,
197:5,197:22,
197:25,198:6,
198:13,198:15,
198:18,198:24,
199:18,199:21,
202:15, 202:17,
202:21, 203:5,
203:13, 204:13,
204:16, 204:18,
205:6, 205:10
mud [21- 33:20, 94:6
multi [t] -108:20
Board of Adjustment 9-21-16
multifamily [21-
127:8, 189:25
multiple [51- 15:14,
62:16, 68:8, 73:6,
86:14
must[201- 11:14,
13:8, 13:20, 13:24,
16:13, 62:21, 64:11
71:24, 75:18, 76:7,
116:24, 126:21,
154:3,183:5.
184:18.189:16,
193:10, 193:19,
193:21
N
name 113] - 16:23,
27:24, 43:5, 49:16,
60:16, 61:1, 65:1,
66:12, 79:12, 88:6,
103:18, 123:9,
142:16
named (41- 5:5,
142:17, 142:19,
144:19
names 111- 148:19
narrative t2] - 10:6,
11:9
narrow 111- 52:7
narrowly [t] - 151:25
national 111- 143:23
native [1] -145:2
natural [41- 25:10,
93:6, 12414, 139:18
naturally [1] - 134:13
nature lel - 68:1,
68:22, 112:2, 112:5,
118:12, 119:23,
135:24, 136:15
NDS 121- 138:9, 187:2
NE 111-1:23
near 141- 25:6, 32:14,
40:21, 41:9
nearby [51- 5:2,.5:5,
70:24,71:5, 155:20
nearest [3] - 133:12,
154:17, 155:16
necess 111- 161:17
necessarily M -
99:12, 102:3, 103:4,
142:12,160:11,
163:9,163:11
necessary 19] - 2:20,
60:25, 75:9, 98:10,
101:13, 129:14,
133:2, 134:1, 143:15
need 1231- 2:22, 6:15,
7:15, 41:14, 41:17,
58:22, 61:14, 62:10,
64:4, 114:9, 129:16,
129:17, 129:25,
133:3,134:16,
134:17.187:18,
194:6,195:12,
197:7, 202:1,
202:24,203:10
needed [5] - 45:16,
107:2, 107:3,108:2,
178:10
needs [to] - 64:16,
80:10,113:21,
147:8,180:4,183:3,
186:2, 187:11,
187:20
negative [31-137:25,
201:12, 201:14
negatively [11- 33:8
neighborl53-5:15,
8:16, 70:6.123:23,
143:17
neighbor's (1] - 8:1
neighborhood [43]-
5:7, 5:20, 47:12,
49:21, 50:6, 50:7,
50:8, 50:12, 50:15,
50:25, 51:10, 51:13,
52:18, 52:21, 53:19,
54:7, 54:11, 54:14,
57:4, 59:15, 60:11,
61:9, 61:10, 66:7,
66:9, 66:14, 66:22,
76:12, 76:17, 77:15,
79:17, 80:12, 80:17,
81:3, 95:12,121:13,
127:7, 129:9, 137:7,
138:6, 148:1, 201:11
Neighborhood [it -
187:1
neighborhoods [71-
49:25, 54:10, 60:4,
111:3, 115:17,
188:21, 189:1
neighboring [21-
26:22, 201:11
Neighbors 111- 78:25
neighbors [30] - 8:5,
46:21, 46:23, 50:18,
54:25, 56:25, 57:11,
62:14, 66:16, 66:19,
69:11, 70:22, 71:7,
72:16, 73:13, 76:11,
76:14, 78:4, 78:23,
80:22, 95:11, 98:4,
104:16,105:11,
106:2, 156:15,
157:5, 186:24,
201:13
neighbors' 11] -
156:13
neutral (11- 71:23
Never 111- 177:20
never (171- 5:24,
70:22, 77:16, 77:19,
80:13,123:16,
123:17,123:21,
123:23, 141:22,
143:16, 148:2,
159:20, 167:13,
167:15, 168:7,
168:12
new [181- 48:15,
48:16, 61:14, 61:18,
62:10, 70:4, 75:16,
76:2, 77:12, 79:24,
150:14,152:25,
168:14,181:12,
182:9, 182:10,
192:15
New 111- 91:12
news 111- 121:7
News [4] - 43:21,
67:10, 143:23, 144:5
next [20] - 9:14,14:14.
19:5,19:16, 20:6,
20:14, 22:5, 23:2,
23:5, 23:13, 23:23,
24:12, 26:2, 40:8,
84:19, 128:15,
129:19, 146:13,
150:17, 203:11
nice 121- 92:24,
163:16
night [1] - 205:14
nights Ill- 51:2
no -step [1] - 94:17
nobody [31- 80:3,
97:9,126:1
nomenclature [1]-
60:24
nonalcoholic Ill -
191:13
noncommercial [11-
191:12
noncompatible (1) -
59:24
nonconforming [1] -
111:15
none [51- 32:22,
32:24, 37:10,141:5,
202:1
nonenforcement 11] -
53:10
nonetheless [1] -
108:9
nonresidential [2] -
188:24,189:3
normal [2] - 34:17,
67:1
normally 12] -161:9,
161:15
north 147 - 5:18, 44:4,
65:2, 155:18
northeast O] - 104:20
northerly [1]- 16:12
northwest 117 - 167:23
notarized 111- 122:11
note M - 22:19, 27:3,
30:4, 55:7, 96:5,
135:18, 162:10
noted [2] - 28:8, 135:8
notes [3]- 197:7,
206:6, 206:9
nothing 1151- 16:14,
34:3, 46:22, 67:15,
81:3, 92:19, 103:12,
111:4, 136:12,
161:5, 173:17,
176:9, 176:13,
180:2, 199:18
notice [121- 65:11,
65:12, 65:13, 65:23,
69:10, 143:18,
148:3, 148:7,
148:13, 155:2,
156:15, 159:1
notified [31- 68:24;
147:23, 148:2
notion 117 - 85:14
notions (11-150:4
Novemberlll-
206:13
nuisance 131- 53:15,
57:7, 128:13
nuisances 111-
122:20
Number 157 - 8:14,
19:20, 19:21, 38:19,
135:15
number 1221- 4:18,
10:22, 18:9, 74:14,
100:6, 110:21,
111:2, 112:14,
112:23, 113:5,
129:19, 131:3,
131:11, 131:12,
131:15, 132:11,
132:14, 134:6,
142:23, 147:5,
153:25, 173:19
numbered 127 - 6:2,
11:25
nurturing (1) - 104:25
o'clock [6]- 2:17,
125:13, 134:14,
152:25, 203:12,
204:2
oak [1] - 8:8
oaks [2] - 47:11, 69:24
obey 121-104:15,
144:11
object[3]- 88:24,
113:20,176:2
objection 141- 8:23,
88:11, 109:12,112:6
objections [4]- 89:20,
106:12, 114:20,
124:5
objective [6]- 54:8,
67:2, 68:6, 138:16,
175:5, 175:8,
175:25, 200:13
obligation nl - 30:16
observed [31- 52:9,
52:10, 55:2
observers 111- 15:17
obstructing 111- 55:9
obtain (21- 84:13,
124:12
obtaining (11- 43:19
obviously [141- 25:21,
42:22, 65:5, 65:7,
96:14, 97:13,
123:20,164:6,
192:1, 193:3,193:8,
194:9,194:15,
201:14
occasion 131- 17:15,
17:17, 94:13
occupancy I6] - 13:2,
63:9, 117:12,
157:25, 159:14,
190:8
occupants (37 - 61:21,
62:6, 63:16
occupied 111- 159:20
occupies [11- 24:25
occupy [51- 105:25,
118:19,158:1,
159:15,160:21
occur11]-62:25
occurred 121- 77:15,
166:25
occurrence [21-
121:18, 121:19
odd 111- 69:20
OF(2]-1:2
off-the-record [2]-
15:10, 43:4
offended 111- 81:14
offensive [11- 72:7
offer [71- 34:19,
50:13, 76:23, 78:13,
110:5, 126:4.183:17
offered [21- 11:19,
176:3
office 131- 73:17,
85:18,166:9
Board of Adjustment 9-2146
officerp]- 186:5
official 1161- 29:20,
33:21, 59:11, 60:1,
71:23, 82:5, 83:5,
84:5, 107:18, 114:7,
116:16,137:5,
138:14,151:13,
184:13,192:12
officially 111- 4:23
officials [e1- 44:11,
60:8, 60:12, 61:24,
64:1, 72:20, 75:8,
200:10
offsite 111- 30:24
often [5] - 90:16,
118:20,135:22,
137:6, 201:4
old [31- 60:19, 69:24,
154:15
Olive [2]- 50:20,
5021
Oliveira Isl - 76:4,
128:24,147:16,
155:14, 162:12
Oliveim's 121- 129:2,
163:19
once [111- 8:25,
33:23, 50:22, 123:5,
144:23, 169:5,
177:5,189:17,
195:11, 204:3,
204:11
one [1391-4:21, 5:24,
6:7, 6:18, 7:7, 7:19,
8:13, 9:23,10:12,
13:22, 22:19, 24:3,
24:9, 24:15, 25:3,
25:7, 26:14, 27:22,
27:23, 33:3, 33:4,
34:3, 36:20, 38:15,
40:6, 43:24, 44:7,
45:11, 46:5, 46:11,
46:19, 50:13, 51:5,
53:21, 54:22, 54:23,
55:21, 56:18, 58:7,
61:4, 63:5, 63:6,
63:20, 64:8, 65:4,
65:22, 68:10, 70:14,
73:8, 74:23, 75:10,
77:17, 82:19, 83:16,
83:17, 84:20, 85:6,
85:11, 85:22, 86:6,
87:5, 87:20, 89:9,
90:16, 91:2, 91:12,
91:25, 93:22, 95:19,
95:23, 97:10,
100:23, 103:19,
107:21, 108:17,
108:18, 111:23,
111:24, 112:14,
112:16, 117:10,
117:17, 124:9,
124:11, 124:14,
126:2, 126:5, 128:3,
129:9, 129:19,
130:9, 130:10,
131:11, 132:7,
132:9; 136:17,
136:21, 136:22,
141:6, 141:7, 141:8,
143:23, 146:6,
147:21, 149:25,
150:9,154:20,
154:22,155:13,
160:3,164:25,
166:13,170:4,
170:8,170:24,
172:3,172:11,
175:21, 175:22,
177:18,180:6,
181:24,182:21,
187:14,188:1,
188:7, 190:23,
193:23,194:18,
199:4, 199:19,
201:9, 202:15,
204:18
One [2] - 150:1, 170:9
one-page 11]- 44:7
ones [6]-7:24, 19:19,
67:2, 70:17,130:22
online 121- 17:4,
138:4
onus (11- 39:8
open [6]- 87:4, 92:22,
93:1, 93;5,127:7,
158:19.184:10,
203:4
opening 151- 11:15,
62:16, 62:18,
100:13,172:24
operation [1] - 25:11
operationally 111-
27:2
opinion [19] - 7:12,
10:14, 11:10, 15:23,
83:6, 83:7, 83:18,
84:2, 84:3, 113:2,
153:13, 154:24,
156:21, 165:2,
165:3, 165:4, 169:9,
169:10, 192:5
opinions [21- 67:4,
194:13
opportunities 131-
50:2, 188:18, 188:23
opportunity (41- 3:9,
116:3, 123:13,
181:11
opposed 137 - 7:25,
88:2, 123:5
opposite [51-11:1,
74:10,102:17,
124:23
Opposition 121- 76:18,
176:5
optimistic 111-134:13
option [11] - 8:3, 8:4,
8:14, 11:5, 158:13,
158:17,163:2,
181:2,181:14,
182:12,183:2
options [to] - 6:18,
7:16, 9:13, 34:19,
47:1, 156:9, 156:12,
160:23,162:8.
182:21
orchestrated [1] -
74:21
order [19] - 2:3, 3:25,
8:1, 12:2, 25:1, 26:4,
29:6, 32:20, 36:19,
48:8,108:10,
116:19,137:14.
155:5, 160:21,
186:2, 186:20,
187:24,189:16
ordinance [321- 4:25,
8:5,19:9, 23:3,
37:25, 49:22, 84:11,
84:16, 88:19, 98:23,
99:9, 99:13,101:3.
101:21, 102:23,
113:17,114:12,
114:13,124:10,
126:14, 127:3,
127:13, 149:8,
151:8.153:17,
167:17,168:13,
186:23,187:7,
187:22,191:7
Ordinance [2] -
113:16, 186:8
ordinances [15]-
42:8, 85:2, 88:10,
106:14, 106:24,
107:18, 114:7,
173:19, 186:13,
189:20, 190:3,
190:25, 191:25,
192:14,196:2
Ordinances 191- 9:17,
9:18,153:23,
185:24,188:17,
190:6, 192:11,
192:20,193:1
ordinary [1] - 92:19
organized [21- 4:14,
67:8
original [91- 9:21,
25:3, 74:7, 82:6,
88:2, 171:20,
173:17, 184:2
originally [11- 69:23
others' 121-48:20,
48:21
otherwise (21- 38:10,
182:10
ought[41-9:1, 9:2,
9:10
ourselves 121- 4:14,
146:12
outcome 14]- 66:21,
86:22, 86:23,150:4
outlined 111- 68:4
outrage It] -150:2
outside [41- 31:7,
62:19, 62:20, 62:23
outspoken [11- 79:20
outward 121- 22:21,
62:16
outward -opening Ili -
62:16
overall (21- 24:21,
98:12
overhead If] - 93:5
Overlapping (21-
136:11, 170:23
overlaps 111- 47:6
overlay [sl - 78:14,
78:18, 126:12,
189:7,189:8
overloaded 111- 21:14
overlooked 111- 48:7
overlooks [11- 94:2
override [21- 89:2,
114:23
overrule 111- 166:12
overruled [11- 201:4
oversights 11]- 44:7
overstooponed 111 -
21:17
overturn (1)- 201:15
own 1251- 4:17, 11:10,
25:11, 46:24, 47:1,
47:4, 58:18, 58:20,
70:7, 70:19, 75:21,
81:14, 94:16, 113:8,
121:1, 123:14,
143:2, 152:24,
153:20,154:10,
157:11, 157:13,
190:10,194:13,
200:20
owned [1] - 154:23
owner [191- 9:6,16:3,
16:6, 22:16, 27:21,
28:17, 28:24, 30:6,
31:4, 39:8, 40:1,
42:4, 42:12, 94:6,
114:15,149:19,
155:15,167:16,
161:13
owner's (61- 29:1,
29:25, 30:15, 41:16,
42:13, 175:1
owners 131- 71:9,
103:19, 159:1
owners' [11- 62:22
owns [41- 5:17, 45:23,
45:24, 155:20
P
P.M [41 - 1:3, 55:25,
205:17
packet [1] - 70:9
Page [11- 35:7
page 1331- 6:25, 7:3,
9:14, 9:16, 19:5,
19:6,19:16, 20:6,
22:6, 22:18, 23:2,
23:5, 23:13, 23:23,
24:3, 25:15, 25:17,
25:18, 26:13, 35:5,
35:9, 35:16, 35:18,
44:7, 70:8, 132:7,
135:6, 139:19,
140:25, 141:14,
172:19, 198:21
pages pl -11:16,
18:2, 18:4, 100:19,
100:25, 125:20,
206:8
painting It] - 137:24
panel 141- 164:22,
165:2, 165:6, 165:8
paper 111- 178:8
peril) - 53:5
paragraph [51- 124:7,
128:22,135:16,
135:17.135:22
parallel Ill - 201:17
parameters 121- 3:18,
152:21
parcel 151- 27:9,
27:17, 37:17, 37:18,
37:21
parent 11]- 49:19
parenthetically 111-
191:13
parents 13] - 5:6,
90:11, 95:5
park 181- 51:16,
55:13, 55:16, 56:13,
96:8, 96:12, 96:18,
96:21
Park [2] -16:23, 75:13
parked 191- 55:6,
56:3, 56:5, 56:6,
Board of Adjustment 9-21-16
56:18, 57:18, 96:5,
96:7, 96:23
parking [2sl - 46:18,
47:25, 52:23, 52:25,
53:1, 53:5, 53:8,
53:11, 53:16, 55:8,
55:9, 55:22, 55:24,
56:12, 56:15, 57:1,
57:6, 65:5, 95:22,
95:23, 96:14, 96:23,
106:5,191:3, 191:14
parking -rotated Ili -
55:22
parks It] -189:1
Parmenterl41-1:11,
53:21, 122:4, 152:20
PARMENTER 134] -
89:22, 122:8,
122:22, 125:10,
183:1, 183:19,
183:24.184:12,
184:24, 185:19,
194:8, 194:24,
195:2, 195:8,
195:21, 196:1,
196:5, 196:8,
196:19, 197:2,
197:6,197:16,
198:3.198:23,
199:6,199:20,
199:22, 200:3,
200:6, 200:16,
201:19, 202:7,
203:23, 203:25
Parmenter's [1] - 6:5
Parsons 11] - 123:14
part [671- 4:13, 4:23,
9:16, 9:17, 9:22,
13:17, 13:18, 16:8,
17:24, 19:15, 20:17,
20:24, 24:21, 25:21,
25:22, 26:2, 26:24,
27:13, 27:17, 29:17,
29:25, 30:14, 32:11,
33:13, 36:20, 37:6,
37:18, 41:25, 83:5,
86:24, 95:7, 98:10,
98:22, 100:15,
100:25, 107:14,
117:5,126:24.
129:9,133:9.
139:16, 139:24,
140:15, 151:15,
151:16, 154:4,
164:1, 164:11,
164:23, 165:20,
167:12, 170:25,
172:8, 172:11,
172:12, 174:18,
178:18, 184:1,
184:24, 184:25,
191:14, 195:3,
199:10, 201:6
Part ill- 165:17
part's 111-40:9
parte [1] - 204:16
partial M -13:4,
176:21
partially 121- 13:1,
125:19
participating [1] -
104:21
particular [161- 40:15,
42:7, 56:21, 100:7,
126:25, 128:24,
129:10,135:21,
140:21, 146:23,
160:3, 160:4,
167:16, 182:20,
189:19, 196:22
particularly Is] -
19:24, 28:8, 44:17,
48:1, 72:7.131:6,
146:11, 157:8
particulars [11- 85:4
parties [tot -119:8,
162:24, 185:2,
185:12, 186:1,
189:7,193:7. 193:9,
197:9, 201:25
partly 0] -187:24
partner 121- 86:6, 96:9
partners 111- 85:20
parts [21- 20:18,
31:18
party Is] - 50:3, 51:15,
53:6, 54:6, 63:19,
66:21, 85:23, 156:24
party -goers (1) -
51:15
partying [1] - 51:7
pass [sl - 6:8, 78:17,
79:25, 80:2,193:22
passage [1] - 105:10
passed 111-180:18
passes Ill - 114:17
past [91- 2:18, 5:10,
17:5,17:18, 32:11,
38:16. 51:24, 76:16,
180:10
path 111- 26:17
pathologist Ill - 104:3
patience 121-153:1,
163:7
patio 121- 93:4, 94:3
Patricia [21-1:12,
60:16
Patrick's [1] - 90:13
pattern 121- 59:13,
189:5
patterns Ill - 34:17
paved 121- 44:1, 44:2
pay Ill - 145:25
pays Ill - 157:3
PDF 111- 69:6
pedestrian pl - 57:1
people 15x1- 14:8,
14:17, 25:5, 41:13,
51:9, 51:14, 51:18,
51:23, 52:16, 54:11,
56:12, 56:14, 57:11,
58:1, 58:19, 62:25,
72:5, 76:16, 77:17,
79:25, 81:19, 83:13,
86:5, 97:20, 104:18,
111:7, 115:23,
115:25,117:4,
119:8, 119:13,
142:24, 143:20,
144:15, 145:7,
145:8.145:9,
145:11, 149:5,
150:3, 150:19,
166:25,157:5,
157:7,160:18,
162:14,164:19,
166:6, 169:8,
169:19, 169:25,
180:16, 196:12
people's It) - 32:20
per [13] - 202, 23:17,
26:7, 47:16, 51:5,
131:18,131:20.
132:18,132:22.
133:6, 168:4, 168:5
perceive 141- 175:24,
201:14, 201:16,
204:25
perceived [11- 182:7
percentllo]- 19:3,
19:22, 20:14, 20:18,
21:17, 23:8, 24:19,
133:16, 139:21
percentage 11] - 79:18
percentages Ill -
109:13
perception 121- 82:8
perfect 111- 33:8
performance [t] -
138:10
performed [4] - 10:11,
11:17, 75:11
perhaps (41- 28:16,
30:25, 130:15,156:7
period [51- 72:13,
155:2, 162:22,
184:23,190:12
periodic [11- 63:10
permissible (11-
113:4
pant
to 22
permission [21- 6:5,
44:24
permit p8]-2:5, 16:9,
41:25, 42:20, 43:11,
43:17, 43:19, 43:20,
43:25, 44:9, 44:14,
44:16, 47:9, 47:19,
48:9, 48:12, 48:16,
48:23, 49:9, 59:9,
61:7, 61:13, 67:11,
69:16, 69:19, 70:3,
70:14, 71:6, 71:14,
71:15, 73:19, 75:15,
75:23, 76:8, 85:24,
88:2, 89:11, 89:15,
101:11, 106:15,
106:18, 106:22,
107:13, 107:19,
111:5, 112:10,
112:22, 114:8,
114:21, 115:3,
115:11, 116:18,
118:8, 124:12,
143:25, 148:24,
151:6, 151:15,
151:18, 151:19,
151:24, 157:18,
158:8, 158:17,
158:19, 159:8,
159:16, 159:25,
161:9, 161:17,
162:5, 162:25,
163:14, 170:11,
172:3, 172:17,
176:9, 179:18,
181:19, 187:16,
188:9, 192:10,
192:11, 192:15,
192:23, 193:2,193:6
permit's 11] - 160:13
permits [3] - 137:6,
190:25, 191:19
permitted [121- 11:3,
11:4, 66:22, 95:11,
109:19,109:25,
135:15,158:22,
176:19,189:14,
189:21, 191:1
permitting 11] - 124:8
perplexed 11] - 59:8
person [22]- 10:4,
11:3, 41:3, 71:12,
79:20, 81:11, 85:10,
85:24, 86:8, 104:8,
128:11, 134:13,
140:4, 142:18,
144:21, 144:22,
150:1, 154:23,
154:24, 155:20,
186:4, 206:11
personal 151- 49:1,
51:22, 115:14,150:7
personalize [t] -
87:21
personally [61- 57:3,
57:9, 57:10, 63:16,
78:11, 78:12, 79:5,
142:16
persons [5] - 7:22,
67:3, 70:14, 137:11,
146:22
perspective 15] - 5:4,
92:8, 137:12,142:4,
166:20
perspectives [t] -
166:5
petition 141- 76:13,
76:14, 76:18, 76:23
phase [11- 40:6
phone [1] - 96:19
photo 131- 52:10,
52:25, 54:20
photographs [11-
55:17
picked [1] - 146:2
picture [3]- 43:14,
45:22, 65:4
pictured 111- 65:4
piece 1101- 18:24,
35:24, 39:19, 41:8,
41:13, 41:18, 42:5,
137:13,178:8
Pieces 121- 9:19,
18:25
pilings 111- 32:9
pink 111- 93:23
pipe 121- 154:15,
158:23
Place 112] - 1:18,
29:23, 31:16, 44:25,
58:13, 92:12, 95:4,
115:23, 127:15,
145:22,153:14,
200:18
placed 13] - 24:24,
44:4.104:23
places 141- 18:13,
52:3, 52:5, 147:6
plain [11-136:6
plan 1631- 2:9, 8:24,
8:25, 22:9, 22:10,
26:19, 26:21, 28:14,
43:11, 43:16, 43:22,
43:24, 44:3, 44:5,
44:8, 44:16, 48:12,
48:23, 53:25, 54:2,
58:9, 58:12, 58:23,
62:18, 67:14, 69:20,
71:5, 74:7, 76:6,
76:7, 92:7, 95:7,
Board of Adjustment 9-21-16
95:10, 95:14, 98:12,
104:24,107:20,
115:4, 118:1, 118:2,
118:3, 118:7,118:9,
141:3, 144:1, 147:1,
151:17, 152:17,
161:19, 163:19,
171:18, 171:20,
172:17, 175:7,
187:6, 192:8,199:2,
199:14, 199:16,
199:24, 200:2
planned [1] - 189:4
planning 121- 26:24,
29:11
plans 1131- 28:19,
52:22, 65:24, 69:5,
69:7, 74:21, 112:25,
144:17,171:1,
172:22, 172:23,
173:17,188:10
plant [11- 79:24
plates [2]- 96:4, 96:6
platform [11- 46:2
play [151- 50:16,
50:17, 52:3, 52:4,
52:5, 52:21, 84:18,
92:11, 93:8, 93:15,
93:25, 94:23, 97:4,
124:25, 170:20
played [2] - 51:2,
90:17
playing 111- 52:13
playroom [11- 97:7
pleased [11- 3:20
plenty 131- 14:24,
113:18,133:5
plot [1] - 188:10
podium [11- 87:16
point 1351-16:5, 19:7,
28:12, 40:4, 45:3,
58:8, 67:19, 84:6,
89:18,102:24,
105:18, 109:3,
131:14, 131:22,
136:16, 138:5,
139:8,139:17,
141:23,142:23,
150:1, 150:15,
166:20,162:17,
164:25, 170:13,
171:15,171:16,
173:3, 173:5, 174:3,
175:6, 178:8,
194:15, 197:11
pointed [1]- 112:15
pointing [1] -131:24
points [2] - 67:21,
142:9
pole 111- 60:3
police lel - 53:9,
56:22, 57:16, 57:17,
57:21, 57:22
Policy 131-106:7,
144:9, 178:24
Political [21- 111:2,
138:3
politically 111- 11:5
politics 11] - 138:5
pool [11- 12:22
poor [1] - 49:6
poorly [1] - 67:1
pops 111- 31:15
porch [3] - 93:1, 93:2,
93:5
portion [1] - 155:22
portions 11] - 51:17
pose 11] - 47:20
posit [2]- 142:20,
151:14
position [111-17:11,
82:15, 86:16, 104:2,
110:19,121:23,
125:7.131:6,
154:12,154:19
possessed [11- 71:1
possibilities [1] -
184:11
possibility 121- 181:7,
204:24
possible 112] - 3:11,
15:5, 45:19, 68:8,
90:16,119:10,
160:8,166:2, 169:6,
169:7, 174:18, 177:9
possibly 131- 89:2,
106:19,177:13
post[l] - 51:7
postpermitting [1] -
163:1
potential [41- 26:4,
40:8, 40:11, 72:17
potentially [21- 25:25,
164:22
power[7] - 60:13,
64:8, 99:24,184:4.
184:16, 186:15,
186:18
PowerPoint 11] -
105:17
powers [4]- 184:2,
184:3.195:3, 195:5
practicable [21-
107:19,114:8
practical [11- 156:23
practice 121- 85:20,
85:21
practiced 11] - 70:1
pre [11-51:6
precautions [1] - 62:7
precedent [61- 49:6,
61:5, 61:6,162:12.
162:25,199:19
precedent -setting [1]
- 61:6
preconceived [2] -
85:13, 150:4
predisposition [11-
83:5
predominate [11-
110:3
preempted [1] - 103:6
preexisting [2] -
11:23, 67:4
preliminary [2]-
112:25, 113:2
premised 111- 118:23
preparation [1] -
29:25
prepared 141- 58:19,
89:19, 126:6.126:7
preparing [11- 32:25
present [9] -1:7,
14:15, 24:4, 90:25,
110:1, 113:12,
149:20, 201:7, 203:9
Present [21- 1:9, 1:11
presentation 11o] -
3:10, 4:13, 4:15,
15:17, 27:7, 73:16,
88:16, 89:8, 105:18,
185:16
presented 11 o] - 6:1,
62:18, 100:18,
106:12,142:19,
170:6, 188:5, 201:3,
203:1, 206:10
presenting 111- 6:12
preservation 111-
79:16
preserved 111- 22:22
president [1]- 5:20
press [31- 104:12,
143:19,143:20
presumably [3] -
122:9, 122:11,
155:18
presume pl - 55:22,
108:13,157:14
presumed [2]-
104:14, 155:3
presuming [2] -
101:25, 122:10
presumption [1] -
180:14
pretty 121- 79:19,
92:18
prevent 111- 115:10
prevents [1] - 60:9
previous 141- 87:13,
99:16, 128:16,
128:24
primarily [6]- 49:23,
62:1, 65:21, 83:20,
145:21, 188:17
primary [61- 10:9,
10:17, 12:19, 13:23,
61:22, 176:20
principal [191-10:15,
12:19, 12:21, 12:23,
13:8, 65:21, 68:1,
68:3, 68:5, 68:9,
105:6, 112:2, 112:5,
165:15, 165:16,
165:24, 165:25,
189:11, 189:13
principally [31- 61:2,
69:2, 150:13
print[11-125:24
printed [1]- 125:24
prioritize 121- 43:9,
49:7
private [231- 46:21,
48:3, 48:20, 48:21,
51:19, 52:1, 52:2,
72:10, 72:16, 135:9,
135:10, 135:16,
135:19, 135:25,
136:6, 153:8,
155:15, 157:12,
158:10, 160:24,
167:20, 191:2,
191:15
Pro [1]-24:14
proactive 11] - 21:7
problem [241- 18:16,
21:9, 21:12, 29:17,
30:19, 32:4, 33:17,
35:1, 44:10, 52:24,
82:5, 84:6, 86:12,
86:15, 99:17, 99:20,
99:21, 99:23, 99:24,
99:25, 146:14,
158:9, 175:2
problems 1151- 26:17,
26:22, 33:14, 33:15,
41:11, 53:5, 62:3,
65:8, 65:9, 65:17,
66:8, 70:17, 70:19,
121:19, 182:7
procedural 121- 2:12,
193:13
procedure 111- 68:13
procedures 121- 59:7
193:14
proceed 121- 134:23,
151:20
proceeding (11-
148:19
PROCEEDINGS [11-
2:1
proceedings (11-
206:5
process 141] - 15:18,
20:24,22:13, 26:24,
28:14, 28:16, 29:22,
31:11, 33:1, 33:7,
37:23, 38:10, 41:25,
66:21, 66:23, 68:3,
71:14, 76:22, 79:3,
79:4, 101:10,
101:13, 112:12,
112:24,115:20,
124:8, 138:15,
141:2, 141:8,
157:19, 158:25,
164:23, 169:12,
171:1, 172:20,
185:12, 186:1,
193:15, 196:23,
201:2, 201:17
processes [2]- 37:20,
67:1
produced [21- 69:3,
75:12
productive Ill -
113:25
professional [8]-
10:13, 33:21,
105:21, 106:10,
106:13, 107:11,
114:3, 115:5
professionalism (4)-
137:22, 138:7,
138:20, 142:13
professor 121- 4:22,
98:21
prohibited [11- 68:17
project 1321- 9:4,
46:24, 66:18, 67:17,
68:1, 68:23, 70:17,
71:6, 71:7, 71:11,
71:20, 71:22, 75:13,
83:18, 83:19, 84:1,
84:10, 85:14, 87:7,
87:9; 112:12,
112:15,113:3,
114:1, 127:4, 127:5,
145:13, 148:23,
149:3, 149:6, 149:9,
151:10, 151:11,
151:20, 155:19,
163:20
projects [2] - 59:6,
61:15
promote 13] - 49:25,
54:9, 188:21
promptly 111- 146:4
proof [1]- 119:24
prop (11-110:6
Board of Adjustment 9-21-16
proper [2] - 48:3,
157:21
properly m - 33:4,
60:25, 62:8, 100:2,
102:8.105:22,
113:23
properties [s] - 24:17,
25:19, 140:19,
154:23, 201:12
Property [1481- 2:6,
2:8, 5:18, 5:19,16:3.
16:6, 16:12, 16:16,
18:15, 18:24, 20:7,
20:9, 20:12, 20:13,
20:14, 22:15, 23:10,
23:11, 24:6, 24:20,
24:25, 25:4, 25:10,
26:7, 26:8, 27:5,
27:21, 28:7, 28:17,
28:19, 28:24, 29:2,
29:8, 29:24, 30:6,
30:15, 30:22, 30:23,
30:25, 31:4, 31:5,
31:6, 32:20, 34:20,
34:21, 34:23, 38:3,
38:8, 39:8, 40:1,
40:14, 40:17, 41:9,
41:13, 41:16, 41:18,
41:19, 45:12, 45:13,
45:14, 46:13, 46:21,
46:24, 47:1, 47:11,
48:20, 48:21, 51:19,
53:8, 65:3, 70:7,
71:9, 82:13, 89:1,
89:2, 98:11, 103:2,
103:24, 104:22,
105:7, 105:8, 106:5,
107:14,111:13,
114:23, 115:16,
118:16, 123:14,
123:19, 126:16,
126:24, 132:22,
133:12, 139:9,
139:10,139:11.
139:13, 139:15,
140:5,140:16,
140:17,148:4,
148:8, 148:10,
148:12, 149:19,
154:17, 154:18,
155:9,155:10,
155:15,155:20,
155:22, 156:5,
156:13, 156:16,
157:15, 158:20,
158:21, 159:1,
160:12,161:13,
162:22,163:23,
167:20, 167:24,
168:4, 168:5, 168:6,
168:10,168:11,
171:19,173:24,
174:2, 174:5,
174:16,180:19,
180:20, 188:15,
189:10, 189:11,
190:17,191:15
proposal 151- 9:10,
10:8, 64:5, 74:24,
129:2
propose [2] - 9:23,
47:7
proposed [35] - 8:12,
8:25, 9:3, 28:19,
43:7, 44:17, 49:8,
52:19, 54:1, 60:23,
63:1, 65:24, 89:13,
107:16, 110:7,
110:23, 112:16,
112:17, 113:3,
114:5,124:6,
132:24,146:19,
155:8, 165:14,
165:23,187:15,
187:17, 188:7,
188:14,189:9,
191:21, 191:23,
192:12,192:24
protect [21- 22:23,
86:1
protected 1221- 18:19,
19:22, 19:24, 20:2,
20:16, 20:21, 21:10,
22:22, 26:9, 26:20,
27:18, 38:22, 48:2,
60:13,126:15,
126:23,127:1,
127:2,127:11,
127:12, 139:20,
139:21
protecting [3]- 21:24,
28:4, 47:21
protections [1] -
63:17
protective [21-
167:16, 168:15
protects 121- 38:1
protest (11- 78:5
proud [1] - 138:19
prove 111- 118:19
proven 111- 53:17
provide [201- 9:25,
15:19, 17:21, 19:25,
47:13, 49:23, 50:1,
53:22, 77:2, 77:6,
105:19, 120:8,
126:3, 132:1,
132:19, 133:1,
133:13, 158:5,
188:18, 188:22
provided (231-11:9,
18:16, 24:12, 36:12,
36:13, 36:15, 37:2,
38:19, 53:20, 53:21,
101:17, 125:20,
125:23, 127:8,
129:7, 130:14,
131:23,169:20,
190:18,191:18,
197:22, 197:24
provides [9] -49:22,
102:6,107:16,
114:5, 130:18,
186:4, 186:8,
186:13, 190:15
providing [t] - 70:13
provision [9]- 8:5,
18:14, 44:6, 44:13,
48:10, 99:7,121;1,
147:1
provisionally [1] -
189:14
provisions [10] - 7:8,
9:2, 9:21, 43:10,
69:15, 70:15,
129:11, 152:3,
164:7,192:13
provokes [1] - 87:9
proximity 11] - 91:14
public [62] - 2:23, 3:4,
4:6, 4:17,15:4,
17:18, 33:7, 43:9,
43:22, 47:11, 47:22,
47:24, 47:25, 48:6,
49:1, 49:7, 52:1,
52:2, 52:5, 52:20,
53:24, 57:7, 65:13,
67:16, 68:21, 69:3,
70:18, 71:16, 71:23,
72:20, 74:22, 75:25,
86:2, 86:21, 87:1,
87:25, 116:23,
122:20, 123:4,
125:3,129:1,
129:13,135:10,
145:9, 145:11,
145:21,146:14,
158:14, 160:17,
160:20,160:25,
161:23,171:23,
181:3, 181:5,
198:25, 199:12,
199:15, 202:18,
203:4, 204:21
public's (1] -47:21
publicly 11] - 76:1
published 13] -
111:20, 121:5,121:6
pull [1] - 32:21
PUMP [31- 21:19,
131:19,182:11
Pane
to 24
pumper [2] - 45:25,
46:2
pumpers [1]- 45:23
pumping [21- 131:19,
133:5
purchased 121- 72:25,
123:19
purely 111-146:20
purports [21- 14:6,
14:8
purpose 1s] - 3:1,
49:5, 120:17,
141:24, 145:18,
155:3, 171:19,
189:19, 198:22
purposes [3] - 14:9,
62:11, 190:5
pursuant [11- 186:23
pursue [1] -160:24
pursuit [1] - 131:9
purview [2] - 27:15,
183:9
push 111- 63:25
pushed [1] - 67:17
Put [17] - 4:4, 7:1,
12:1, 13:10, 17:4,
32:7, 32:8, 32:19,
52:8, 79:23, 80:10,
97:14, 104:17,
108:13, 149:10,
151:9
puts [11- 39:7
putting 111- 137:23
puzzle [11-137:13
qualification [21-
135:20, 184:7
qualifications [11-
136:14
qualify 121- 23:12,
79:17
qualifying [11- 166:20
quality 111- 60:12
quasi [21- 185:4
quasi-judicial 11] -
185:4
question's [1]-162:2
questioned 111- 137:2
questioning (3] -
33:18, 98:21, 134:25
questions [36]- 3:16,
14:12, 58:21, 60:19,
73:14, 77:5, 77:9,
79:9, 86:13, 86:19,
90:5, 103:14,
105:14, 105:16,
117:1, 125:15,
129:17, 133:8,
135:2, 135:4,
152:18,152:24,
163:3,164:16,
164:17,168:1.
169:4, 169:6,
170:24,182:14,
182:16,185:9,
194:5,198:3, 202:11
quick [81- 15:20,
126:5, 164:19
quickly (5] - 16:6,
25:16, 66:16,169:6.
199:23
quiet [21- 50:15, 54:7
Quint [11- 45:24
quite [51- 11:1, 13:17,
40:3, 97:20, 127:6
quote [26] - 12:18,
49:24, 53:22, 53:23,
59:13, 59:14, 59:15,
59:17, 59:19, 60:1,
60:5, 130:20,
136:23, 143:22,
186:10,187:23,
188:1,190:7.
190:13, 190:15,
190:20, 190:25,
191:2, 191:4,
191:10,192:11
quoted [21-128:20,
147:21
quoting [1] - 200:3
R
R202 [11- 70:12
railroad [5]- 20:10,
103:5.124:16,
126:16,167:19
railway [81 - 16:13,
16:19, 20:18, 21:15,
23:18, 24:16, 24:17,
31:21, 142:4
raise [4] - 22:4, 81:24,
95:17, 176:16
raised [7] - 43:6,
97:25, 114:19,
116:9.128:16,
148:25,150:6
raising [21- 50:16,
142:24
ran [11- 45:14
Rapids [21- 1:23,
91:15
rate 0]- 47:16
rather [1] - 64:24
reached [11- 200:14
reaching [1] - 46:12
read [12] - 25:9, 26:2,
29:24, 36:17,
128:18, 128:20,
Board of Adjustment 9-21-16
130:16, 136:23,
140:2, 140:10,
171:20, 202:6
readily 111- 83:13
reading [31- 24:1,
59:7, 177:2
ready [21- 64:25,
203:14
real [8]- 21:9, 122:19,
136:3.145:17,
149:14,172:8,
177:2, 190:17
realities 11] - 43:22
realize [2]- 45:3,
171:6
really [121- 33:4,
45:16, 63:2, 76:23,
77:1, 79:20,122:19,
130:19, 131:12,
149:21, 170:12,
173:20
reals [11- 162:22
Realtor 11]- 144:24
rear [1] - 59:12
reason [81- 2:15, 9:9,
30:4, 140:17, 141:5,
146:6, 149:11,
152:24
reasonable 11] - 60:10
reasonably (1] - 152:2
reasoning [11- 149:10
reasons [61- 11:11,
32:15, 50:19, 68:2,
100:6,142:2
rebut 11] - 163:9
rebuttal 131- 101:18,
117:3, 125:11
recalculated 111- 76:8
receive [21- 104:8,
201:13
received [31- 190:1,
200:18, 200:22
receiving 11] -103:25
recent 131-144:18,
147:3, 179:19
recently [4] - 85:8,
178:8, 179:18,
181:19
recess [2] - 64:15,
64:22
recipient 111- 73:5
reclassify [3] - 49:7,
166:24,196:25
recognize 11]- 99:17
recognized (3) -
10:10, 11:2, 150:15
recommend [11-
194:8
recommendation [2] -
201:5, 201:15
recommendations ill
- 73:18
reconcile [11- 12:18
reconvene 111- 2:24
record pq -15:10,
38:23, 43:4, 46:22,
88:11, 89:19, 89:21,
89:23, 98:20,
102:24, 105:19,
120:9, 123:16,
136:23, 196:6
recording [21- 1:19,
206:6
records 141- 67:16,
68:21, 69:3, 71:17
recreation Is]- 10:18,
14:1, 14:5
recreational (151-
10:16, 12:10, 12:13,
12:14, 63:4, 82:24,
135:8, 135:10,
135:11, 135:16,
135:19, 136:1,
136:6. 136:7, 191:2
recused (21-150:9,
193:24
red [7] - 55:6, 112:14,
112:23, 113:5,
115:8, 125:23,
163:20
redesign [21- 98:16,
169:2
Redskins [1] - 90:19
reduce [21- 141:25,
142:1
reduced 131- 74:13,
74:14, 206:6
reducing [1] - 98:12
Reed [141-1:14, 72:1,
88:6, 89:8, 89:18,
89:25,104:13,
105:3, 105:24,
107:7,121:11,
144:25, 145:8,
163:21
Reed's [1] -145:2
reestablish (1] -
154:14
refer [3] - 54:20,
130:11, 130:15
reference [31- 6:24,
153:24, 163:17
referenced [11- 58:9
referred (41- 12:24,
83:1, 153:25, 198:1
referring Is] - 19:6,
132:3.132:4,132:9.
141:10,194:24
refers [1]- 134:7
refusal [1] - 73:4
reg ill -178:18
regard 191- 62:2,
126:13,126:25,
127:15,166:10,
168:11, 182:3,
186:14,193:18
regarding [121- 2:4,
19:2, 49:20, 53:7,
53:8, 95:17,103:23.
107:24,131:14,
184:4.186:11, 191:6
regardless (21-
159:15, 183:8
regards [41- 118:13,
131:14, 162:12,
168:3
regular [21- 67:1, 96:1
regulate [11- 135:23
regulated 1111 -19:2,
19:3, 19:8, 19:17,
24:4, 24:5, 139:19,
139:22, 142:5, 142:6
regulates [1] - 59:19
regulations [131-
24:5, 24:7, 26:6,
50:1, 84:23,112:21,
113:8.115:2.
124:10,129:4,
135:25,188:20,
188:21
reiterate [21- 140:7,
191:6
reject [1] - 182:22
rejected [1] - 84:10
rejecting [11- 101:15
related [18]- 4:25,
17:17, 24:5, 28:4,
55:22, 88:12, 88:16,
88:20, 99:1, 107:22,
109:3,146:25,
163:16,163;23,
189:3
relates [31- 17:25,
9822, 99:8
relationships [t] -
124:24
relevant [181- 16:9,
19:20, 28:1, 80:24,
88:22, 95:23,
104:10,105:22,
113:25,115:10,
118:1, 163:13,
163:19,164:7,
164:9, 185:3,186:2,
193:12
reliance 141- 89:3,
114:24,128:10,
128:11
relief 121- 61:9,
145:19
relies NI -113:16
religious [11- 189:1
relocated [1] - 91:12
rely [9]- 108:9,
108:14, 108:24,
109:2, 109:10,
109:16, 110:4,
124:8, 137:10
remarks [41- 58:20,
104:13, 104:18,
124:3
remedied (1] - 117:18
remember(7) - 27:24,
60:20, 61:4, 136:2,
146:15, 176:18,
198:10
remembered [11-
148:20
remind [31- 193:13,
193:17, 204:13
reminders [11-193:13
remodel [4] - 73:24,
74:4, 74:16, 74:18
removal 111- 20:4
removed 13] - 74:15,
150:2, 150:5
removing 111- 34:12
render 111- 88:9
rendered (21- 60:8,
83:6
renovate [1] - 79:22
rent [1] - 95:6
rental [1] - 120:23
repeat 151- 40:5,
124:1,140:13,
162:17,163:9
repeatedly [3] - 53:12,
53:17, 70:21
repercussions Ill -
146:9
replace [ll - 200:10
replica 121- 50:5,
70:25
replicate 111-14:7
reply Ill - 152:16
report [1cl - 6:12,
6:19, 9:20, 11:9,
26:15, 26:16, 27:3,
47:4, 129:22, 201:3
Reporter [21- 206:2,
206:16
represent [21- 88:6,
171:16
representative [11-
45:15
representing [21-
66:14, 85:22
reputable 111- 144:22
request [81- 59:4,
75:15, 78:13, 80:3,
80:5,106:15,
115:11, 116:15
requested (21 - 107:3,
193:20
requests 111- 67:16
require [151- 32:10,
39:25, 42:1, 44:21,
46:20, 47:2, 48:19,
48:20, 62:13, 98:15,
129:13,153:8.
172:16,181:12,
192:8
required [37] - 7:18,
8:24, 9:2, 11:20,
18:13,19:24, 20:1,
27:13, 27:18, 28:9,
28:19, 40:6, 42:6,
62:7, 63:5, 68:3,
75:14, 75:20, 99:18,
107:10,107:20,
123:3, 129:19,
132:14, 132:17,
132:19, 133:14,
140:25, 141:4,
141:12,141:18,
142:3, 162:13,
180:22, 191:19,
192:15, 195:7
requirement [231-
7:25, 8:5, 8:21, 13:6,
16:1, 16:7, 20:1,
20:3, 25:4, 25:9,
27:20, 28:8, 33:25,
37:1, 37:2, 37:11,
38:9, 41:21, 131:5,
134:1,186:20,
187:8, 187:25
requirements [441-
8:20, 9:4, 15:24,
16:10,18:8, 22:7,
22:13, 24:9, 27:19,
28:3, 28:4, 28:13,
28:18, 29:4, 29:15,
39:20, 39:21, 39:24,
41:6, 48:6, 48:24,
61:3, 61:19, 72:19,
89:12, 107:10,
107:17,107:24,
114:6, 115:7,118:3,
124:11, 129:12,
131:15,131:21,
140:18,140:23,
147:2, 149:12,
152:5, 191:24,
192:19, 192:25
requires [19] - 10:10,
22:20, 24:10, 24:23,
26:10, 41:22, 47:15,
48:14, 68:7, 75:5,
76:2.130:12,
Board of Adjustment 9-21-16
138:16,142:15,
142:20, 151:14,
153:19, 184:14,
195:10
requiring 151- 15:24,
25:12,102:14,
130:24, 147:17
rescind [2]-159:8,
162:5
research [4]- 17:10,
17:14, 80:20, 158:22
reserve 111- 152:23
reset [1]- 157:18
reside Ill - 16:23
Residence [31-13:20,
188:12, 193:1
residence [361-13:7,
61:2, 61:8, 62:5,
63:15, 64:6, 66:1,
67:6, 68:10, 69:2,
75:18, 82:14, 82:17,
82:23,102:8.
104:25,106:1.
108:7, 108:17,
111:6, 112:4, 113:4,
116:7.116:14,
145:21, 147:20,
150:13, 150:22,
151:2, 151:3,151:4.
162:3,152:4.
176:23, 184:5, 192:4
residences [sl - 66:6,
66:11, 110:10,
153:11, 153:12
resident [5]- 5:8,
17:8, 62:6,111:12,
160:6
Residential (91-
70:11, 75:20,
107:15, 114:4,
117:4,147:18,
147:20.149:24,
153:24
residential [6o] - 2:6,
2:9, 10:14, 10:17,
10:21, 12:22, 13:1,
13:4, 13:10, 13:24,
18:12, 35:14, 43:16,
47:18, 49:8, 54:7,
59:20, 59:21, 60:3,
60:5, 60:11, 62:1,
64:6, 65:21, 65:22,
66:2, 66:22, 68:11,
73:22, 75:14, 82:23,
83:8, 83:20, 83:23,
83:25, 84:2, 108:21,
109:4, 109:9,
109:18, 109:19,
109:25, 111:13,
112:5, 113:10,
117:21, 135:7,
135:13,146:18,
153:25, 174:5,
176:7,176:18,
188:25, 189:5,
189:20,189:22,
190:8,192:21
residents [6] - 50:25,
52:20, 53:5, 70:24,
71:5,110:24
residents'(1) -191:3
residual [1] - 47:8
resolve [3) - 98:2,
120:16,165:2
resolved [5] - 114:14,
159:14.159:16,
168:25,182:6
respect [9]- 26:16,
27:9, 27:16, 28:2,
28:23, 31:3, 34:20,
95:11, 130:9
respectful [21-
115:15, 138:17
respectfully [21-
115:4, 116:15
respects [t] - 97:5
respond 16] - 3:9,
3:12, 3:13, 3:14,
125:5, 125:7
responded [2] -
112:25, 125:6
response [16] - 14:11,
27:7, 36:6, 42:23,
72:2, 72:12, 72:14,
102:22,131:2,
163:11
responsibilities 111-
43:9
responsibility (131-
26:3, 26:10, 28:22,
29:1, 29:18, 29:21,
29:25, 30:5, 40:10,
41:16, 42:13, 42:19,
140:3
responsible [41-
84:18, 138:12,
138:14, 142:22
rest 151-6:12, 12:2,
13:14, 37:4, 204:8
restaurant 111-109:6
restrict 111- 87:17
restricted [21- 37:21,
182:23
restriction I1] -
114:15
restroom [31- 74:3,
74:8, 74:11
restrooms [41- 97:15,
171:23,172:25,
173:19
rests [21- 28:24, 30:6
result [5] - 47:10,
48:13, 104:23,
150:23, 181:8
resulted [2]- 53:10,
66:23
retention 111- 22:23
retire [11- 115:23
retirement[2]- 59:6,
104:6
retiring [11- 104:5
retract [1]- 151:18
returned 111- 90:12
reverse [21- 187:24,
188:3
reversing [1]- 49:2
review [31] - 16:9,
22:13, 26:15, 28:16,
71:22, 75:8, 98:23,
99:9, 99:13,101:4,
101:5.106:11,
106:20, 107:20,
110:15,113:1,
118:6, 118:9,
126:11, 140:24,
141:12, 141:18,
141:20,141:21,
169:12,171:1.
187:6, 187:13,
189:16, 196:23
reviewed [4] - 5:10,
17:3, 80:9, 164:2
reviewing 151- 22:14,
27:3, 27:5, 169:8,
171:2
reviews [2] - 67:18,
188:9
revised [21- 44:7,
93:24
revoke [31- 43:16,
49:9, 75:23
revoked [4] - 76:7,
76:9, 117:14, 151:20
right-of-way (111-
16:13, 16:16, 53:1,
56:8, 56:9, 103:3,
103:5, 124:14,
126:16,167:19,
181:20
rightfully (21-115:22,
146:15
rights [11- 115:17
riprap 111- 21:11
rise [11- 111:14
risk (21- 32:5, 161:12
risks [21- 48:14, 49:3
RMR [1] - 1:22
Road (11-16:24
road pl - 23:18,
32:22, 33:2, 34:15,
35:1, 94:15, 101:22
roads (31- 130:13,
130:25, 131:3
roadway 111- 130:23
RogerM- 1:10,
129:20,130:1.
130:2, 130:5,130:6.
180:20
role [ill - 21:22, 82:1,
82:12, 82:16,
182:19, 184:12,
184:25, 185:20,
185:21, 185:23,
193:9
roles 121- 53:22,
137:16
roll lel-45:8, 194:16
room 1251- 45:14,
46:10, 92:10, 92:16,
93:15, 93:16, 93:24,
93:25, 94:1, 94:4,
94:6, 94:23, 94:25,
95:2, 95:4, 97:19,
104:18, 108:18,
109:20, 190:21,
204:10
rooms [4]- 93:22,
93:23, 94:21, 190:21
roots [1] - 145:3
Ross] 131- 1:12, 55:3,
72:12
ROSSI [5] - 55:3, 56:7,
56:10, 57:21, 58:1
round [21- 51:5, 93:17
route [11 - 158:14
routine It] - 201:2
Rowland [41- 49:17,
51:17, 51:24, 52:12
RS -5 [121- 2:7, 48:4,
49:23, 54:8, 58:10,
59:10, 61:3, 75:13,
188:15.189:20,
191:1, 191:25
rule [131- 18:23,
100:17,100:22,
114:12, 146:12,
183:16, 183:17,
184:8, 184:9,
185:14, 186:2,
195:24, 196:1
ruled (21- 127:11,
183:20
rules [14] -18:10,
18:23, 19:2, 30:8,
67:3, 113:8, 114:3,
141:9, 142:17,
146:24, 193:14,
193:17, 195:14,
195:16
ruling Ill -183:16
run 111-32:5
running [31- 165:14,
165:16.165:23
runoff 121- 62:15, 65:8
runs 121- 20:18, 44:4
rushing [1) - 44:13
ruts [1] - 69:24
S
sacrificing 131- 48:25,
98:10, 138:18
safe [5]- 52:2, 52:5,
53:19, 54:14, 63:19
safely Ell - 50:17
safer It] - 130:24
safety 1291- 5:3,
21:25, 31:25, 43:8,
43:9, 48:6, 48:14,
49:1, 49:7, 49:20,
52:20, 61:21, 61:23,
61:25, 62:6, 62:24,
63:11, 63:15, 66:8,
71:8, 76:1,115:8.
131:13,142:3.
147:14, 179:22,
181:3, 181:5
Sandy [9]- 1:14, 88:6,
89:9, 90:1, 90:25,
103:16,103:18,
105:25,107:9
Sandy's (31- 91:18,
94:10,116:7
sanitary (to] - 70:5,
88:17, 95:18, 95:21,
117:13,147:21,
153:9, 154:3, 154:4,
160:17
sanitation 161- 13:21,
70:16, 75:19, 117:5,
117:7, 176:8
Sarah (sl - 1:10,
72:24, 73:2, 73:5,
74:19, 77:8, 89:22,
130:14,202:9
Sarah's Ill - 86:12
satisfy It] - 107:10
Saturday 141- 52:9,
53:3, 56:2, 56:22
save It) - 101:18
saw 141- 22:14, 27:22,
57:17, 57:21
scale pl - 8:3, 15:22,
45:10, 59:13, 59:21,
60:2, 189:5
scattered 0] - 91:22
scenarios (2) -166:2,
166:3
scheduled (ll - 146:2
scheduling [11- 6:13
Board of Adjustment 9-21-16
school 131- 80:21,
80:23, 92:4
School Il] - 104:9
schools [21- 50:14,
189:1
science 12] - 32:2,
33:10
Sciences 113 - 17:10
scientists It] - 33:12
scratches Ill - 202:8
script [t] -10:5
scrutiny (41- 53:23,
106:19, 106:20,
106:25
as [3] - 26:7, 168:4,
168:5
search [1]- 87:6
season 131- 90:23,
93:1, 93:4
second [is] - 8:13,
10:2, 10:13, 13:16,
16:5, 24:1, 25:17,
45:5, 84:8, 87:15,
92:9,130:9. 131:14,
139:17, 153:23,
171:18, 178:9,
189:10,193:21
second-guess [1]-
171:18
second -to -the -last It]
- 25:17
secondly (31- 27:3,
124:17,126:13
section [12] - 18:1,
18:4.19:20, 58:8,
108:6,114:9.
114:16,129:13,
130:11, 130:24,
135:13, 141:13
Section [41- 70:12,
108:2,131:22,
193:20
sections [41- 31:17,
128:20, 131:25,
192:20
security Ill - 71:8
see [251- 6:18, 8:17,
9:5, 9:20, 27:22,
40:23, 43:23, 46:8,
52:10, 55:16, 55:21,
57:5, 74:9, 74:16,
85:12, 100:19,
120:11, 138:3,
140:24, 143:19,
154:17, 171:13,
175:2,189:6
seek Ill - 111:7
seeking [21- 85:25,
173:4
seem m - 27:14,
28:15, 39:12, 60:8,
83:7, 136:18, 147:13
selective 11] - 52:25
self [2] - 39:18, 146:18
self-fulfilling It] -
39:18
self-government [t] -
146:18
sell [1] - 95:14
semicirc[ed (t) - 7:20
semicircular Itl - 8:6
send [4] - 45:18,
45:23, 75:15, 150:18
sending [it -61:13
senior [31- 90:18,
137:18, 173:16
sense [a] - 4:19,
13:15, 38:2, 38:11,
63:12, 65:12, 65:20,
134:16
sensitive [52] - 4:25,
15:25, 17:25, 18:7,
18:18, 18:19, 19:9,
20:13, 22:8, 24:4,
24:6, 25:20, 25:23,
25:25, 26:4, 26:5,
27:4, 27:10, 27:16,
28:24, 33:24, 38:21,
38:22, 39:13, 40:5,
40:8, 40:11, 40:21,
42:8, 44:12, 47:21,
48:10, 84:11, 84:16,
85:2, 88:18, 98:23,
99:8, 99:12.100:18,
101:3,101:20,
102:23, 126:14,
126:15,127:3.
127:12,140:2.
140:14,141:2,
149:8, 151:8,
167:12,168:3,
168:13,168:18,
168:21
sensitivity [t] - 27:19
sent 141- 74:18,
197:25, 198:8,
198:19
sentence [11-198:24
separate 19] - 9:13,
75:19, 97:15,
110:10,122:21,
126:24,151:16,
153:9, 154:10
September141- 52:9,
53:4, 198:20, 205:15
SEPTEMBER [11- 1:3
sequenco (t) - 20:6
sequential Ill - 12:2
series 163 - 8:8,13:19,
44:7, 86:6,148:18.
189:16
serious [2] - 75:7,
148:18
serve [51- 50:5, 53:24,
88:8, 198:25, 199:12
served It] - 137:15
service Ile] - 17:1 B.
88:7, 90:4, 95:18,
95:21, 100:5,
116:20, 123:12,
156:10,160:20
Services [21- 2:5,
187:2
services 141- 137:8,
137:17,154:8,
191:18
session [11-152:8
set 1251- 3:7, 3:20,
18:3.19:18, 22:7,
48:7, 63:14, 64:9,
105:20, 108:17,
108:20,112:25,
114:9,125:11,
140:22,172:21.
191:24,196:16,
196:26,197:13,
198:12,198:13,
204:11, 205:3,
206:12
setback I21- 8:20,
191:24
setbacks Ill - 62:14
setting 151- 2:16,
49:6, 59:22, 61:6.
201:22
settle [13-169:12
seven Il] - 121:18
seven -weekend [11-
121:18
several Is)- 25:3,
27:10, 60:21, 60:22,
100:14,162:18
severely 11) - 86:23
sewage [6] - 70:6,
148:12, 154:14,
155:8, 156:16, 164:1
sewor (sol - 65:7,
65:14, 65:17, 65:18,
70:5, 70:17, 71:8,
72:10, 72:14, 72:16,
75:20, 88:17, 95:18,
97:24, 99:15, 99:19,
100:2, 100:5, 100:8,
115:8, 117:13,
117:19, 118:2,
127:10, 129:2,
143:18, 148:2,
148:5, 149:7,151:3.
153:6, 153:9,
153:20,153:21,
154:8, 154:10,
154:15, 154:17,
155:16, 155:23,
155:25, 156:3,
156:4, 156:8,
156:10, 157:2,
157:12, 157:22,
158:4, 158:9,
158:14, 158:17,
158:20, 158:21,
159:14, 159:16,
159:21, 160:8,
160:10, 160:17,
160:20, 160:21,
160:24,160:25,
161:7, 161:16,
161:23, 162:14,
163:16, 163:17,
169:17, 182:3,
182:5, 182:10,
183:13, 195:20,
195:22
sewers (t] - 160:19
shall (8] - 22:4, 49:24,
89:15,107:18,
114:8, 147:21,
175:4, 199:12
shallowerlll - 31:13
shallows 111- 20:20
shape[t]-8:13
shaped [1) - 7:19
share (91- 5:19, 5:22,
6:9, 6:16, 15:9, 66:6,
72:16, 116:3, 143:18
shared [61- 16:13,
72:10,153:22,
154:8, 154:11,
156:19
shares 111- 92:15
sharing (11- 91:8
shocked (11- 66:25
shoes (11- 200:19
shop (11- 109:6
short[51- 3:25,
120:23, 149:25,
177:3, 203:22
short-term 11] -
120:23
Shorthand 121- 206:2,
206:16
shorthand 131- 206:4,
206:6, 206:9
shortly (11- 3:10
show [le] - 10:5,
11:14, 19:12, 23:19,
30:7, 30:10, 39:22,
46:11, 71:17, 74:5,
86:16,105:11,
133:3, 149:23,
160:16, 161:22,
162:13,162:14
showed [41- 11:9,
69:22, 72:12, 160:10
shower[i]-94:14
shown (51- 44:22,
47:14, 99:2, 133:13,
160:22
shows [11- 43:25
shut [11- 67:9
sic 111-26:15
side 117] - 5:24, 7:23,
8:7, 16:12, 16:18,
16:19, 16:20, 44:4,
46:5, 46:19, 69:23,
85:22, 86:4, 86:9,
120:3, 124:23, 125:5
sides (61- 2:24, 3:14,
3:16, 3:23, 46:5,
125:13
sidewalk [2] - 51:17,
52:4
sight Itl - 95:14
sign 131- 76:13, 76:14,
76:15
signage (11- 47:23
signatures [1] - 76:24
signed 191- 76:16,
76:17, 83:17, 84:1,
84:15,120:6.122:9,
144:8.144:13
significance (21-
73:19,74:17
significant [21- 27:10,
47:13
signing [ti - 86:7
signs 141.55:20,
55:22, 55:23, 62:17
siltation (11- 142:1
similar [41- 28:3,
110:11, 146:17,
202:4
similarly [1] - 146:16
simple (21- 33:16,
75:1
Simply (121- 7:1, 9:6,
9:8, 9:25, 10:20,
20:7, 24:16, 63:18,
125:24,141:22.
147:8, 201:7
sincere [1] - 105:25
single 1751- 2:7,
18:12,18:22, 35:14,
36:23, 40:19, 40:20,
51:20, 54:3, 59:17,
59:23, 61:8, 62:5,
62:18, 66:6, 66:11,
70:12,70:13, 75:18,
82:14, 82:17, 89:14,
90:2, 90:7, 101:14,
102:1, 102:8,
Board of Adjustment 9-2146
106:11, 106:15,
107:1, 107:5,
107:21, 108:3,
110:8, 116:17,
117:6, 118:4,
122:18, 128:8,
134:2, 135:11,
140:9, 140:11,
152:5,153:12,
153:16,154:2.
154:5, 161:10,
166:7, 166:8, 174:2,
174:4,175:11,
176:9,176:25,
184:5.187:7, 187:8,
187:16,187:17,
188:10,188:16,
189:22, 189:24,
190:9, 190:14,
190:15, 190:22,
191:21, 191:23,
192:3, 192:6, 192:8
single-family [631-
2:7, 18:12, 18:22,
35:14, 40:19, 40:20,
54:3, 59:17, 59:23,
61:8, 62:5, 66:6,
66:11, 75:18, 82:14,
82:17, 89:14, 90:2,
90:7, 101:14,102:1.
102:8, 106:11,
106:15, 107:1,
107:5,107:21.
108:3.110:8.
116:17,117:6,
118:4, 122:18,
128:8, 140:9,
140:11, 152:5,
153:12, 153:16,
154:2.154:5.
161:10.166:7,
166:8, 174:2, 174:4,
175:11, 176:9,
184:5,187:8,
187:16, 187:17,
188:10,188:16,
189:22, 189:24,
190:14, 190:15,
191:21, 191:23,
192:3, 192:6, 192:8
Sinking 11]-15:21
Sit (41- 4:4,116:9.
138:25,178:2
site (421- 2:9, 8:23,
8:25, 17:5, 17:7,
20:8, 43:11, 43:16,
43:21, 43:24, 44:2,
44:5, 44:8, 44:16,
48:12, 48:22, 67:14,
69:20, 71:5, 76:6,
76:7, 107:20,
109:10,110:5,
118:1, 118:2, 118:3,
118:9, 127:16,
144:1,147:1.
151:17,167:18,
167:22, 167:23,
172:16, 187:6,
189:9, 190:18, 192:8
site-built[l] - 190:18
Site 131- 26:8, 40:17
sitting I11- 94:7
situated 111- 146:16
situation 129] - 17:6,
18:8, 22:17, 24:22,
26:11, 28:1, 28:11,
29:5, 30:20, 31:12,
36:24, 52:15, 53:4,
57:23, 62:24, 73:12,
75:9, 83:12, 84:14,
85:8,129:6.130:24,
140:6,140:21,
160:7,162:3.
166:19,179:14,
206:10
situations (121- 20:22,
21:5, 22:11, 22:12,
25:10, 33:12, 42:15,
42:16, 52:8, 66:25,
86:21, 160:18
six (131- 49:18, 81:3,
91:1, 108:9, 203:19,
203:20,203:21,
204:2, 204:6, 204:7,
205:5, 205:16
six -thirty [51- 203:21,
204:6, 204:7, 205:5,
205:16
sixteen [2]- 37:12
size (191- 8:19,19:12,
23:16, 23:19, 29:7,
29:9, 44:18, 45:22,
47:8, 47:15, 59:11,
76:6, 76:8, 84:19,
98:12, 118:17,
135:23, 136:10,
136:13
sized [t1- 110:16
skeptical [1] - 67:25
slammed 10 - 67:9
slants [11-14:18
slap 111- 64:3
sleep 111- 92:12
sleeping [71- 70:15,
113:11, 113:17,
128:4, 176:8,
190:10, 190:24
slide [31- 15:16,
31:19, 54:16
slides (4] -10:5,
15:12,17:17. 95:24
sliding [tl - 94:3
slipped [t] - 38:16
slope [6e] - 15:24,
16:9.17:16. 19:19,
19:21,19:22, 20:9,
20:13, 20:16, 20:17,
20:18, 20:24,21:13,
21:14, 21:20, 21:22,
22:1, 25:9, 27:18,
31:12, 31:13, 31:14,
32:4, 32:6, 32:7,
32:14, 32:15, 32:16,
33:24, 38:5, 38:6,
38:7, 41:10, 82:5,
85:2, 98:2, 98:18,
100:18,102:15,
103:2, 126:15,
126:23,127:1.
127:2, 127:11,
127:18, 139:10,
139:14, 139:15,
139:18,139:20,
139:21, 139:22,
142:5.167:11,
167:16,168:3,
168:4, 168:5,
168:16, 168:18,
168:21
slopes [39] - 4:25,
19:2, 19:3, 19:8,
19:14,19:17,19:23,
19:24, 20:2, 20:11,
20:19, 20:21, 21:10,
21:16, 21:17, 21:18,
21:23, 22:11, 23:25,
24:8, 25:9, 25:10,
25:21, 26:20, 26:22,
27:17, 31:23, 34:15,
48:2, 82:15, 84:20,
84:23, 126:14,
139:21, 141:25,
167:11. 167:19
sloughing [21- 31:17,
31:18
small [11- 92:11
smaller (41- 31:18,
33:17, 83:19,147:16
social [3] -121:15,
122:19,191:11
society [1]-61:18
software [1] - 24:14
Soglin 111- 1:7
SOGUN [eo] - 35:2,
35:5, 35:9, 35:13,
35:20, 35:22, 36:1,
36:4, 36:18, 37:16,
37:22, 37:25, 38:14,
54:16, 54:22, 55:20,
56:2, 56:21, 57:8,
57:13, 77:10, 77:12,
77:14, 77:17, 77:22,
78:6, 78:10, 78:13,
78:20, 78:23, 78:25,
79:2, 79:12, 80:2,
80:7, 80:13, 80:15,
80:18, 96:25, 97:9,
97:12, 117:2,
117:22, 158:16,
160:4, 160:15,
161:2, 161:8,
161:14,161:19,
161:25, 164:18,
165:4, 165:7,
165:11, 165:13,
165:21, 166:13,
166:17, 167:8,
167:14, 177:23,
178:7, 178:17,
178:22, 179:4,
179:6, 182:15,
197:5, 197:25,
198:6, 198:13,
198:15, 198:18,
198:24, 199:18,
199:21, 203:13,
205:6, 205:10
sold 121- 191:16,
191:17
solidly 111- 105:5
solution [3]- 100:5,
100:8, 163:22
solutions [1] - 34:16
solve 15] - 21:5, 21:6,
21:12, 33:14, 99:25
someone pl - 39:13,
55:11, 84:14, 96:16,
144:13, 144:19,
198:6
Someone [11- 39:14
something's It] -
86:17
sometimes 141-
115:18. 144:18,
146:5, 179:12
somewhat 121- 91:22,
98:15
somewhere [41-
38:23,178:24,
179:4.179:16
son [21- 91:2, 91:7
soon 141- 65:17, 67:7,
107:19, 114:8
sophisticated 11] -
32:10
sorry [2sl -12:7, 19:6,
35:4, 35:17, 46:7,
49:16, 78:1, 79:14,
96:20, 105:15,
121:1, 123:21,
126:9, 126:20,
135:1, 136:20,
152:12,165:21,
166:17,167:9,
169:5,178:7, 184:1,
202:16, 202:20
sort p5]-22:19,
24:14, 26:13, 29:4,
31:7, 32:17, 34:17,
87:18, 121:14,
134:15,152:20,
182:19,183:15,
183:17.185:6
sorts 1t] - 122:17
sound 1l] - 38:22
sounded [1]- 65:16
sounds 121- 155:18,
158:10
source [21- 46:16,
62:22
south [s] -16:12,
16:18, 16:20, 69:22,
179:17
SOUTHARD [151-
66:12, 77:4, 77:6,
77:9, 77:11, 77:13,
77:16, 77:19, 78:1,
79:9, 81:23, 82:3,
82:19, 83:1, 83:9
Southard i31- 1:13,
5:20, 66:12
space [11] - 8:17,
64:7, 73:24, 73:25,
74:1, 74:5, 97:4,
97:7, 127:7, 149:17
spaces [21- 52:1, 52:3
spacing !31-129:19,
132:11, 132:14
SPEAKER 151-16:18,
16:20, 22:4, 35:18,
79:1
speaker [4] - 4:21,
12:4, 14:14, 15:7
speakers lel - 4:18,
5:23, 64:18, 86:25,
136:11, 170:23
speaking [6] - 4:18,
5:13, 5:14, 5:23,
58:19,165:20
spec 111-120:2
special Is] - 72:11,
107:2, 189:15,
201:1, 201:10
specialties 111- 17:13
specific [121- 12:8,
15:24, 18:25, 28:3,
41:20, 58:13,
122:15,140:17,
167:1, 167:6, 173:6
specifically [221-
15:25, 17:6, 17:24,
Board of Adjustment 9-21-16
18:11, 21:8, 27:13,
27:16, 28:2, 54:13,
55:21, 97:9, 97:10,
104:20, 108:3,
117:5,124:20,
128:2, 171:7, 173:9,
186:7,186:15.
193:14
specified 111- 22:23
specifies [2] - 30:6,
30:16
spectre Ill - 103:13
speculate [31-
110:24, 111:1,
143:15
speculates [11-
109:14
speculation [111-
88:25, 89:1,109:2.
109:16, 110:6,
111:10,114:22,
114:25,116:11,
116:12,118:23
speculative [10]-
89:4, 108:11,
114:19, 118:12,
118:18, 119:16,
119:23, 120:3,
120:5,120:13
speech 111 -104:3
speech-language [1l -
104:3
spend 121- 91:8,
111:24
spent [6] - 91:6,
104:19, 119:18,
144:22, 148:25,
169:22
spin 1l] - 187:10
split [11- 180:23
spoken 12] - 81:10,
89:24
sports [8] - 94:2, 94:4,
95:1, 95:2, 95:4,
108:22, 109:22,
109:24
spot [31- 92:2, 96:1,
96:10
spouse [31- 72:23,
73:2,148:7
spouses [21- 91:10,
92:14
square [10] - 11:8,
18:15, 25:1, 33:3,
36:8, 36:25, 69:25,
136:14,141:7. 141:8
St [3] - 90:13, 91:19,
104:1
stability [10] - 17:16,
19:19, 20:23, 21:21,
21:22, 22:1, 31:24,
32:16, 34:15, 34:25
stabilization ill -
20:24
stabilizing RI - 21:23,
31:23
stadium [5] - 50:5,
81:19, 81:20, 93:23,
144:5
Stadium [41- 14:4,
70:25, 93:21, 97:17
Staff it] - 1:9
staff [67] - 2:14, 2:21,
3:8, 3:12, 10:24,
14:12, 14:20, 27:6,
48:8, 48:24, 66:20,
67:25, 68:20, 70:20,
70:21, 72:9, 72:13,
73:8, 73:17, 74:22,
86:14, 88:5, 89:10,
105:21, 106:10,
106:13,106:17.
107:11, 111:21,
112:3.112:15,
112:20,114:3.
115:1, 116:6,125:4,
127:11, 136:19,
137:1, 137:3,
137:15, 137:23,
137:25, 138:20,
142:11, 142:24,
145:25.148:18,
149:18,160:7,
162:11, 162:23,
165:4, 165:5,
166:10, 169:8,
169:12,169:23,
170:5, 173:4,175:3.
201:3, 201:4,
201:12, 204:10,
204:12,204:19
staffs [1l - 201:15
stage Itl - 112:23
stairway [51- 92:16,
92:21, 93:14, 94:22,
95:2
stake [11- 32:3
staked [11- 167:25
stall 1q - 171:23
stalls [1] - 171:23
standard [21- 32:13,
136:10
standards [sl - 23:24,
71:24,107:7,
135:22,180:17
stands 111- 71:1
stanza Ell - 38:18
start 1t 11- 2:11, 34:24,
64:20, 69:13, 72:1,
74:24, 92:9,141:8.
142:9, 173:6, 203:11
started [61- 56:12,
71:22, 83:24,
141:22, 154:22,
158:25
starting [31- 32:5,
64:24,162:17
starts [1] - 21:14
State [s] - 53:3, 95:25,
164:3.164:6. 206:3
state 151- 79:12,
88:10,106:14,
106:24,152:6
statement 1241- 37:6,
58:2, 69:18, 77:3,
87:11, 89:3,100:13,
102:20, 102:25,
120:12, 120:13,
122:1, 122:7.122:8,
136:22,139:1,
143:22,163:10,
194:21,196:7.
196:11,197:3.
202:5, 203:2
statements [6] -
103:20, 120:9,
121:6, 127:24,
144:7, 204:4
states [51- 75:21,
82:21, 131:12,
133:25, 187:22
station (1)- 13:14
stations [1]- 13:10
status 13] - 23:12,
73:12, 80:10
stay 121- 32:14, 33:17
stayed [1]- 6:11
steep [3] - 84:12,
139:20,141:25
steeper [21- 19:23,
139:21
steepest ill - 84:20
stem [t] - 102:2
step 141- 33:4, 71:13,
94:17,184:12
stepmother[2] -
91:21, 94:12
stepmothers 111-
90:16
stepped [1] - 196:15
steps 161- 22:9, 75:1,
141:4, 141:20,
191:20, 196:25
stepson [1)-144:2
sterile [1] - 60:10
Steve [1] - 82:21
sticking 111-136:18
still [9] - 21:8, 37:6,
114:11,114:17,
117:22,125:14,
142:5.165:10
stop M - 26:14, 29:5,
116:19, 139:14,
141:10, 149:10,
175:23
stops 11] - 139:14
storage [21- 94:24,
191:3
stormwater [31-
17:16, 44:6, 88:17
story 121- 94:2,
143:23
straightforward (21-
89:10, 92:18
strategies 12] - 32:12,
34:11
Street [31- 43:6,
123:10, 179:17
street 1431- 5:15, 7:9,
7:23, 45:20, 46:9,
46:19, 47:23, 47:25,
50:18, 50:22, 51:18,
52:7, 56:4, 56:5,
56:11, 56:17, 62:2,
69:24, 88:18, 96:15,
98:8, 110:9, 117:19,
123:15, 129:1,
129:8, 130:4,
155:16, 155:21,
155:22, 155:24,
156:6, 169:17,
179:11, 179:19,
180:1, 180:4,
180:14, 181:8,
181:9, 181:10
streets (51.44:20,
51:14, 131:7,
178:20, 179:21
strict [21- 102:6,
106:23
strikes It] - 85:11
string It] -163:12
stringent Ill- 24:7
strong Ill - 133:15
structural Ill - 69:5
structur014e1- 12:20,
13:24, 43:8, 43:15,
43:16, 45:17, 45:21,
47:14, 49:8, 59:4,
59:9, 59:12, 60:2,
60:7, 61:7, 61:25,
62:4, 67:6, 68:6,
68:10, 68:14, 68:16,
69:1, 73:6, 73:22,
75:14, 76:8, 89:13,
98:12, 107:14,
108:13, 108:19,
110:7, 111:15,
112:15, 116:17,
117:21, 118:19,
119:11, 121:14,
155:8, 187:15,
188:8, 188:14,
191:21, 191:23,
196:23
structure's hl - 44:3
structures [51- 59:19,
59:22, 107:22,
189:3, 192:17
struggling [11- 60:22
stub 11]- 158:20
students [t] - 21:21
studied Ill - 4:24
study [2] - 6:10, 88:8
studying Ill -19:18
stuff [31- 33:20,
37:15, 163:10
style 12] - 105:4, 106:3
stymied [11- 72:9
sub [2] - 11:22
subdivide [f] - 129:3
subdivided 13] -
99:18, 99:21, 100:4
subdivision 151 -
129:3, 129:10,
181:11, 181:16,
182:6
subdivisions It] -
181:13
subject [71- 26:6,
63:10, 63:13,
106:18, 134:25,
140:17, 180:17
subjective 12] - 53:17,
87:9
submission [4]- 44:8,
70:8, 70:9, 74:17
submissions [11-
82:20
submit 131- 89:16,
100:1, 115:4
submitted Eel - 69:5,
73:23, 74:4, 114:2,
115:5, 118:7, 164:9,
188:10
submitting Ill -
165:22
subpar[tl -138:2
subparagraph ill -
135:13
subsequent [31- 3:24,
116:18,194:14
subsequently [21-
4:7, 180:18
subsets 111- 19:4
subsidize It] -48:3
substantial 13] - 2:21,
2:22, 2:23
substantially 11] -
22:24
Board of Adjustment 9-2146
substantive 121-
70:23, 124:5
succeed It] - 37:7
succinct [2)-14:11,
182:19
succinctly [11- 169:7
Sue [21- 125:15,
125:16
sufficient [2] - 78:18,
86:12
suggest 111- 46:23
suggested 141-143:6,
143:8, 144:2, 183:15
suggesting [41-
34:22, 36:18, 38:12,
203:11
suggestion [2] -
33:16, 139:12
suggestions Ill -
30:18
suit 12] - 72:22, 93:12
suite It] - 62:23
summarize It] - 25:17
summarizing Ill -
73:11
summary (41- 14:14,
15:20, 26:13, 29:4
Sunday It] - 20:10
supersedes [3] -
24:10,199:5,199:21
supervision Ell -
206:8
supplement 121- 6:4,
58:20
supply [1] - 62:3
support Ie1- 3:4,
79:19,105:3. 105:4,
108:11, 123:4,
123:7, 145:25
supported [1] - 145:1
supporters 121- 3:6,
87:4
supportive 0l -
155:19
supposed [21- 29:22,
34:8
supposition Ill -
177:16
surface Ill - 21:12
surfaces Ell -191:15
surprise It] - 157:8
surprised (31- 3:20,
42:24, 56:13
surrounding (21-
60:4, 76:1
survey It] - 78:21
surveyed [31- 53:9,
57:23, 167:21
survive It] - 84:11
Susan [t] - 1:9
suspect [11- 108:12
suspend It)- 151:18
suspicious lt]-
109:24
swath it] -16:10
swayed It] - 79:24
synthesize [t] -
194:10
Syrop Ell -148:6
SyroplSadler 111-
45:12
system pl - 132:25,
147:21, 153:20,
153:21, 154:11,
155:8, 156:19
systems Ell -153:20
T
table 151- 132:5,
132:16,132:20,
133:24,189:25
tables (41- 93:12,
132:6
tactics it] - 79:21
tailgate 1131- 49:21,
50:5, 52:19, 95:10,
96:1, 111:23, 116:1,
121:9, 121:10,
144:3.144:4,
191:16,191:17
tailgated 121- 96:10,
105:8
tailgates (21- 119:18,
145:22
tailgating 1101- 50:22,
53:15, 54:5, 106:5,
110:25,121:16,
121:20,191:6.
191:8.191:10
talks [2] - 25:18,
133:11
tan 11] - 55:6
tap (2] - 156:19, 158:8
tapped Ill - 203:3
targeting [11- 138:2
taxed 111- 190:17
taxes [1] - 145:25
taxpayers (21- 47:20,
48:22
teach [4] - 17:14, 32:1,
33:11
teaching 111- 33:13
tearing Ill - 31:8
technical 111- 137:9
Ted [1]-144:19
temporary [2] -
191:14, 191:19
ten p e] - 2:17, 2:18,
3:19,14:16, 23:6,
23:11, 31:19,
125:13, 125:14,
134:14,134:16,
134:22, 175:15,
175:22, 176:11,
176:12
ten -ten It] - 134:22
ten -thirty (4] - 2:18,
3:19, 14:16, 134:16
tenancy Ill -190:11
Tenant Ill - 153:16
tenant (11- 164:8
tends 11] -130:24
term (to) - 98:20, 99:6,
99:11, 102:11,
113:17, 120:23,
136:4, 190:7, 191:10
terminate I1] - 65:14
terminates (1] - 159:2
termination (1] -
159:1
terminations Ill -
154:6
terminus [2] - 156:2
terms 1161- 5:9, 21:20,
60:24, 79:18, 103:3,
103:6, 116:23,
118:16, 129:22,
147:19, 156:9,
163:13, 163:18,
181:22, 190:2
terrible It] - 63:2
terribly (31- 66:15,
66:16, 75:3
Terry [31- 71:10,
71:12, 124:21
test[l] -131:16
tested 15] - 133:12,
166:9,165:13.
165:21, 165:23
testified R]- 109:21,
116:4
testimony [141- 88:12,
88:24, 89:4, 99:16,
110:18, 115:6,
116:8, 185:1, 188:8,
193:7, 193:8,
193:11, 199:9,
201:24
THE It] - 1:2
theater(5)- 94:25,
95:2, 95:4, 109:20,
109:24
theaters 11]- 109:22
theme 141- 93:20,
97:17,143:8, 144:6
themselves [71-
26:22, 54:4, 54:24,
55:7,142:24,
144:17,154:16
Pane
to 30
thereby 121- 48:25,
98:11
therefore 119] - 59:15,
60:4, 72:21, 73:19,
75:14, 83:24, 91:22,
97:17, 100:16,
107:19, 114:8,
131:5, 166:22,
181:25, 182:24,
183:14, 184:10,
187:10, 192:19
thereto Ill -186:23
they've 1131- 41:5,
76:17, 76:18,
104:14,117:14,
118:14, 120:6,
129:17, 143:16,
148:2, 159:11,
160:22
thick Ell - 86:9
thinking 121- 5:9,
134:14
third 151- 16:9, 18:10,
18:11, 2716, 139:25
thirty 191- 2:18, 3:19,
14:16, 134:16,
203:21, 204:6,
204:7, 205:5, 205:16
thorough [3] - 106:10,
138:21, 154:1
thoughtful 121-
138:22, 149:1
thoughts pl - 4:4,
5:19, 5:22
threatened Ell - 70:18
threatens It) - 71:8
three 1241- 3:14, 3:16,
23:19, 24:18, 59:3,
60:19, 69:4, 75:25,
87:17, 91:3, 91:11,
93:1, 93:4, 93:5,
93:11, 93:12, 94:5,
113:5, 125:13,
133:41 187:4,
193:21, 199:3
three -car 111- 94:5
th ree-season[2]-
93:1, 93:4
throughout[sl -
104:25, 105:1,
136:24, 179:20,
180:15
throw [21- 21:11, 93:7
ticket [11- 90:23
ticketed 121- 53:14,
53:16
tickets 13] - 53:10,
56:23, 96:17
Valli - 154:10
ties Ell - 76:16
Tim [7l - 1:7, 1:9,
117:24, 124:21,
172:4, 173:10,
173:16
Tim's It] - 36:5
timeframe It] - 29:6
timeline It] - 43:20
timely Ill - 70:23
timing [1] - 29:19
Title 15] - 107:25,
117:25, 118:1,
192:7, 193:20
title pl - 132:13,
186:12, 186:22,
192:13, 199:1,
199:13
today [5] - 4:16,
17:21, 49:19, 62:11,
163:13
togethor 11o1- 4:4,
21:18, 24:8, 56:25,
66:16, 77:18, 78:5,
80:20, 95:9, 204:22
togethers 0] - 119:19
toilet Ell - 97:8
toilets [31- 74:12,
74:15, 170:9
tomorrow 111- 203:15
tonight [2s1- 2:11,
2:12, 2:16, 3:3, 4:1,
11:24, 19:1, 67:5,
76:21, 89:9, 90:1,
91:5, 97:25, 100:17,
103:8,104:11,
105:24, 107:8,
108:1, 11122,
127:21, 128:21,
130:7, 138:8,
138:15, 146:23,
148:14,152:7. 203:1
tonight's It] - 6:13
took Is]- 7:10, 8:15,
24:16, 29:23, 69:19,
97:8, 143:21, 166:10
tool tel. 25:24, 40:7
top 14] - 38:5, 38:6,
63:25, 167:5
totally IU - 161:12
totals Ill - 51:3
touch 121- 30:24,
30:25
toward 12] - 20:9,
26:20
towards (2) - 119:10,
138:9
towed [11 - 55:15
tower[tl- 130:23
town Is]- 130:7,
145:2, 179:8
track 121- 21:16,
Board of Adjustment 9-21-16
86:23
tracks [21- 21:16,
31:20
tract 121-18:18, 38:21
traffic [41- 51:10,
51:11, 111:14,
121:20
tragic Ell - 62:24
trail 111- 84:4
train's Ill - 31:22
trample 11] -148:4
transcribe It] - 206:4
transcribed 111-1:19
transcript 121- 1:17,
206:9
transcription 1t] -
206:7
traverse [1] - 70:6
traversing Ell - 156:16
treasurer [t] - 5:16
treated 121-146:16,
180:19
treatment 121- 72:11,
16223
trees 1271- 8:8.19:13,
20:4, 21:22, 21:25,
22:21, 22:24, 23:4,
23:5, 23:6, 23:9,
23:12, 23:17, 24:19,
30:21, 30:24,30:25,
31:4, 32:1, 32:5,
34:12, 34:24, 41:9,
79:24,139:14,
139:16
tremendous [1] -
194:9
trend Ill - 92:23
tried (41- 25:16,
62:25,143:13, 177:9
trier Ell -185:14
trigger 131- 24:9,
29:13, 29:14
trips 13)- 110:21,
110:23, 110:25
Trish 141- 5:13, 44:25,
46:17, 78:2
trivial hl - 72:18
troubled [s] - 26:18,
61:24, 71:10,
104:11,104:16
troubling [11- 157:8
truck [31- 46:2, 55:8,
133:4
trucks [11- 7:15
true [101- 13:5, 27:1,
36:20, 36:21, 40:18,
67:25, 82:18,
120:19, 128:7,201:8
trunks [11- 22:21
trust 11]- 64:9
trustworthiness It] -
137:22
try [to] - 5:25, 15:15,
15:19, 30:11,
154:14, 154:16,
160:24, 164:18,
166:4,195:8
trying t13]- 16:21,
79:2, 81:13, 83:3,
83:10, 130:19,
141:23,143:9,
162:1, 163:18,
175:6,178:23,
197:11
turn [91- 3:5, 4:8,
7:15, 95:7, 111:12,
176:1, 176:4,
179:23, 187:3
turnabouts Ill - 7:17
turnaround [231-
8:15, 44:24, 45:17,
46:20, 47:3, 47:10,
47:24, 52:1, 52:2,
52:5, 52:12, 98:9,
98:11, 129:7,
129:14, 130:12,
131:1, 131:10,
178:10,180:6,
180:23,182:1,
183:11
turnarounds [81- 7:8,
7:15, 44:21, 46:25,
47:2, 76:6, 98:9,
147:17
turned [21- 57:23,
173:7
two (711-5:5,5:11,
5:23, 6:3, 7:17, 7:19,
9:13, 10:12,11:21,
13:23,18:12, 19:1,
19:8, 19:11, 19:19,
20:2, 23:16, 35:14,
36:23, 45:11, 47:15,
49:18, 55:21, 55:22,
64:17, 69:10, 73:23,
74:3, 74:10, 74:12,
74:14, 75:17, 83:15,
85:15, 91:10, 92:13,
92:15, 92:23, 93:18,
94:2,102:18,
107:22, 112:23,
120:16, 124:13,
125:12, 131:12,
132:6.132:19.
133:3, 133:25,
134:9, 139:4,
147:15, 162:23,
162:24,170:7,
171:21, 172:3,
172:19,176:12.
177:19,187:10,
187:13,188:2,
188:11, 189:24
two-family [e] - 18:12,
35:14, 36:23,
107:22,188:11,
189:24
two-page Ill - 172:19
two-story [1] - 94:2
type [7l - 66:3, 78:14,
108:12, 136:7,
155:7, 167:16, 173:1
types 151- 50:2, 65:9,
68:8,188:22,188:23
typical Ell - 60:3
typically Ell - 113:9
U
ultimately p] - 28:17,
28:22, 30:15,
138:13, 193:2,
194:18, 202:2
unable Ill - 91:5
unanimous [31-
169:9,169:10, 170:3
unclear 111- 68:2
uncommon [31-
52:14, 110:13,
110:14
uncompensated [11-
17:18
under 1351-7:2, 19:9,
19:10, 37:5, 37:7,
38:18, 63:9.106:17,
107:24, 108:2,
108:6, 114:2, 118:9,
127:2, 127:12,
129:3, 135:15,
138:14, 141:14,
147:2,155:21,
156:7,160:9. 164:2,
168:12,181:6,
184:15,187:8.
193:20,195:4.
195:5.198:22,
199:11, 206:7,
206:10
understood [4) -
65:15, 87:1, 121:21,
174:6
undertake 11] - 108:6
undertaken ll] -
106:21
unfairly [21- 104:14,
108:13
UNIDENTIFIED 151 -
16:18, 16:20, 22:4,
35:18, 79:1
Uniform 111- 153:16
unimproved 111-
191:15
unintelligible [11-
36:12
unique 111-111:6
unit 191- 70:12, 70:13,
128:2, 176:7, 190:8,
190:9, 190:20,
190:22
units [q - 35:15
University [421- 4:22,
14:3, 17:13, 50:21,
68:21, 68:23, 69:18,
71:12, 71:21, 72:22,
73:3, 82:2, 82:4,
82:12, 82:16, 83:16,
84:3, 84:10, 84:23,
85:3, 85:9, 86:7,
88:21, 90:11, 90:17,
91:11, 92:5, 98:5,
105:9, 112:7, 112:8,
112:9, 112:16,
112:19, 112:21,
112:24, 113:6,
113:15, 113:16,
114:1, 115:2
unless 151- 32:7, 32:8,
67:21, 68:17, 122:20
unnecessary p1-
131:10, 138:4
unpaved 111- 69:23
unquestionably [21-
109:8, 109:18
unrestricted [11-
114:14
unsafe [3]- 50:25,
52:14, 54:11
unsupported [1]-
111:10
unusual [11- 201:21
Up [551-2:18,3:15,
7:18,11:8, 22:4,
31:21, 43:2, 63:8,
64:14, 64:15, 85:7,
87:2, 87:4, 87:10,
90:10, 90:20, 93:5,
95:23, 96:14, 99:10,
103:8, 108:20,
110:6, 125:13,
127:1, 127:6, 127:9,
127:20, 130:5,
133:3, 134:15,
146:2, 152:14,
152:18, 152:24,
153:7, 156:1, 156:6,
159:15,163:10,
163:22,164:16,
164:24,166:18,
174:1, 174:3,
174:17, 184:10,
194:12,197:7.
197:14,199:23,
202:2, 202:9
upfront 121- 118:15,
183:7
uphold 111- 116:15
upslope 111- 22:2
upwards [11- 51:9
urinal 131- 97:8,
97:15.172:3
urinals [61- 74:10,
74:15, 170:9.171:2,
171:24,172:3
usage 131- 61:20,
63:14, 78:9
useful [11- 11:25
uses 1351- 59:20,
59:24,109:7,
109:18.109:25,
111:24,112:1,
113:11, 122:19,
135:7, 135:9,
135:10,135:11,
135:14,135:15,
135:16,135:19,
135:21, 136:1,
136:6, 167:4,
188:24,189:3,
189:12,189:13,
189:20, 189:21,
189:22, 189:25,
190:6, 191:1, 191:2,
191:3, 197:23
utilized [21- 43:21,
44:20
utilizing 111- 69:14
V
valid [31- 67:14,
102:3.148:14
valuation m - 201:10
valued ll]- 47:25
values [1] - 106:5
van [31- 55:4, 55:6,
96:6
vantage It] - 6749
variance [2]-107:3,
201:1
variances [1] - 201:10
variety 121- 50:2,
188:23
various 121- 117:18,
118:14
vast [1] - 109:17
vegetation [51- 20:4,
20:23, 21:18, 21:23,
139:23
vehicle 110] - 45:21,
46:25, 55:5, 55:6,
Board of Adjustment 9-21-16
55:18, 55:19,
110:21, 110:23,
110:25, 133:5
vehicles [121- 45:18,
46:8, 46:9, 46:13,
53:2, 54:17, 54:18,
130:22,131:2,
179:23,181:5. 191:4
Velocity [1] - 45:24
venture [11- 101:21
venue [131- 49:21,
50:6, 50:24, 51:6,
51:8, 52:19, 53:6,
54:1, 54:10, 66:21,
76:19, 82:7, 150:20
veracity 111- 58:2
verbatim [2] - 195:18
versa [t] - 3:13
versions 121- 144:17
versus [2] -10:9,
162:21
vertical 11] - 20:3
via 121- 68:8, 68:18
viable [11- 161:11
vice It] - 3:13
view [6] - 27:10,
27:12, 29:5, 84:6,
86:20, 150:1
viewing [t] - 94:1
viewpoint (1]- 123:13
viewpoints [21-
138:17, 177:10
vilification [1] - 138:5
violate 121- 111:10,
180:8
violation [4] - 53:13,
53:15, 111:11,
143:10
violations 111- 173:18
virtually [31- 25:8,
71:13, 110:9
visible 121- 146:19,
146:20
visit 151- 50:18, 91:13,
94:13, 145:6, 145:1(
visited 131- 17:5,17:6
90:15
visitor 121- 93:22,
93:23
visitorlhome [11-
97:19
visitors [1] -111:3
visits [1] - 91:16
vivid 111- 71:2
voluminous p]-
193:6
voluntarily [11- 43:18
voluntary 11] - 90:4
volunteer [31- 88:8,
116:21.123:12
vote [101- 61:7, 61:13,
80:10, 80:13, 84:12,
193:21, 194:7,
194:16, 205:13,
205:14
votes 111- 64:10
vouch [11- 145:14
W
wait [41- 102:22,
117:23,166:15,
175:24
walk [61- 51:18,
51:19, 65:24, 74:1,
92:17,191:8
walk-in 111- 92:17
walked [11-167:23
walking [2]- 76:12,
167:21
wall 111- 32:18
walls [21- 95:13,
153:21
Walz 111-1:10
WALZ Is] - 45:6,
197:22, 202:15,
202:17, 202:21,
203:5, 204:13,
204:16, 204:18
wants (4)- 3:16, 11:4,
105:7, 156:8
War [11- 90:12
warehousing [1] -
59:25
Washington 121-
90:19, 123:10
water [111- 21:9,
21:10, 21:19, 31:14,
33:20, 62:3, 129:1,
131:15, 146:3,
168:8.159:20
ways 121- 153:25,
162:24
weaker Ill - 126:22
Wednesday [41-
53:12, 60:20, 61:5,
63:20
week 119] - 17:3,17:4,
21:2, 51:5, 51:7,
55:3, 56:11, 66:18,
67:24, 72:11, 72:13,
74:1, 75:12, 79:15,
91:5.123:23,
125:19,198:1, 200:8
weekend [21- 17:5,
121:18
weekends [21- 51:2,
105:2
weigh [6]-184:25,
192:9, 194:3,199:8,
200:6, 200:17
weighed [21- 114:10
weight [31- 120:11,
120:12,193:10
weighting [11- 199:3
WEIRICH [471- 15:11,
16:19, 16:21, 22:5,
29:9, 29:11, 29:14,
29:21, 30:19, 34:1,
34:8, 35:4, 35:7,
35:12, 35:16, 35:21,
35:23, 36:3, 36:11,
36:22, 37:20, 37:24,
38:2, 39:1, 39:3,
39:7, 39:11, 39:16,
39:18, 40:5, 40:15,
40:21, 40:25, 41:4,
41:8, 41:23, 42:3,
42:10, 42:15, 42:17,
42:21, 42:24, 43:1,
139:4, 139:7,
141:13, 141:17
Weirich [5] - 1:12,
4:22, 15:8, 16:23,
139:2
WEITZEL [271- 29:7,
29:10, 29:13, 29:18,
30:17, 58:7, 58:11,
58:17, 58:22, 58:25,
80:25, 81:8, 81:17,
81:21, 85:17, 97:13,
117:25, 118:10,
120:6, 178:5, 179:7,
194;6,197:24,
198:12,198:14,
198:16, 204:9
Weitzel [1]- 1:7
welcome [1] - 64:19
welfare [11- 70:18
well-known [11-
52:24
westerly [11- 7:23
wetland [31-18:18,
38:20, 39:5
WHEREOF [11-
206:12
whichever I1] - 61:6
white [41- 55:4, 55:8,
65:22,125:24
whole [19]- 16:22,
23:18, 23:21, 29:6,
38:10, 43:13, 79:3,
95:6, 137:15, 141:2,
141:8,141:13,
141:20,142:14,
153:19,162:18.
164:23, 176:14,
180:3
wholly [2] -12:25,
187:24
Board of Adjustment 9-21-16
wide [4]-45:12,46:1,
World (1] - 90:12
zone (321-2:7,12:22,
46:3, 46:15
world 111- 156:23
20:5, 25:13, 33:25,
widening 111- 47:23
worse 121- 20:13,
34:4, 34:7, 34:9,
wider [1] - 46:14
52:15
34:10,48:5,49:23,
wife (4]-90:1,91:3,
worst Ell -166:3
58:10,59:10,61:3,
97:3.123:13
worst-case [11-166:3
126:11,126:12,
wife's Ill - 93:25
wrap [4] - 2:17,
136:7,140:8,
wildlife It) -47:13
125:13,134:15,
146:24, 188:13,
willing [31- 9:24,
199:23
188:15,188:16,
97:23, 123:3
write Ill - 49:12
188:17,188:24,
willingness l2]-99:2,
written [9]-37:25,
189:7,189:8,
99:23
40:1, 41:20, 42:4,
189:12, 189:15,
win [1] - 138:5
86:10, 162:13,
189:19,189:20,
window [41- 63:6,
178:24,179:4,
191:1,191:25
63:8, 95:3
194:13
zones It] - 59:20
windows It) -79:23
wrongful [2]-2:9,
Zoning 111-16:1
windshield 111-96:6
47:17
zoning [72] - 2:10,
Winneshiek [el-
wrongfully 121-
12:12, 16:7, 17:24,
104:7,104:9
151:14,151:16
21:7, 26:25, 27:14,
Winslow Ell -90:17
wrongly ltl- 108:5
28:4,28:20,28:21,
wish It] - 18:2
wrote It] - 72:5
29:3, 30:16, 31:24,
wishing 111- 7:22
32:16, 39:9, 49:22,
y
withstand Ill - 51:13
54:9, 59:19, 68:17,
WITNESS it] - 206:12
68:18, 75:16, 85:9,
88:20, 100:16,
Yapp 12] - 1:10,
witness 121- 51:20,
142:17
100:20, 100:25,
139:1
yard [3] - 50:16,
107:1, 107:10,
witnessed 111- 55:5
59:12, 76:15
107:23, 107:25,
witnesses 121-10:12,
yards I1] - 31:19
108:4,108:8,
89:8
year[tll-43:24,51:1,
109:17,111:5,
woman It] - 55:12
51:4, 51:5, 90:18,
111:11, 111:15,
women's 151- 74:2,
92:1, 93:3, 104:5,
113:6.113:7. 113:8,
74:8, 74:11, 97:15,
104:25,105:1, 111:1
113:10, 113:24,
87:18
year-round [1]-51:5
114:4,114:13,
wondering (1] - 55:13
years [221- 50:21,
115:12,117:20,
wooded [17] - 19:2,
59:3, 60:19, 66:13,
124:10, 135:9,
19:10,19:14, 22:6,
71:19, 77:21, 81:3,
135:12, 135:24,
22:11, 22:19, 22:20,
83:13, 83:22, 91:8,
143:9, 146:18,
23:24, 24:18, 38:8,
92:3, 105:9, 124:20,
151:6,161:4.
139:9,139:16,
124:22,127:13,
163:23, 164:2,
141:15,141:25
144:23.144:25,
164:21, 165:1,
woodland 1171- 15:24,
167:4, 179:3.
166:21, 167:3,
16:10, 19:12, 23:1,
180:21, 181:17
169;16,171:8.
23:2, 23:14, 23:15,
yellow Ill - 125:23
176:2,176:4,
23:21, 24:5, 24:8,
yesterday Is]- 17:7,
177:11, 183:10,
24:9, 24:21, 28:3,
20:11, 21:22
186:12, 186:22,
28:5, 34:24
York Ill - 91:12
188:12, 189:13,
woodlands Ell -25:21
young [3]-5:6,49:19,
192:14
woods Ill -27:24
90:15
woodworking 01-
youngest Ell -54:13
59:5
yourself[21-49:15,
Woolf [1] - 59:3
175:23
word lel - 12:10,
yourselves I1] -
117:7, 142:21,
200:18
147:22,154:3.
Z
176:20
words [61- 48:13,
Zahasky ll] -71:18
69:21,120:21,
137:13,160:11,
zero I11 - 189:23
199:15
zero-lot-IineEll -
works It] - 203:10
18923
Page 33 to 33
Board of Adjustment 330-16 ARMED
CONTINUED MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
SEPTEMBER 30, 2016 6:30 p.m.
EAST SIDE RECYCLING CENTER
IOWA CITY, IOWA
Members present: Larry Baker, Gene Chrischilles, Becky
Soglin, Tim Weitzel
Members absent: Connie Goeb
Staff present: Doug Boothroy, Susan Dulek, Sarah
Walz, John Yapp
Others present: Mark Parmenter
The following is a transcript of the meeting held
at the above date, time, and place and was transcribed
from the digital audio recording made at such time.
Julie M. Kluber, CSR, RMR
3515 Lochwood Drive NE
Cedar Rapids, IA 52402
319-286-1717
866-412-4766
Page 1 to 1
Board of Adjustment 9-30-16
2 1 4
1 PROCEEDINGS
2 CHAIRMAN BAKER: I'd like to call the
3 September 30th meeting of the Board of Adjustment to
4 order for roll call.
5 MS. WALZ: Chdschilles?
6 MR. CHRISCHILLES: Here.
7 MS. WALZ: Baker.
8 CHAIRMAN BAKER: Here.
9 MS. WALZ: Weitzel.
10 MR. WEITZEL: Here.
11 MS. WALZ: Soglin.
12 MS. SOGLIN: Here.
13 CHAIRMAN BAKER: All right. Before we gel into the
14 order of business, I would like to make a short
15 statement just thanking all of you all for your
16 participation and your patience with us, the board, and
17 with each other. I've been in meetings where things get
18 out of hand, but I've been very pleased that everyone
19 has been treated with respect, and I think the board's
20 been helped greatly by the input and the participation
21 of everyone. I want to in particular thank Mr. Carlson
22 for being here and representing himself, and to use a
23 sports metaphor, it's like playing an away game.
24 You're — but you're very — you're to be commended for
25 coming and participating. I appreciate that.
3
1 So the basis of this meeting is to make a motion
2 and make a decision on Board of Adjustment Item
3 EXC16-00001, and what we normally do is we make the
4 motion and then the board discusses among itself what
5 it's going to go. Since our last meeting we have
6 received some additional information. Attorneys for the
7 applicant, for the appellant, and for the — and the
8 city staff as well have provided us with more
9 information about the issue of environmental impact,
10 wetlands, slopes, the thing that was introduced at the
11 last meeting but which was not thoroughly discussed.
12 To have the applicant or the appellant or the City
13 actually discuss that at this meeting would require that
14 we open up a public hearing. To open up a public
15 hearing, we have to set another date and have another
16 meeting, so with the board's permission, I'd like for us
17 to acknowledge that input and we can certainly talk
18 about the new information, but I do not foresee, unless
19 the board disagrees, the necessity of opening up or
20 setting a new meeting for a public hearing. Okay.
21 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: No.
22 CHAIRMAN BAKER: Mark, that's all right?
23 MR. PARMENTER: Yes.
24 CHAIRMAN BAKER: Very goad. Sc at this time, I'd
25 entertain a motion for discussion.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. WEITZEL: I move to grant the appellants'
appeal APL16-00001, finding the City NDS erred when it
classified the proposed structure at 101 Lusk Avenue as
a single-family residential structure.
MR. CHRISCHILLES: Second.
MS. WALZ: So that's moved by Weitzel and second by
Chdschilles.
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Yeah. One other comment before we
start. Until this issue is completely and finally
settled either tonight or in subsequent court, the rules
of this board still apply. We do not talk about the
issue outside of a public meeting, we do not talk to
each other outside of a public meeting. Our role Is
done at this time. We may be called upon in the future
for another public meeting, but we do not and cannot
receive anymore input on this after tonight from anybody
in the public, nor among ourselves.
So with that, the chair's going to reserve the
prerogative to go last. Anybody can start.
MR. WEITZEL: What do you want to do for a fomlat?
Are we going to just read our statements or do you want
to just talk about the issues or —
CHAIRMAN BAKER: I think your statement is a
discussion of the issues.
MR. WEITZEL: Okay.
5
1 MR. CHRISCHILLES: I don't— I don't mind going
2 first.
3 CHAIRMAN BAKER: Okay, Gene.
4 MR. CHRISCHILLES: I would like to start by
5 commending both attorneys, the city, staff, and the
6 Carlsons on their presentations regarding this appeal.
7 They provided many excellent points of consideration in
8 this matter and made coming to a decision a difficult
9 one. I have spent many hours in deliberation coming to
10 my own conclusion.
11 When I received my packet of information, I was
12 immediately aware of the complexity of this appeal due
13 to the sheer size of the packet. It was an issue that
14 was unlike any I had seen while on this board and very
15 likely was one of a kind to this date. I was on alert
16 that open-minded thinking and dose scrutiny would be
17 required to reach a decision.
18 When I looked at the floor plan — When I first
19 looked at the floor plan of the structure, my first
20 thought was that I had never seen a residence laid out
21 in this manner. The arrangement of space and the amount
22 of space allocated to uses other than clearly
23 residential, those which would include a single-family
24 living, sleeping, cooking, and eating meals, made me
25 think hard about the intended principal use. While the
Page 2 to 5
Board of Adjustment 9-30-16
6 1 8
1 structure does ft some of the criteria that would
2 qualify its designation as a single-family dwelling,
3 what was the principal use of the structure?
4 1 carefully listened to all the arguments from both
5 sides, and I kept coming back to intent of use as the
6 most important factor. I believe this is what
7 ultimately determines the principal versus accessory
8 uses of a structure. In this case, the arrangement of
9 space and the amount of space allocated to uses other
10 than clearly residential led to my opinion that
11 residential use is not the principal use of the
12 structure. It, therefore, must be an accessory use and
13 the structure is misclassified.
14 The principal use determines the use
15 classification. If not residential, what is the
16 intended principal use of this building? I think it
17 lies in an as yet to be created category. I would best
18 describe it as an entertainment -oriented use, but that
19 needs to be determined and added to the zoning code.
20 Since this new classification — new use classification
21 is currently not listed in the zoning code, it cannot be
22 a permitted use in an RS -5 zone. Therefore, the
23 building permit for this structure in an RS -5 zone
24 cannot be issued.
25 CHAIRMAN BAKER: Thank you, Gene.
7
1 MR. WEITZEL: For my decision, I basically modeled
2 it on the staff reports we normally get, which has a bit
3 of a summary and it talks about the findings of fact.
4 I'm just going to read it.
5 "Iowa City Board of Adjustment decision
6 APL16-00001, an appeal of a decision by Neighborhood
7 Development Services to issue a building permit for
8 residential use on property located in the low density
9 single-family RS -5 zone at 101 Lusk Avenue alleging an
10 error in the classification of the property as a
11 residential use, wrongful approval of a site plan, and
12 other zoning code errors." And at this point I'm
13 listing my authorities for the decision.
14 Iowa City Board of Adjustment consists of five
15 members, one of whom was recused from this matter, who
16 serve voluntarily without compensation. The Iowa City
17 Board of Adjustment, the board derives its powers from
18 Iowa Code Chapter 414, City Zoning, and by extension the
19 enabling ordinance under the Code of Iowa City at Title
20 14, Zoning Code, and there's a specific ordinance. And
21 the pursuant ordinances titled within Title 14, Zoning
22 Code. Reference is also made to the 2015 International
23 Residential Code, a section of the International
24 Building Code. These are the authorities consulted in
25 this matter, along with the testimony given during the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
6
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
public hearing.
Regarding appeals to the Board of Adjustment, Iowa
Code Chapter 414, City Zoning, states the following
under Chapter 414.12, Powers: "Board of Adjustment
shall have the following powers," and we've covered this
already a number of times in the meeting. The Iowa City
Zoning Code further 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," at cetera.
Iowa Code indicates the authority to create zones
within cities rests with the city council for the
specific city based on recommendations of the planning
and zoning commission, input from the public, Chapter
414. In practicality and experientially, this means
staff will contribute expert advice to the process and
have done so in the past in the City of Iowa City, but
zoning is a process somewhat distinct from issues
building permits made under the zoning regulations
adopted in the zoning code.
Despite limited discretionary powers assigned to
the zoning enforcement official or building official, as
the Iowa City -- as it is in the Iowa City zoning
ordinance, the final power to zone or enforce the
9
1 Iowa City Zoning Code of any city rests in the city
2 council, who may create, alter, or change zones and
3 enforce the Iowa City Zoning Code so as — and so on led
4 through legislative action based on the authorities
5 cited. It is presumable and logical it is the duty of
6 the building official to execute faithfully the
7 legislation dictated by the zoning process from the code
8 adopted by city council, Chapter 414, Iowa — Iowa Code.
9 And there is limited discretion for the building
10 official to deny a permit provided the base level
11 requirements are met in the zoning and building codes,
12 2015 International Residential Code. This is not to say
13 that there are no additional inspections including, for
14 example, rough -out inspection, final inspection before
15 the occupancy certificate is granted to the newly
16 constructed building, as we heard during the hearing.
17 Additionally, permits for sewer tap and water tap are
18 required per testimony in the hearing. One could go on
19 to add that other utilities might be connected as well,
20 such as electricity, but those involve a process that is
21 distinct from the building permit process based on the
22 hearing.
23 The issues appealed were the classification of the
24 approved structure of the single-family dwelling
25 residence, approval of a site plan for the proposed
Page 6 to 9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
30
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Board of Adjustment
10
structure, and the approval of the building permit.
Additionally, objection has been raised regarding the
sanitary sewer connection and fire department
responsibilities. Although those issues fall outside
the Iowa City Zoning Code, the appellants have related
them to their appeal in that they state a building
permit should not be granted for a property that does
not meet these criteria.
Further, a significant amount of discussion
involved objection by the appellants of the stated
intent to conduct tailgating at 101 Lusk Avenue. The
issue of sensitive areas review was also raised by —
first by public comment but then adopted as part of the
appellants' case after the start of the public hearing.
Response to the three issues raised -- Responding
to the three issues raised, consideration was first
given to the classification of the building and whether
or not it was properly made and whether an error was
made in the classification of the building as a
single-family residence. Without an error being found,
a permanent — permit cannot be denied and the Board of
Adjustment would — Adjustment would have no power to
make changes to the building permit issued by the
building official, Iowa Code Chapter 414.12 and the
Iowa City Zoning Code 14 -8C -3.B.3.
11
My decision is a single-family use is permitted by
right in the low density single-family RS -5 zone and
that there was no error in the classification of the
building as a single-family dwelling. Occupancy cannot
be established without a certificate of occupancy.
There is no design review of buildings at 101 Lusk
Avenue. There are no sensitive areas on the subject
property. The discretionary power of the building
official does not allow a denial of a permit in this
matter. I affirm the decision of the building official.
And if you want, I will read all of the findings.
CHAIRMAN BAKER: No. But they'll be in part of the
record because you're going to turn that over, right?
MR. WEITZEL: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Okay. Becky?
MS. SOGLIN: So I also would like to acknowledge
that there has — this has been a difficult — I'm
sorry. I can only -- I have — I simply cannot
project. I do not have the voice for it, so I don't
know if you want to come and stand closer. I — I
physically just can't project more than this, so I
apologize.
So I do just want to acknowledge that this has —
you know, has been a difficult case, and I appreciate
all the patience and detail that people have taken time
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
9-30-16
12
to provide. Likewise, I, too, have given a lot of
thought to it. I've not taken this responsibility
lightly in any way.
I likewise do find that the building is properly
classified as a single-family dwelling. I do want to
add detail to that. I acknowledge that there is a lot
of entertaining opportunities, but those are allowed as
accessory uses and they are not proposing to charge for
it, so it is a form, I believe — this entertaining is
part of — what is defined as living within the
definition of single -family -home use. And in
particular, I want to address — Is it all right if I
address some of the evidence that was provided?
Regarding the presentation by Mr. Befeler, I
appreciate that he brought some knowledge about
structures and uses, but I found that his percentages
are not based on some kind of architectural standard or
code and basically are very speculative. And then there
is — there seemed to be a great assumption that this
home was already — that this structure and use would
be — would — would already be a nuisance, and I do not
believe there was a case to be made for presuming guilt
in this way.
One of the presenters, Ms. Erickson, cited safety
concerns about lost drivers, and it was concerning that
13
1 police have not ticketed and towed vehicles in — in
2 areas in this neighborhood, but these are enforcement
3 issues and not something that we can attempt to regulate
4 through a decision here today, and that tailgating also
5 is something defined within the code. I guess I just
6 would like to note that — or emphasize that it clearly
7 states it regards only tailgating and — and clearly you
8 cannot park on your own home property on a non
9 tailgating day, and it's only for the day. So I
10 appreciate that the neighbors have concerns perhaps that
11 there would be vehicles parked on proper — on the
12 property for, you know, more than 24 hours.
13 There was a -- I recognize the design — design or
14 facade is not something many of us would choose for a
15 home, but it is still a dwelling. The architect who
16 appeared on behalf of the appellant, Ms. Parks,
17 suggested that there were many features signaling it is
18 not a family dwelling, but I would note that the
19 majority of the features that she cited as problematic
20 can be found, albeit perhaps just individually, in
21 homes, such as the lack of windows on a side that you
22 would expect windows. There are many homes in Iowa City
23 that do not have homes [sic] on, say, an eastern side or
24 southern side when there could be.
25 A bathroom being within four feet of a front door.
Page 10 to 13
Board of Adjustmi
14
1 1 have to say my own home has a bathroom within four
2 feet of the front door. Lockers. Lockers are sold by
3 companies as a feature put into homes, re -- old
4 refurbished gym lockers. The facade. That is something
5 that could be perhaps controlled by a historic district
6 or other overlay. Ms. Madsen mentioned a case where
7 somebody had wanted a pole building and there were scale
8 and design issues, and again, scale and design are
9 things that could potentially be covered by historic
10 overlay.
11 In his memo of September 8th, Mr. Boothroy had
12 cited points 1 through 6 re — regarding zone class
13 overlay use, permitted use class, the fact that the
14 Carlsons had stated that it was a home; and again, we 1
15 believe have to assume they are not lying and that the
16 lot setbacks, coverage, and height all met the
17 standards, so I found that — that evidence to be
18 credible.
19 1 just want to -- I -- I hope we're not taking up
20 too much time, but I just want to be extremely thorough
21 on this. And I would just say, you know, we found that
22 this home is extremely large with a highly unusual
23 design and arguably, if you will, unattractive design
24 with large amenities owned by out-of-towners and used
25 for entertaining along with living, sleeping, cooking,
15
1 and eating, and again, I'm finding that the form of
2 entertaining falls under living.
3 And I just want to go by these through — through
4 the point one by one. The fact that it is extremely
5 large, as Mr. Boothroy noted, this is not something that
6 you control — control beyond the size of the lot. For
7 this neighborhood that's not desiring such a large home,
8 it's — it's something that could perhaps eventually be
9 covered by infill regulations or the like. It has a
10 highly unusual design. I think it was made clear you
11 cannot really control design. Again, it's something
12 that if the neighborhood had a historic or other
13 district overlay, external features could — could
14 perhaps be controlled through that. Obviously you can
15 sometimes do very little to control the inter -
16 internal features.
17 The fact that the facade is not to some people's
18 liking; again, in a — in a non historic or non overlay
19 district, there's little that you might be able to do to
20 change that. It has many amenities. These have been
21 shown through other cases to be allowed in homes.
22 Again, I think some of the issue is that this home has
23 one of each of those. It's owned by out-of-towners, and
24 1 think while the — while our comprehensive plan refers
25 to the citizens of Iowa City, the resident — residents
nt 9-30-16
16
1 and all of those who are making this our home at various
2 times need to be treated justly. And it's — and
3 it's -- The home is being used for entertaining along
4 with living, sleeping, cooking, and eating. It is not
5 retail. Any possible future nuisance depends on
6 enforcement, and that is an enforcement issue,
7 acknowledging that the neighbors have pointed out there
8 have been enforcement problems, and I think that's
9 something that the City needs to be aware of.
10 So while the structure I think is not an ideal fit
11 for the neighborhood, it's still a single-family home.
12 Individually all the features are allowed, and I — and
13 1 acknowledge that the sum here can — can feel greater
14 than the parts, but I cannot — again, cannot disagree
15 with the findings presented by Mr. Boothroy in his memo.
16 And I think the Carlsons' attorney made an important
17 point that enforcing the zoning code regulations is not
18 the proper place to impose what would be additional
19 restrictions not made explicit in the code.
20 And one other point I would like to make. The
21 University Heights information was—was not
22 compelling. I do believe the sensitive areas and slopes
23 was used to determine in that case, and there was not a
24 thorough accounting for the classification, and overall,
25 it is a different jurisdiction. And I will just note
17
1 1— I — additionally, I do believe — I mean the City
2 perhaps could have shared some details about the sewer
3 conditions more readily with the — with Mr. Ackerman
4 and others who had asked, but ultimately, it's — its
5 not going to be relevant to the finding that it's a
6 single-family home.
7 And regarding some of the fire issues, I mean 1
8 personally would want a home with more egresses, and 1
9 was surprised to find the regulations don't call for
10 more, but ultimately the fire experts have staled that
11 they believe that the hose length is — is sufficient,
12 and I do not think that they would be putting their --
13 putting our residents at risk. And Mr. Boothroy's memo
14 of September 20th cites Section B-105 and Section C-202
15 of the International Fire Code regarding the — the
16 sufficiency there.
17 And regarding the sensitive areas ordinance, I will
18 just note that we received these additional materials
19 today. The appellants' attorney had — had claimed that
20 there was no objection given to the SAO on the — our
21 last meeting, which was the 26th; is that correct?
22 CHAIRMAN BAKER: 21st.
23 MS. SOGLIN: Or 21st. Oh. I have no idea what day
24 it is. But I do have clearly in my notes that the
25 appellants' attorney did state that he felt the SAO
Page 14 to 17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Board of Adjustm�
18
issue was not before us and that there had been, as he
saw, no application for it. And while I appreciate the
environmental concerns that were raised, I — I do
believe that there — there's just no provision cited
that requires a person seeking the permit to address the
area when it's on another parcel, another property.
So last, I guess to address the — the issue — the
issuing of the building permit, I think as Tim has found
that there is no error in that, and I do recognize
the --just the — again, the complexity of this case.
CHAIRMAN BAKER: All right. Thank you, Becky.
I have a long written decision which I promise I
will not read to you. I promised my wife I would not
read this statement to you; it's 16 pages long. What I
want to do is read the opening and the closing, sort of
the overview and the conclusion.
Let me start by saying we've all talked about the
complexity of this issue, and that makes it very
difficult for everyone involved. I have lived in
Iowa City for 36 years. I've served two terms on the
city council. I've served two terns on the Board of
Adjustment. I've served on the planning and zoning
commission. I've served on the historic preservation,
helped write it. We have dealt with issues for 30 -
something years, and I have never fell I've been
19
involved in an issue in which there is no clear right
decision. It's almost as if we are in a catch-22
situation, and that was what I wanted to talk about in
my statement.
The sluff I'm not going to read is — I'm not going
to go through the list of items which I'm not going to
consider, those facts which were introduced which really
have no relevance. I'm not going to go into the
building permit issue, but the entire body of my
decision is, I hope, laying the foundation for the
conclusion that where these facts, this information
leads me, based upon everything that has been presented
in this case. So if you'll bear with me a few minutes,
I'd like to read the opening and the closing.
This issue pits two documents, the comprehensive
plan and the zoning code, which ought to be compatible
and mutually reinforcing, into conflict with each other.
In its simplest terms, this is a conflict between what
the City should do and what the City can do. In this
appeal, the City maintains that the comp plan is merely
aspirational while the zoning code is regulatory.
Indeed, the City's position is that not only does the
zoning code dictate what it can do but also what it must
do.
So let me quote from page 23 of the comp plan, the
nt
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
30
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
9-30-16
20
land use vision section. "Iowa City guides development
and growth in order to make wise and efficient use of
land and infrastructure. In order to create a quality
living environment for all area residents, the City will
protect and promote the character and integrity of
existing neighborhoods while encouraging new development
that is designed in a manner that is efficient and
sustainable, compatible with and connected to the
surrounding development and sensitive to the
environmental context. Future development should adhere
to the City's neighborhood principles for compact and
contiguous development."
Let me suggest that you can find similar statements
in other sections of the comprehensive plan reflecting
the same values and aspirations. I think the City, in
the form of the zoning code and the staff making those
decisions, is clearly guided by what they perceive as
hard-and-fast rules. The board's role, and this is in a
memo dated September the 12th from board counsel, who
cited Iowa Code 414-10 about the purpose of the Board of
Adjustment: 'The decisions of the board shall serve the
public interest, meet the intent of the tille, and be
consistent with the comprehensive plan of the City as
amended."
And quoting from the Iowa City Code of Ordinance
21
1 14 -8C -3.B.3, "The Board of Adjustment may, in conformity
2 with the provisions of the title of ordinances adopted
3 pursuant thereto, affirm, or upon finding error, reverse
4 or modify, wholly or partly, the order, requirement,
5 decision, or determination appealed from and may make
6 such order, requirement, decision, or determination as
7 ought to be made, and to that end shall have all the
8 powers of the office from whom the appeal is taken."
9 Counsel was specifically asked if error included
30 error of judgment. Counsel, in my view, seemed to grant
11 the board some latitude in that area but only in the
12 context of fact. We cannot simply say we disagree. We
13 must convincingly argue that the facts would lead us to
14 a different conclusion; that is, the City made its
15 decision in error by misinterpretation or misuse of the
16 relevant facts. Thus, the dilemma for this board is
17 established.
18 We can assume, quote, "all the powers of the office
19 from whom the appeal is taken," unquote, but it is the
20 City's position that it has no powers through the zoning
21 code in certain areas of this issue and, therefore, the
22 board cannot assume those powers for itself. In the
23 case of single-family residences, the City claims no
24 power to mandate sanitary sewer realignments, no power
25 to force a turnaround to be constructed at the end of a
Page 18 to 21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Board of Adjuslm
22
150 -foot — plus -foot street, no power to influence site
plans which are themselves not required for
single-family development adjacent to wetlands or
sensitive areas.
The City asserts that regardless of clearly
demonstrable problems associated with each of those
three areas in relation to the construction of this
structure, the City has no power and, therefore, neither
does the board.
Now, for the next few pages, we just talk about
issues presented but which I cannot use, I think, in
determining — making a decision. There's a section
about questions of judgment, and I am troubled here by
some of the testimony and some of the -- the information
presented. I think there were — I hesitate to use the
word "error," but the judgment was not as rigid and
thorough and thought through as I would have hoped it
would have been, and I document what I think are the
examples of that in this.
I do not talk about the building permit issue but
only in one context. The building permit issue is
actually a discussion of problems with this development.
In the context of a lot split, these problems could be
addressed, and the fact that the single-family
classification doesn't allow you to mandate changes or
23
force the developer to make changes does not remove the
reality that those problems exist.
I do want to quote one short memo from the City.
The City's perspective is best summed up by Julie
Tallman in her 6-22 memo to John Yapp regarding the Lusk
development. Quote, "So I was looking through the
single-family development standards and noticed the
purpose statements for minimum lot requirements and
building bulk standards are uniform in that the" —
"they seek to ensure consistency and compatibility
between new and existing development and discourage new
buildings that dominate existing buildings." Space.
"1 assume that the proposed building meets all
height, setback, and other dimensional requirements in
our code that are intended to further the stated
purposes." And then I have italicized the last
statement. "So maybe it's our code that fails to
achieve the purpose statement and it's not a reason to
deny the building permit."
And that's one of the purposes of my statement
here — parts I won't read -- is to establish what I
perceive as problems with the code itself and how it's
used, problems that go beyond this one issue which I
think the city staff and the — and the city council
need to look at in the long run.
ant
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
30
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
9-30-16
24
Okay. As far as a decision. Under classification
of use. I have discussed the building permit issue
first, this long section in the middle, to establish a
series of facts as I understand them. In truth, any
problems with the building permit become moot if they
proceed from an incorrect classification of use, and if
the use classification of single-family is wrong, all
bets are off.
After six hours of testimony at the 9-14-16 meeting
and five hours of discussion at the 9-21 meeting, the
City's rationale for the residential classification was
revealed to be quite simple. If anything meets the
minimum requirement of one bedroom, one kitchen, one
bathroom, and a living space, it is a residence. And
with those minimums established, the circular logic
arising out of the definitional guidelines of the zoning
code are then cited.
Principal use: The primary use of land or a
structure as distinguished from an accessory use; for
example, a dwelling is a principal use on a lot in a
residential zone, while a garage or pool is accessory
use.
Definition of dwelling: A building wholly or
partially used or intended to be used for residential
occupancy. The proposed structure at 101 is clearly a
25
building at least, quote, "partially used for
residential occupancy," albeit on an absentee basis. It
seems superficially logical that it is, therefore, the
primary use of land in that zone. For the City, all
other uses — entertainment, recreational, social
activities — are accessory as long as they fit the
definitions in the zoning code. And that seems quite
simple.
So why is this issue so complicated and contested?
The board repeatedly asked the City if there was any
limit to the logic upon which their decision rested.
How about a structure with ten bedrooms in an RS -5 zone?
No limit. A structure with ten bathrooms? Two or more
basketball courts? An elevated stage built in a giant
courtyard? Only one bedroom but ten bathrooms? The
list of variations is only constrained by the size of
the lot. Could the City imagine any design, even though
it included one bedroom, one bathroom, one kitchen, and
a living area, any design or configuration that would
cause it to question the structure classification as a
residential dwelling.
A reasonable person could look at the design of the
front restrooms and see them clearly designed for a
public use rather than private convenience. A
reasonable person could look at the spatial
Page 22 to 25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Board of Adjustment
26 1
configuration of the structure and see its primary use
as an entertainment or recreational venue with residency
as a secondary use. The City's response, in so many
words: Not according to the code. A reasonable person
would consider the sanitary sewer connection, the
adjacent slope protection, the potential public safely
issue of a necessary turnaround as problems to be
addressed by the City and the City's response, in so
many words, is not according to the code.
Carried to its logical extreme, the City is
admitting that it has no power to stop this structure at
this site nor any power to prevent even worse — I'm
going to use an intentionally inflammatory word — any
worse abominations in any other residential zone in
Iowa City. If the City's decision is upheld, not one
single neighborhood in this community is safe from such
development.
And I will admit that my previous two paragraphs
might be rhetorically unfair to the City. I've chosen
the most inflammatory language I could muster, but the
tone of my language does not contradict my conclusion.
If the City's decision is upheld, not one single
neighborhood in this community is safe from such
development. But the City has a compelling rebuttal to
my conclusion. They are fallowing the letter of the
27
law. As they understand the law, they must approve this
development. Indeed, those who oppose this development
must also demand that the City obey the law in all
issues before it, not just the one that affects them
directly.
I suspect that the final interpretation of the law
is not in the hands of this board. It will be
adjudicated elsewhere. The City insists that it's
obeyed the law. Others will resolve that. And
throughout my entire statement, I've returned over and
over again to that phrase, "the letter of the law,"
because it is essential to understanding my conclusion.
I return to the language of the law as it relates
to our role as a board of adjustment. I'm going to
repeat, Iowa Code 414.10.13, purpose: 'The decisions of
the board should serve the public interest, meet the
intent of the title, and be consistent with the
comprehensive plan as amended." Thus, in my opinion,
any decision by this board by law must evaluate the
public interest and should be consistent with the
comprehensive plan.
And having established as much factual context as I
can for this issue, I now note the language of the
comprehensive plan separated here for individual
consideration: "Iowa City guide" — This is the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
9-30-16
28
language from the — from the intent. "Iowa City guides
development and growth in order to make wise and
efficient use of land and infrastructure." My
evaluation, this development, based on the facts as I
understand them, does not reflect wise and efficient use
of the land and infrastructure.
Number two, "In order to create a quality living
environment for all area residents." My evaluation,
based on the facts, this development will diminish the
quality of life for neighboring residents.
Number three, 'The City will protect and promote
the character and integrity of existing neighborhoods."
In my evaluation, based on the facts as I understand
them, this development is clearly out of character with
the surrounding neighborhood and threatens the long-term
stability and integrity of the adjoining property
owners.
Number five, "This must be compatible with and
connected to surrounding development." My evaluation,
clearly inconsistent with that goal. "And sensitive to
the environmental context," the last guideline. In my
evaluation, based on the facts as I understand them,
this development is clearly inconsistent with that goal.
Therefore, as I understand the letter of the law
which mandates the obligation of the Board of Adjustment
29
1 to render decisions which, quote, "should serve the
2 public interest, meet the intent of the title, and be
3 consistent with the comprehensive plan of the City," 1
4 side with the appellants, and being compelled by the
5 language of the law that established the Board of
6 Adjustment, I judge the classification of this
7 development as single-family residential to be
8 overwhelmingly inconsistent with the comprehensive plan
9 and clearly not in the public interest, and to reach
10 that conclusion but rule against the appellant seems to
11 me to be incompatible with the legal mandate of this
12 board.
13 And finally, we are back where we began. What the
14 City should do, can do, and must do will not be resolved
15 here. The appellant has the weight of logic and common
16 sense on its side as well as the moral authority of the
17 public interest. This board itself can make no decision
18 that is not in the public interest, nor can it make a
19 decision that is inconsistent with the comprehensive
20 plan. Regardless of the final adjudicated outcome, the
21 City is now obligated in the future to make sure that
22 the letter of the law is amended to more clearly serve
23 the public interest better than it has in this case.
24 We need to make a formal vote, Mark, I assume?
25 MR. PARMENTER: Yes, Mr. Chair.
Page 26 to 29
Board of Adjustment 9-30-16
30 1 32
1 CHAIRMAN BAKER: All right.
2 MS. WALZ: You just want to be clear about how you
3 vole because the motion is in the affirmative to
4 overturn the decision, so if you are against the
5 decision of the building official, you would vote yes;
6 and if you — if you uphold the decision, you would vote
7 no. Is that --
8 MR. CHRISCHILLES: Can — Do we have — Can we
9 make additional comments —
10 CHAIRMAN BAKER: Oh, sure. I'm sorry.
11 MR. CHRISCHILLES: -- about each other's -
12 CHAIRMAN BAKER: It's still — it's still on the
13 floor.
14 MR. CHRISCHILLES: I just would like to briefly
15 rein — reinforce Larry's comments. I think this issue
16 has brought about several glaring inadequacies in our
17 current zoning code. The fad that you can't include
18 anything dealing with— Only — only under certain
19 circumstances can you include fire protection, sewer
20 hookup, sensitive slope involvement, those types of
21 things, I felt that the zoning code constantly shackled
22 cur — our opinion.
23 1— I think Larry's point about the — the
24 circular argument was very pertinent. Ifyouwork
25 from — As the City did, if you work from the point of
31
1 view that the — that the house — or that the structure
2 is a single-family dwelling, then that guides all the
3 rest of your opinions down a certain path, and they
4 didn't look outside of the possibilities of — of it
5 being something other than a single-family dwelling
6 or — or being something outside what was in the — in
7 the code.
8 So I — I would strongly hope that the City would
9 use this case as a springboard to -- to look at— to
10 bring to the zoning board additions and amendments to
11 its rules and regulations such that something like this
12 isn't ambiguous if it comes up again. I think that we
13 need to have fire, sewer, sensitive slopes, those types
14 of things included in the zoning code such — so that —
15 such that they can be ruled on without exclusion.
16 CHAIRMAN BAKER: Okay. You made the original
17 motion, didn't you? Would you read the motion again?
18 MS. SOGLIN: May I, sorry, just -
19 CHAIRMAN BAKER: I'm sorry.
20 MS. SOGLIN: — add one quick thing because I — 1
21 also — I had not read the paragraph I had had about
22 these three issues of public interest, comprehensive
23 plan, intent of the title, and I think Larry did a very
24 good job of— of outlining the importance of the
25 comprehensive plan, and for me, I would say very
1 personally this is difficult to not be able to let the
2 comprehensive plan be the thing that could override
3 everything. But the thing to — that just can't be
4 emphasized enough, as Larry and also Gene have just
5 emphasized here, is that unless we have — it is written
6 in the code, we cannot just simply, you know, bend
7 regulations or, you know, draw them out. They must be
8 in the code.
9 And for me, I had to consider while public
10 interest, we -- There are many passionate neighbors
11 here. Your concerns are — are — are understandable,
12 but the public interest I think also includes the fad
13 that you need to abide by the code that exists and then
14 not, as you are going along, make up restrictions. And
15 my hope also would be that going forward there is a
16 close look at — at what our codes are and that perhaps
17 consideration of infill development standards and other
18 residential standards could be done sooner than later.
19 CHAIRMAN BAKER: Tim, anything else?
20 MR. WEITZEL: The motion was to grant appellants'
21 appeal, the appeal 16-00001, finding that the City NDS
22 erred when class — it classified the proposed structure
23 at 101 Lusk Avenue as a single-family residential
24 structure.
25 CHAIRMAN BAKER: And was seconded by Gene? Okay.
33
1 Ready to vote?
2 MS. WALZ: Soglin?
3 MS. SOGLIN: I just want to make sure I say --
4 This is — it's — I just want to make sure — I'm
5 sorry.
6 MR. WEITZEL: Yes grants it, no doesn't.
7 MS. WALZ: Grants the — so that if you vote yes,
8 that would overturn the building official's decision.
9 MS. SOGLIN: No.
10 MS. WALZ: It's an art. Weitzel?
11 MR. WEITZEL: No.
12 MS. WALZ: Baker.
13 CHAIRMAN BAKER: Yes.
14 MS. WALZ: Chrischilles.
15 MR. CHRISCHILLES: Yes.
16 CHAIRMAN BAKER: Motion actually fails for lack of
17 three votes.
18 This does raise the question if the classification
19 use is upheld and the single-family designation is
20 accurate, is it your position as counsel that we still
21 have no power to modify any terms of the building
22 permit?
23 MR. PARMENTER: Yes, that is my position,
24 Mr. Chair. Under Iowa City Code of Ordinances 14-8C, it
25 clearly says, 'The Board of Adjustment may,' as you've
Page 30 to 33
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Board of Adjustment
34
already quoted, "in conformity with the provisions of
1
this title or ordinances adopted pursuant thereto,
2
affirm, or upon finding error'— and I think that's
3
critical; you've not found error — "reverse or modify,
4
wholly or partly, the order, requirement, decision, or
5
determination appealed from and make such order,
6
requirement, decision, or determination as ought to be
7
made, and to that end shall have the powers of the
8
officer from which" — "from whom the appeal is taken."
9
So given that we do not have three affirmative
30
votes to uphold the appeal, my opinion is this board is
11
without power to modify anything.
12
13
CHAIRMAN BAKER: All right.
14
MR. CHRISCHILLES: Do— do we have the — Can we
is
make a suggestion that this issue go before the
16
zoning — board of zoning to be used to look at the
specific oddities of this case so that they can perhaps,
17
you know, remedy — make -- make things better?
18
MR. PARMENTER: Gene, if I — if I may, I suspect
19
that this issue will be going through counsel, staff,
20
probably planning and zoning and other different boards
21
of Iowa City, but I don't believe this board has the
22
power to instruct or authorize —
23
MR. CHRISCHILLES: I meant as — as a request.
24
MR. PARMENTER: As a — You can certainly make a
25
35
request, but I don't-- it's not binding, of course.
MR. CHRISCHILLES: No.
MR. PARMENTER: Yes. I understand.
MR. CHRISCHILLES: And how would we initiate that?
MR. PARMENTER: I think you just did.
MR. CHRISCHILLES: All right.
CHAIRMAN BAKER: Any other discussion from the
board?
MR. WEITZEL: I just want to reiterate what
everybody else is saying. This was very contentious,
very complicated, and not easy to do, but things seem to
be set out in a certain path a long time ago, and that's
what we had to follow.
CHAIRMAN BAKER: And once again, I want to thank
all of you for your participation and your help in this
matter.
With that, IT entertain a motion to close the
meeting, adjourn the meeting.
MR. WEITZEL: So moved.
MS. WALZ: Moved by Weitzel. All those in favor
say aye.
(A vote was taken and the motion passed 4-0.)
(Meeting adjourned at 7:18 p.m.)
9-30-16
CERTIFICATE
36
I, Julie M. Kluber, Certified Shorthand Reporter in
the State of Iowa, do hereby certify that I was
authorized to and did transcribe in shorthand the above
and foregoing proceedings; that said shorthand notes
were reduced to computer-aided transcription under my
direction and supervision; that the foregoing 35 pages
are a full and correct transcript of the shorthand notes
so taken, to the best of my ability under the situation
presented; that I am a disinterested person to the said
action.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereupon set my hand
this 2nd day of November, 2016.
W. K'6e'r,
Certified Shorthand Reporter
Page 34 to 36
1
1 [1]- 14:12
101 [61- 4:3, 7:9,
10:11, 11:6, 24:25,
32:23
12th [t] - 20:19
14 [2] - 7:20, 7:21
14-8C[11 - 33:24
14 -8C -3.B.3 [2] -
10:25, 21:1
150 -foot [11- 22:1
16 [11- 18:14
16-00001 [1]- 32:21
2
2015 121- 7:22, 9:12
2016 [2] - 1:5, 36:13
20th [i] - 17:14
21st 121- 17:22, 17:23
23 [11- 19:25
24 [11- 13:12
26th [1]- 17:21
2nd 111-36:13
3
30th It] - 2:3
319-286.1717111
1:25
35 ill - 36:7
3515 [11- 1:24
36 [1] - 18:20
4
4-0[1] - 35:22
414141- 7:18, 8:3,
8:16, 9:8
414-10 [tl - 20:20
414.10.8 [0 - 27:15
414.12[21-8:4, 10:24
5
52402 111- 1:24
6
6 [1] - 14:12
6-22 Ell - 23:5
6:30[1]-1:5
7
7:18 [11- 35:23
8
866-412.4766111
1:25
Bth [t] - 14:11
9
9.14-16 [11- 24:9
9-21 [t] - 24:10
A
abide [1] - 32:13
ability [1]- 36:9
able 121- 15:19, 32:1
abominations 111-
26:14
absent h1- 1:10
absentee ill - 25:2
accessory [61- 6:7,
6:12,12:8, 24:19,
24:21, 25:6
according 121- 26:4,
26:9
accounting 111- 16:24
accurate [1] - 33:20
achieve 111- 23:18
Ackerman [11-17:3
acknowledge 151-
3:17, 11:16, 11:23,
12:6, 16:13
acknowledging [1] -
16:7
action [21- 9:4, 36:11
activities 11] - 25:6
add [31- 9:19, 12:6,
31:20
added [1] - 6:19
additional [5] - 3:6,
9:13, 16:18, 17:18,
30:9
additionally [3] - 9:17,
10:2, 17:1
additions [1]- 31:10
address [41- 12:12,
12:13, 18:5, 18:7
addressed [2] - 22:24,
26:8
adhere Ell - 20:10
adjacent 121- 22:3,
26:6
adjoining 111- 28:16
adjourn [t] - 35:18
adjourned 111- 35:23
adjudicated 12] - 27:8,
29:20
Adjustment 116] - 2:3,
3:2, 7:5, 7:14, 7:17,
8:2, 8:4, 8:7.10:22,
18:22, 20:21, 21:1,
28:25, 29:6, 33:25
ADJUSTMENT[t]-
1:4
adjustment [11- 27:14
Board of Adjustment 9-30-16
admit [11- 26:18
admitting [1] - 26:11
adopted [s] - 8:9,
8:21, 9:8, 10:13,
21:2, 34:2
advice [t] - 8:17
affects [11- 27:4
affirm 14] - 8:9, 11:10,
21:3, 34:3
ago It I - 35:12
aided Ell - 36:6
albeit 121- 13:20, 25:2
alert [1]- 5:15
alleging Ell - 7:9
allocated [2] - 5:22,
6:9
allow [2]- 11:9, 22:25
allowed [3] - 12:7,
15:21, 16:12
almost [11- 19:2
alter p I - 9:2
ambiguous [1)-31:12
amended [3]- 20:24,
27:18, 29:22
amendments [1] -
31:10
amenities [2]-14:24,
15:20
amount [3]- 5:21, 6:9,
10:9
APL16-00001 12] - 4:2,
7:6
apologize [1] - 11:22
appeal [121- 4:2, 5:6,
5:12, 7:6,10:6,
19:20, 21:8, 21:19,
32:21, 34:9, 34:11
appealed [3]- 9:23,
21:5, 34:6
appeals 1tl - 8:2
appeared [11- 13:16
appellant 151- 3:7,
3:12, 13:16, 29:10,
29:15
appellants [3]- 10:5,
10:10, 29:4
appellants' [51- 4:1,
10:14, 17:19,17:25,
32:20
applicant [21- 3:7,
3:12
application [1] - 18:2
apply [11- 4:11
appreciate [51- 2:25,
11:24,12:15, 13:10,
18:2
approval [31- 7:11,
9:25, 10:1
approve 11] - 27:1
approved ill - 9:24
architect 11] -13:15
architectural [t] -
12:17
area [51-18:6, 20:4,
21:11, 25:19, 28:8
areas [6] -10:12, 11:7,
13:2, 16:22, 17:17,
21:21, 22:4, 22:7
arguably [11-14:23
argue Ill - 21:13
argument [t] - 30:24
arguments 111- 6:4
arising [11- 24:16
arrangement [21-
5:21, 6:8
art [1] - 33:10
aspirational it] -
19:21
aspirations [1]- 20:15
asserts [11- 22:5
assigned [t] - 8:22
associated [11- 22:6
assume Isl - 14:15,
21:18, 21:22, 23:13,
29:24
assumption It] -
12:19
attempt [11- 13:3
attorney [31- 16:16,
17:19, 17:25
attorneys 121- 3:6, 5:5
audio 111- 1:19
authorities [3] - 7:13,
7:24, 9:4
authority [21- 8:12,
29:16
authorize [ll - 34:23
authorized [11- 36:4
Avenue [5] - 4:3, 7:9,
10:11, 11:7, 32:23
aware 121-5:12, 16:9
aye 11] - 35:21
B
B-105[1] - 17:14
Baker 131- 1:9, 2:7,
33:12
BAKER [261- 2:2, 2:8,
2:10, 2:13, 3:22,
3:24, 4:8, 4:23, 5:3,
6:25, 11:12, 11:15,
17:22,18:11, 30:1,
30:10, 30:12, 31:16,
31:19, 32:19, 32:25,
33:13, 33:16, 34:13,
35:7, 35:14
base Ell - 9:10
based 191- 8:14, 9:4,
9:21, 12:17,19:12,
28:4, 28:9, 28:13,
28:22
basis 121- 3:1, 25:2
basketball [t] - 25:14
bathroom [41- 13:25,
14:1, 24:14,25:18
bathrooms [21-
25:13, 25:15
bear[l]-19:13
Becky [31- 1:9, 11:15,
18:11
become [1] - 24:5
bedroom [3]- 24:13,
25:15, 25:18
bedrooms it] - 25:12
Befeler 111- 12:14
began Ell - 29:13
behalf [11-13:16
bend [1] - 32:6
best [3] - 6:17, 23:4,
36:9
bets (t] - 24:8
better [21- 29:23,
34:18
between 121- 19:18,
23:11
beyond 121- 15:6,
23:23
binding [11- 35:1
bit [t] - 7:2
BOARD [1]- 1:4
Board 1151- 2:3, 3:2,
7:5, 7:14, 7:17, 8:2,
8:4, 8:7, 10:21,
18:21, 20:20, 21:1,
28:25, 29:5, 33:25
board 1241- 2:16, 3:4,
3:19, 4:11, 5:14,
7:17, 2019, 20:21,
21:11, 21:16, 21:22,
22:9, 25:10, 27:7,
27:14, 27:16, 27:19,
29:12, 29:17, 31:10,
34:11, 34:16, 34:22,
35:8
board's 131- 2:19,
3:16, 20:18
boards 111- 34:21
body 111- 19:9
Boothroy [41-1:11,
14:11, 15:5,16:15
Boothroy's 111-17:13
briefly [11- 30:14
bring Ell - 31:10
brought [2] - 12:15,
30:16
building [351- 6:16,
6:23, 7:7, 8:20, 8:23,
9:6, 9:9, 9:11, 9:16,
9:21, 10:1, 10:6,
10:17, 10:19, 10:23,
10:24, 11:4, 11:8,
11:10, 12:4, 14:7,
18:8, 19:9, 22:20,
22:21, 23:9, 23:13,
23:19, 24:2, 24:5,
24:23, 25:1, 30:5,
33:8, 33:21
Building 111- 7:24
buildings [3] - 11:6,
23:12
built [11- 25:14
bulk 11) - 23:9
business 111- 2:14
C
C-202 [t] - 17:14
cannot [141- 4:16,
6:21, 6:24, 10:21,
11:4, 11:18, 13:8,
15:11, 16:14, 21:12,
21:22, 22:11, 32:6
carefully ill - 6:4
Carlson Itl- 2:21
Carisons 121- 5:6,
14:14
Carlsons' I1] - 16:16
carried 11] - 26:10
case (12) - 6:8, 10:14,
11:24, 12:22, 14:6,
16:23, 18:10, 19:13,
21:23, 29:23, 31:9,
34:17
cases pl - 15:21
catch -22111- 19:2
category 111- 6:17
Cedar p] -1:24
CENTER I1] - 1:6
certain [4] - 21:21,
30:18, 31:3, 35:12
certainly I21- 3:17,
34:25
certificate 121- 9:15,
11:5
CERTIFICATE I1] -
36:1
Certifiod (21- 36:2,
36:16
certify Ili- 36:3
cetera [11 -8:11
chair[2] - 29:25,
33:24
chars [11- 4:18
CHAIRMAN 1261- 2:2,
2:8, 2:10, 2:13, 3:22,
3:24, 4:8, 4:23, 5:3,
6:25, 11:12, 11:15,
17:22, 18:11, 30:1,
30:10, 30:12, 31:16,
31:19, 32:19, 32:25,
33:13, 33:16, 34:13,
35:7, 35:14
change 121- 9:2,
15:20
changes 131- 10:23,
22:25, 23:1
Chapter [61- 7:18,
8:3, 8:4, 8:15, 9:8,
10:24
character [3] - 20:5,
28:12, 28:14
charge 111- 12:8
choose 11] -13:14
chosen 11) - 26:19
CHRISCHILLES 1131 -
2:6, 4:5, 5:1, 5:4,
30:8, 30:11, 30:14,
33:15, 34:14, 34:24,
35:2, 35:4, 35:6
Chrischilles [4]- 1:9,
2:5, 4:7, 33:14
circular 12] - 24:15,
30:24
circumstances It] -
30:19
cited [7) - 9:5, 12:24,
13:19,14:12, 18:4,
20:20, 24:17
cites [71-17:14
cities [1] - 8:13
citizens (1) - 15:25
City 1561- 3:12, 4:2,
7:5, 7:14, 7:16, 7:18,
7:19, 8:3, 8:6, 8:18,
8:24, 9:1, 9:3,10:5,
10:25,13:22, 15:25,
16:9,17:1. 18:20,
19:19,19:20, 20:1,
20:4, 20:15, 20:23,
20:25, 21:14, 21:23,
22:5, 22:8, 23:3,
25:4, 25:10, 25:17,
26:8, 26:10, 26:15,
26:19, 26:24, 27:3,
27:8, 27:25, 28:1,
28:11, 29:3, 29:14,
29:21, 30:25, 31:8,
32:21, 33:24, 34:22
CITY 111-1:7
city pol - 3:8, 5:5,
8:13, 8:14, 9:1, 9:8,
18:21, 23:24
City's 191 -19:22,
20:11, 21:20, 23:4,
24:11, 26:3, 26:8,
26:15, 26:22
claimed 111- 17:19
claims [11- 21:23
class [31- 14:12,
Board of Adjustment 9-30-16
14:13, 32:22
Classification 1171 -
6:15, 6:20, 7:10,
9:23,10:17, 10:19,
11:3, 16:24, 22:25,
24:1, 24:6, 24:7,
24:11, 25:20, 29:6,
33:18
classified 131- 4:3,
12:5, 32:22
clear l3]-15:10, 19:1,
30:2
clearly 1151- 5:22,
6:10, 13:6, 13:7,
17:24, 20:17, 22:5,
24:25, 25:23, 28:14,
28:20, 28:23, 29:9,
29:22, 33:25
close I31 - 5:16, 32:16,
35:17
closer[1]- 11:20
closing 121- 18:15,
19:14
code 1281-6:19, 6:21,
7:12, 8:21, 9:7,
12:18,13:5, 16:17,
16:19, 19:16, 19:21,
19:23, 20:16, 21:21,
23:15, 23:17, 23:22,
24:17, 25:7, 26:4,
26:9, 30:17, 30:21,
31:7, 31:14, 32:6,
32:8, 32:13
Code 121] - 7:18, 7:19,
7:20, 7:22, 7:23,
7:24, 8:3, 8:7, 8:12,
9:1, 9:3, 9:8, 9:12,
10:5, 10:24,10:25,
17:15, 20:20, 20:25,
27:15, 33:24
codes 12] - 9:11, 32:16
coming 141 - 2:25, 5:8,
5:9, 6:5
commended 111- 2:24
commending 11) - 5:5
comment 12] - 4:8,
10:13
comments 121- 30:9,
30:15
commission [21-
8:15, 18:23
common 11] - 29:15
community 12] -
26:16, 26:23
COMP [21. 19:20,
19:25
compact 111- 20:11
companies It]- 14:3
compatibility [1] -
23:10
compatible [3) -
19:16, 20:8, 28:18
compelled It] - 29:4
compelling [2] -
16:22, 26:24
compensation pl -
7:16
completely [11- 4:9
complexity [31- 5:12,
18:10,18:18
complicated 121-
25:9, 35:11
comprehensive [13] -
15:24, 19:15, 20:14,
20:23, 27:18, 27:21,
27:24, 29:3, 29:8,
29:19, 31:22, 31:25,
32:2
computer 11) - 36:6
computer-aided Eli -
36:6
conceming [1] -12:25
concerns 141- 12:25,
13:10,18:3. 32:11
conclusion [8] - 5:10,
18:16,19:11, 21:14,
26:21, 26:25, 27:12,
29:10
conditions [11-17:3
conduct p] - 10:11
configuration [2] -
25:19, 26:1
conflict[21-19:17,
19:18
conformity [31- 8:8,
21:1, 34:1
connected [3] - 9:19,
20:8, 28:19
connection [21- 10:3,
26:5
connie [tl - 1:10
considerl31-19:7,
26:5, 32:9
consideration [41-
5:7, 10:16, 27:25,
32:17
conslstoncy [1] -
23:10
consistent 141- 20:23,
27:17, 27:20, 29:3
consists [t] - 7:14
constantly I1] - 30:21
constrained [11-
25:16
constructed [21-
9:16, 21:25
construction i1] -
22:7
consulted [1] - 7:24
contentious [t] -
35:10
contested Ili - 25:9
context [6] - 20:10,
21:12, 22:21, 22:23,
27:22, 28:21
contiguous 1t] - 20:12
CONTINUED [1] -1:4
contradict [1] - 26:21
contribute 11] - 8:17
control [41-15:6,
15:11, 15:15
controlled 121-14:5,
15:14
convenience [1] -
25:24
convincingly It] -
21:13
cooking [31- 5:24,
14:25,16:4
correct 121- 17:21,
36:8
council [51- 8:13, 9:2,
9:8.18:21, 23:24
counsel 15] - 20:19,
21:9, 21:10, 33:20,
34:20
course [1) - 35:1
court [1) - 4:10
courts [t] - 25:14
courtyard p] - 25:15
coverage It] - 14:16
covered [31- 8:5,
14:9,15:9
create [41- 8:12, 9:2,
20:3, 28:7
created It] - 6:17
credible [tl -14:18
criteria I21- 6:1, 10:8
critical It] - 34:4
CSR 111- 1:23
current It] - 30:17
D
date [31-1:18, 3:15,
5:15
dated [tl - 20:19
dealing 111- 30:18
dealt Il] - 18:24
decision 130] - 3:2,
5:8, 5:17, 7:1, 7:5,
7:6, 7:13,11:1.
11:10,13:4. 18:12,
19:2.19:10, 21:5,
21:6, 21:15, 22:12,
24:1, 25:11, 26:15,
26:22, 27:19, 29:17,
29:19, 30:4, 30:5,
30:6, 33:8, 34:5,
34:7
decisions [4] - 20:17,
20:21, 27:15, 29:1
defined [2]-12:10,
13:5
definition [21- 12:11,
24:23
definitional [ll - 24:16
definitions It] - 25:7
deliberation Ell - 5:9
demand [1] - 27:3
demonstrable [11 -
22:6
denial 111- 11:9
denied Ill -10:21
density 121- 7:8, 11:2
deny 121- 9:10, 23:19
department 11I - 10:3
derives it I - 7:17
describe Ell - 6:18
design [121- 11:6,
13:13, 14:8, 14:23,
15:10, 15'11, 25:17,
25:19, 25:22
designation [21- 6:2,
33:19
designed [21- 20:7,
25:23
desiring Ill -15:7
despite 111- 8:22
detail 121- 11:25, 12:6
details It) -17:2
determination 141-
21:5, 21:6, 34:6,
34:7
determine 111- 16:23
determined 111- 6:19
determines [2] - 6:7,
6:14
determining [tl -
22:12
davoloper I1) - 23:1
development [22) -
20:1, 20:6, 20:9,
20:10, 20:12, 22:3,
22:22, 23:6, 23:7,
23:11, 26:17, 26:24,
27:2, 28:2, 28:4,
28:9, 28:14, 28:19,
28:23, 29:7, 32:17
Development 111- 7:7
dictate [11- 19:23
dictated [11- 9:7
different Is] - 16:25,
21:14, 34:21
difficult [5j - 5:8,
11:17, 11:24, 18:19,
32:1
digital [ll - 1:19
dilemma pl - 21:16
dimensional [t] -
23:14
diminish Ell - 28:9
direction Ill - 36:7
directly [ll - 27:5
disagree 12) -16:14,
21:12
disagrees Ell - 3:19
discourage [tl - 23:11
discretion Ill - 9:9
discretionary [21-
8:22, 11:8
discuss Ell - 3:13
discussed 121- 3:11,
24:2
discusses 11) - 3:4
discussion [6]- 3:25,
4:24, 10:9, 22:22,
24:10, 35:7
disinterested It] -
36:10
distinct lel - 8:19,
9:21
distinguished [1]-
24:19
district p] - 14:5,
15:13, 15:19
document [t) - 22:18
documents Ell -19:15
dominate Ill - 23:12
done 131-4:14, 8:18,
32:18
door[21-13:25, 14:2
Doug [1]-1:11
down It] - 31:3
draw It] - 32:7
Drive 11] - 1:24
drivers It] -12:25
due [11-5:12
Dulek 0l- 1:11
during 12) - 7:25, 9:16
duty I11 - 9:5
dwelling 11 1] - 6:2,
9:24, 11:4, 12:5,
13:15, 13:18, 24:20,
24:23, 25:21, 31:2,
31:5
E
EAST [11-1:6
eastern 111- 13:23
easy [11- 35:11
eating is] - 5:24, 15:1
16:4
efficient [4] - 20:2,
20:7, 28:3, 28:5
egresses ill - 17:8
either 11] - 4:10
electricity I1] - 9:20
elevated [1] - 25:14
Board of Adjustment 9-30-16
elsewhere Ill - 27:8
emphasize Ill - 13:6
emphasized [2] -
32:4, 32:5
enabling [1] - 7:19
encouraging Ill -
20:6
end Is] - 21:7, 21:25,
34:8
enforce 121- 8:25, 9:3
enforcement [51-
8:23, 13:2, 16:6,
16:8
enforcing [1) -16:17
ensure Ill - 23:10
entertain [2] - 3:25,
35:17
entertaining [s] -
12:7, 12:9, 14:25,
15:2,16:3
entertainment 13) -
6:18, 25:5, 26:2
entertainment -
oriented [t]-6:18
entire [21 - 19:9, 27:10
environment 12] -
20:4, 28:8
environmental [4]-
3:9, 18:3, 20:10,
28:21
Erickson Ill -12:24
erred I21- 4:2, 32:22
error 03) - 7:10, 8:10,
10:18, 10:20, 11:3,
18:9, 21:3, 21:9,
21:10, 21:15, 22:16,
34:3, 34:4
errors [1]- 7:12
essential Ill - 27:12
establish 121- 23:21,
24:3
established [51-11:5,
21:17, 24:15, 27:22,
29:5
at [11- 8:11
evaluate [11- 27:19
evaluation [5] - 28:4,
28:8, 28:13, 28:19,
28:22
eventually [11- 15:8
evidence 12] - 12:13,
14:17
example 121- 9:14,
24:20
examples 111- 22:19
EXC16-00001 it) - 3:3
excellent [1] - 5:7
exclusion [1) - 31:15
execute [11- 9:6
exist it]- 23:2
existing [41- 20:6,
23:11, 23:12, 28:12
exists ill - 32:13
expect Ill - 13:22
experientially [11-
8:16
expert It] - 8:17
experts Ill -17:10
explicit [t] -16:19
extension Ill - 7:18
external Ill - 15:13
extreme It] - 26:10
extremely [31-14:20,
14:22,15:4
F
facade 13] - 13:14,
14:4, 15:17
fact [8]- 7:3, 14:13,
15:4, 15:17, 21:12,
22:24, 30:17, 32:12
factor [1]- 6:6
facts [9]- 19:7, 19:11,
21:13, 21:16, 24:4,
28:4, 28:9, 28:13,
28:22
factual [11- 27:22
falls 121- 23:17, 33:16
faithfully [11- 9:6
fall ill - 10:4
falls [11-15:2
family [241- 4:4, 5:23,
6:2, 7:9, 9:24, 10:20,
11:1, 11:2, 11:4,
12:5, 12:11, 13:18,
16:11, 17:6, 21:23,
22:3, 22:24, 23:7,
24:7, 29:7, 31:2,
31:5, 32:23, 33:19
Wilt -24:1
fast 111- 20:18
favor [t] - 35:20
feature Ill -14:3
features [51- 13:17,
13:19, 15:13, 15:16,
16:12
feet [21-13:25, 14:2
felt [31-17:25, 18:25,
30:21
few [21- 19:13, 22:10
final [41- 8:25, 9:14,
27:6, 29:20
finally [2] - 4:9, 29:13
findings [31.7:3,
11:11, 16:15
Fire Ell -17:15
fire [5] - 10:3, 17:7,
17:10, 30:19, 31:13
first 161- 5:2, 5:18,
5:19, 10:13, 10:16,
24:3
fit [31- 6:1, 16:10, 25:6
five Is]- 7:14, 24:10,
28:18
floor [31- 5:18, 5:19,
30:13
follow [11- 35:13
following 141- 1:17,
8:3, 8:5, 26:25
foot I9 - 22:1
force I21- 21:25, 23:1
foregoing [21- 36:5,
36:7
foresee [11- 3:18
form 13] - 12:9.15:1,
20:16
formal [1] - 29:24
format Ill - 4:20
forward It] - 32:15
foundation Ill- 19:10
fourl2l- 13:26,14:1
front p] - 13:25,14:2.
25:23
full [1] - 36:8
future 141- 4:14, 16:5,
20:10, 29:21
G
game Ill - 2:23
garage it] - 24:21
Gene [6] - 1:9, 5:3,
6:25, 32:4, 32:25,
34:19
giant Ill - 25:14
given [s] - 7:25, 10:17,
12:1,17:20, 34:10
glaring Ill - 30:16
goal [21- 28:20, 28:23
Goeb 111- 1:10
grant pl - 4:1, 21:10,
32:20
granted 121- 9:15,
10:7
grants [21- 33:6, 33:7
great Ill - 12:19
greater It] - 16:13
greatly [1] - 2:20
growth 12] - 20:2, 28:2
guess [21- 13:5,18:7
guide Itl - 27:25
guided 11]- 20:17
guideline 111 - 28:21
guidelines [1]- 24:16
guides [31- 20:1,
28:1, 31:2
guilt Ill -12:22
gym 111- 14:4
H
hands [11- 27:7
hard [2]- 5:25, 20:18
hard-and-fast 111-
20:18
heard (1] - 9:16
hearing [s] - 3:14,
3:15, 3:20, 8:1, 9:16,
9:18, 9:22, 10:14
height lel - 14:16,
23:14
Heights (1l - 16:21
held (9 - 1:17
help 111- 35:15
helped 121- 2:20,
18:24
hereby [1] - 36:3
hereupon ill - 36:12
hesitate [1] - 22:15
highly fel- 14:22,
15:10
himself [11- 2:22
historic [51-14:5,
14:9, 15:12, 15:18,
18:23
home [14] - 12:11,
12:20, 13:8, 13:15,
14:1, 14:14, 14:22,
15:7, 15:22, 16:1,
16:3, 16:11, 17:6,
17:8
homes 151- 13:21,
13:22, 13:23, 14:3,
15:21
hookup Ill - 30:20
hope (4) -14:19,
19:10, 31:8, 32:15
hoped [1] - 22:17
hose Ill - 17:11
hours 141-5:9, 13:12,
24:9, 24:10
house 111- 31:1
IA 111- 1:24
Idea 111- 17:23
ideal [1] -16:10
imagine [11- 25:17
Immediately 111- 5:12
impact 111- 3:9
Importance 111- 31:24
Important [2] - 6:6,
16:16
impose 111- 16:18
IN [1]-36:12
Inadequacies Ill -
30:16
Include 131- 5:23,
30:17, 30:19
Included 131- 21:9,
25:18, 31:14
Includes 11] - 32:12
Including [1]- 9:13
incompatible [1]-
29:11
inconsistent 14] -
28:20, 28:23, 29:8,
29:19
Incorrect (11- 24:6
Indeed 121-19:22,
27:2
Indicates 111- 8:12
individual 111- 27:24
individually [21-
13:20, 16:12
infill 121-15:9, 32:17
inflammatory [21-
26:13, 26:20
influence [1] - 22:1
information pl - 3:6,
3:9, 3:18, 5:11,
16:21, 19:11, 22:14
infrastructure [3] -
20:3, 28:3, 28:6
initiate 111- 35:4
Input 141- 2:20, 3:17,
4:16, 8:15
Insists Ill - 27:8
Inspection 121- 9:14
Inspections 111- 9:13
instruct Ill - 34:23
integrity [31- 20:5,
28:12, 28:16
intended 141- 5:25,
6:16, 23:15, 24:24
intent 171-6:5, 10:11,
20:22, 27:17, 28:1,
29:2, 31:23
Intentionally 111-
26:13
Inter 111- 15:15
Interest [111- 20:22,
27:16, 27:20, 29:2,
29:9, 29:17, 29:18,
29:23, 31:22, 32:10,
32:12
Internal [1] - 15:16
International [4]-
7:22, 7:23, 9:12,
17:15
Interpretation It] -
27:6
Introduced lel - 3:10,
19:7
Involve 11] - 9:20
Involved (31-10:10,
18:19.19:1
Board of Adjustment 9-30-16
Involvement [1] -
30:20
Iowa 1311- 7:5, 7:14,
7:16, 7:18, 7:19, 8:2,
8:6, 8:12, 8:18, 8:24,
9:1, 9:3, 9:8, 10:5,
10:24, 10:25, 13:22,
15:25, 18:20, 20:1,
20:20, 20:25, 26:15,
27:15, 27:25, 28:1,
33:24, 34:22, 36:3
IOWA 121-1:7
Issue 1251- 3:9, 4:9,
4:12, 5:13, 7:7,
10:12,15:22, 16:6,
18:1, 18:7, 18:18,
19:1, 19:9, 19:15,
21:21, 22:20, 22:21,
23:23, 24:2, 25:9,
26:7, 27:23, 30:15,
34:15, 34:20
issued 121- 6:24,
10:23
Issues [14] - 4:22,
4:24, 8:19, 9:23,
10:4, 10:15, 10:16,
13:3,14:8. 17:7,
18:24, 22:11, 27:4,
31:22
Issuing [11- 18:8
italicized 111- 23:16
Item [1] - 3:2
items (1] - 19:6
itself 14]- 3:4, 21:22,
23:22, 29:17
job [11- 31:24
John f2] -1:12, 23:5
judge [11- 29:6
judgment [3] - 21:10,
22:13, 22:16
Julie [31- 1:23, 23:4,
36:2
jurisdiction 111- 16:25
justly Ill- 16:2
K
kept 11] - 6:5
kind l2] - 5:15,12:17
kitchen (21- 24:13,
25:18
Kluber[21- 1:23, 36:2
knowledge Ill - 12:15
L
lack (2)- 13:21, 33:16
laid [1] - 5:20
land [sl - 20:1, 20:3,
24:18, 25:4, 28:3,
28:6
language [61- 26:20,
26:21, 27:13, 27:23,
28:1, 29:5
large (4l -14:22,
14:24, 15:5,15:7
Larry (3] - 1:9, 31:23,
32:4
Larry's 12] - 30:15,
30:23
last 171- 3:5, 3:11,
4:19, 17:21, 18:7,
23:16, 28:21
latitude 11] - 21:11
law 1111- 27:1, 27:3,
27:6, 27:9, 27:11,
27:13, 27:19, 28:24,
29:5, 29:22
laying 111- 19:10
lead 111- 21:13
leads Ill - 19:12
least Ill - 25:1
led I2] - 6:10, 9:3
legal 111- 29:11
legislation 111- 9:7
legislative [1] - 9:4
length [t] - 17:11
letter (4] - 26:25,
27:11, 28:24, 29:22
level (1) - 9:10
lies it] - 6:17
life Il] - 28:10
lightly Ill - 12:3
likely ill -5:15
likewise (2] -12:1,
12:4
limit [21- 25:11, 25:13
limited 12] - 8:22, 9:9
list 121- 19:6, 25:16
listed 111- 6:21
listened [1] - 6:4
listing [11- 7:13
lived [1] -18:19
living [9] - 5:24,12:10,
14:25, 15:2, 16:4,
20:4, 24:14, 25:19,
28:7
located [1] - 7:8
Lochwood 111- 1:24
lockers Is] -14:2,
14:4
logic [31- 24:15,
25:11, 29:15
logical 13] - 9:5, 25:3,
26:10
long-term ill - 28:15
look 17] - 23:25, 25:22,
25:25, 31:4, 31:9,
32:16, 34:16
looked 12] - 5:18, 5:19
looking (1] - 23:6
lost [1] - 12:25
low 121- 7:8, 11:2
Lusk [61- 4:3, 7:9,
10:11, 11:6, 23:5,
32:23
lying [1] - 14:15
M
maintains Ill -19:20
majority [11- 13:19
mandate (3) - 21:24,
22:25, 29:11
mandates 111- 28:25
manner[2]-5:21,
20:7
mark 111- 3:22
Mark 121-1:13, 29:24
materials [1]- 17:18
matter[51-5:8, 7:15,
7:25, 11:10, 35:16
meals [1] - 5:24
mean [2]- 17:1, 17:7
means 111- 8:16
meant[l] - 34:24
meet [41- 10:8, 20:22,
27:16, 29:2
MEETING 111-1:4
Meeting Ill - 35:23
meeting 1171-1:17,
2:3, 3:1, 3:5, 3:11,
3:13, 3:16, 3:20,
4:12, 4:13, 4:15, 8:6,
17:21, 24:9, 24:10,
35:18
meetings ill - 2:17
meets 121- 23:13,
24:12
Members [21- 1:9,
1:10
members 111- 7:15
memo 16]- 14:11,
16:15, 17:13, 20:19,
23:3, 23:5
mentioned 111- 14:6
merely Ill - 19:20
met lel - 9:11, 14:16
metaphor 111- 2:23
middle 111- 24:3
might 131- 9:19,
15:19, 26:19
mind [11- 5:1
minded Ill - 5:16
minimum [2] - 23:8,
24:13
minimums 111- 24:15
minutes [11- 19:13
misclassified (11-
6:13
misinterpretation (1] -
21:15
misuse Ell - 21:15
modeled Ell - 7:1
modify [5] - 8:10,
21:4, 33:21, 34:4,
34:12
moot It] - 24:5
moral [1] - 29:16
most [21- 6:6, 26:20
motion (to] - 3:1, 3:4,
3:25, 30:3, 31:17,
32:20, 33:16, 35:17,
35:22
move It] - 4:1
moved 13] - 4:6, 35:19,
35:20
MR i3c] - 2:6, 3:23,
4:1, 4:5, 4:20, 4:25,
5:1, 5:4, 7:1, 11:14,
29:25, 30:8, 30:11,
30:14, 32:20, 33:6,
33:11, 33:15, 33:23,
34:14, 34:19, 34:24,
34:25, 35:2, 35:3,
35:4, 35:5, 35:6.
35:9, 35:19
MS [191- 2:5, 2:7, 2:9,
2:11, 2:12, 4:6,
11:16, 17:23, 30:2,
31:18, 31:20, 33:2,
33:3, 33:7, 33:9,
33:10, 33:12, 33:14,
35:20
must (s1- 6:12,19:23,
21:13, 27:1, 27:3,
27:19, 28:18, 29:14,
32:7
muster It] - 26:20
mutually 111- 19:17
N
NOS [21- 4:2, 32:21
NE(1]- 1:24
necessary 111-26:7
necessity I11- 3:19
need [51- 16:2, 23:25,
29:24, 31:13, 32:13
needs (21- 6:19, 16:9
neighborhood [8]-
13:2, 15:7, 15:12,
16:11, 20:11, 26:16,
26:23, 28:15
Neighborhood [11-
7:6
neighborhoods [21-
20:6, 28:12
neighboring (t] -
28:10
neighbors 131- 13:10,
16:7, 32:10
noverl2]-5:20, 18:25
new M - 3:18, 3:20,
6:20, 20:6, 23:11
newly [1] - 9:15
next It] - 22:10
non [3] -13:8, 15:18
normally p] - 3:3, 7:2
note [si - 13:6.13:18,
16:25,17:18, 27:23
noted [t]- 15:5
notes 131- 17:24,
36:5, 36:8
noticed I11- 23:7
November[l] - 36:13
nuisance [21-12:21,
16:5
number[4]- 8:6, 28:7,
28:11, 28:18
O
obey [11- 27:3
obeyed 111- 27:9
objection [31- 10:2,
10:10,17:20
obligated (1] - 29:21
obligation It] - 28:25
obviously Ill - 15:14
occupancy [51- 9:15,
11:4, 11:5, 24:25,
25:2
oddities [t] - 34:17
OF RI -1:4
Office [2] - 21:8, 21:18
officer i1] - 34:9
official [e] - 8:23, 9:6,
9:10, 10:24, 11:9,
11:10, 30:5
official's [1] - 33:8
old (1] - 14:3
once [11- 35:14
one 1251- 4:8, 5:9,
5:15, 7:15, 9:18,
12:24, 15:4, 15:23,
16:20, 22:21, 23:3,
23:20, 23:23, 24:13,
25:15, 25:18, 26:15,
26:22, 27:4, 31:20
open [31-3:14, 5:16
open-minded Ili -
5:16
opening Is] - 3:19,
18:15, 19:14
opinion [41- 6:10,
27:18, 30:22, 34:11
Board of Adjustment 9-30-1e
opinions [1] - 31:3
opportunities ill -
12:7
oppose [1] - 27:2
order [11] - 2:4, 2:14,
8:11, 20:2, 20:3,
21:4, 21:6, 28:2,
28:7, 34:5, 34:6
Ordinance 111- 20:25
ordinance [41- 7:19,
7:20, 8:25, 17:17
Ordinances It] -
33:24
ordinances (4] - 7:21,
8:9, 21:2, 34:2
oriented 11] - 6:18
original [1] - 31:16
ought[3]-19:16,
21:7, 34:7
ourselves 111- 4:17
out-of-towners I2] -
14:24, 15:23
outcome I1] - 29:20
outlining [11- 31:24
outside (51- 4:12,
4:13, 10:4, 31:4,
31:6
overall 111- 16:24
overlay [51-14:6,
14:10, 14:13, 15:13,
15:18
override [11- 32:2
overturn [21- 30:4,
33:8
overview It] -18:16
overwhelmingly [t] -
29:8
own [31- 5:10,13:8.
14:1
owned 12] - 14:24,
15:23
owners 111- 28:17
P
p.m 121- 1:5, 35:23
packet 121- 5:11, 5:13
page 1t] -19:25
pages [3] - 18:14,
22:10, 36:7
paragraph It] - 31:21
paragraphs I1] -
26:18
parcel It] - 18:6
park I11- 13:8
parked 11] - 13:11
parks 111- 13:16
Parmenter[1]- 1:13
PARMENTERpI-
3:23, 29:25, 33:23,
34:19, 34:25, 35:3,
35:5
part 13] - 10:13, 11:12,
12:10
partially 12] - 24:24,
25:1
participating I1] -
2:25
participation (3] -
2:16, 2:20, 35:15
particular 121- 2:21,
12:12
partly [3] - 8:10, 21:4,
34:5
parts [21- 16:14,
23:21
passed ill - 35:22
passionate It] - 32:10
past (11- 8:18
path [21- 31:3, 35:12
patience [2] - 2:16,
11:25
people [11-11:25
people's 11]- 15:17
peril] -9:18
perceive (21- 20:17,
23:22
percentages [1]-
12:16
perhaps [al -13:10,
13:20, 14:5, 15:8,
15:14,17:2. 32:16,
34:17
permanent [t] -10:21
permission [11 - 3:16
permit ilal - 6:23, 7:7,
9:10, 9:21, 10:1,
10:7, 10:21, 10:23,
11:9, 18:5, 18:8,
19:9, 22:20, 22:21,
23:19, 24:2, 24:5,
33:22
permits [21- 8:20,
9:17
permitted 131- 6:22,
11:1, 14:13
person 151- 18:5,
25:22, 25:25, 26:4,
36:10
personally [21- 17:8,
32:1
perspective It] - 23:4
pertinent [tl - 30:24
phrase Eli -27:11
physically [t] -11:21
pits [11-19:15
place [21- 1:18,16:18
plan (191- 5:18, 5:19,
7:11, 9:25, 15:24,
19:16, 19:20,19:25,
20:14, 20:23, 27:18,
27:21, 27:24, 29:3,
29:8, 29:20, 31:23,
31:25, 32:2
planning (3) - 8:14,
18:22, 34:21
plans 11] - 22:2
playing It] - 2:23
pleased It] - 2:18
plus [1] - 22:1
plus -foot 111- 22:1
point [s1-7:12, 15:4,
16:17,16:20. 30:23,
30:25
pointed [11-16:7
points [2] - 5:7.14:12
pole It] -14:7
police It] -13:1
pool [1] - 24:21
position [4] - 19:22,
21:20, 33:20, 33:23
possibilities [11- 31:4
possible (11-16:5
potential ill - 26:6
potentially It] - 14:9
power h21- 8:25,
10:22, 11:8, 21:24,
22:1, 22:8, 26:11,
26:12, 33:21, 34:12,
34:23
powers (el - 7:17, 8:5,
8:22, 21:8, 21:18,
21:20, 21:22, 34:8
Powers 111- 8:4
practicality Ill - 8:16
prerogative (1) - 4:19
present[3]- 1:9, 1:11,
1:13
presentation 01-
12:14
presentations [11-
5:6
presented [51- 16:15,
19:12, 22:11, 22:15,
36:10
presenters Ill - 12:24
preservation Ill -
18:23
presumable (11- 9:5
presuming ill - 12:22
prevent [t1- 26:12
previous Ell - 26:18
primary [3] - 24:18,
25:4, 26:1
principal lel - 5:25,
6:3, 6:7, 6:11, 6:14,
6:16, 24:18, 24:20
principles [11- 20:11
private it] - 25:24
problematic [1] -
13:19
problems is] -16:8,
22:6, 22:22, 22:23,
23:2, 23:22, 23:23,
24:5, 26:7
proceed 1t] - 24:6
proceedings [1] - 36:5
PROCEEDINGS [il -
2:1
process [51- 8:17,
8:19, 9:7, 9:20, 9:21
project [2] - 11:19,
11:21
promise 111- 18:12
promised 111- 18:13
promote [21- 20:5,
28:11
proper 121- 13:11,
16:18
properly [21- 10:18,
12:4
property 181- 7:8,
7:10, 10:7, 11:8,
13:8, 13:12, 18:6,
28:16
proposed [s] - 4:3,
9:25, 23:13, 24:25,
32:22
proposing 111-12:8
protect [21- 20:5,
28:11
protection 121- 26:6,
30:19
provide Ill - 12:1
provided 141- 3:8, 5:7,
9:10, 12:13
provision [11- 18:4
provisions [31- 8:8,
21:2, 34:1
public [241- 3:14,
3:20, 4:12, 4:13,
4:15, 4:17, 8:1, 8:15,
10:13,10:14, 20:22,
25:24, 26:6, 27:16,
27:20, 29:2, 29:9,
29:17, 29:18, 29:23,
31:22, 32:9, 32:12
purpose [4] - 20:20,
23:8, 23:18, 27:15
purposes [21- 23:16,
23:20
pursuant 14] - 7:21,
8:9, 21:3, 34:2
put Ill - 14:3
putting [2]- 17:12,
17:13
Q
qualify [1] -6:2
quality 131- 20:3, 28:7
28:10
questions [11- 22:13
quick [1]- 31:20
quite 121- 24:12, 25:7
quote 161- 19:25,
21:18, 23:3, 23:6,
25:1, 29:1
quoted 111- 34:1
quoting [1] - 20:25
R
raise [1] - 33:18
raised 151- 10:2,
10:12, 10:15, 10:16,
18:3
Rapids Eq - 1:24
rather [1] - 25:24
rationale 1t] - 24:11
to 121-14:3,14:12
reach 121- 5:17, 29:9
read fill - 4:21, 7:4,
11:11, 18:13, 18:14,
18:15, 19:5, 19:14,
23:21, 31:17, 31:21
readily Ill - 17:3
ready 111- 33:1
realignments Ell -
21:24
reality Ell - 23:2
really [21-16:11, 19:7
reason 11] - 23:18
reasonable [31-
25:22, 25:25, 26:4
rebuttal Ell - 26:24
receive [11- 4:16
received [31- 3:6,
5:11, 17:18
recognize 121- 13:13,
18:9
recommendations 111
- 6:14
record It] - 11:13
recording Ill -1:19
recreational [21- 25:5,
26:2
recused [11- 7:15
RECYCLING Ill - 1:6
reduced i9 - 36:6
reference [11- 7:22
refers It] -15:24
reflect 111- 28:5
reflecting 111- 20:14
refurbished it) -14:4
regarding [9] - 5:6,
8:2, 10:2, 12:14,
14:12, 17:7, 17:15,
17:17, 23:5
regardless 121- 22:5,
Board of Adjustment 9-30-16
29:20
regards Eli - 13:7
regulate E1] - 13:3
regulations [61- 8:20,
15:9, 16:17, 17:9,
31:11, 32:7
regulatory [t] -19:21
rein ill - 30:15
reinforce [11- 30:15
reinforcing 111- 19:17
reiterate 11] - 35:9
related [1] -10:5
relates 11] - 27:13
relation [1] - 22:7
relevance 11] - 19:8
relevant 121-17:5,
21:16
remedy [i] - 34:18
remove 11] - 23:1
render [it - 29:1
repeatill - 27:15
repeatedly [1]- 25:10
Reporterl2l - 36:2,
36:16
reports 1q - 7:2
representing It I -
2:22
request 12] - 34:24,
35:1
require [ll - 3:13
required [31- 5:17,
9:18, 22:2
requirement [51-
21:4, 21:6, 24:13,
34:5, 34:7
requirements [3] -
9:11, 23:8, 23:14
requires I1] -18:5
reserve E1] - 4:18
residence [4]- 5:20,
9:25, 10:20, 24:14
residences [t] - 21:23
residency 111- 26:2
resident [11- 15:25
residential lie] - 4:4,
5:23, 6:10, 6:11,
6:15, 7:8, 7:11,
24:11, 24:21, 24:24,
25:2, 25:21, 26:14,
29:7, 32:18, 32:23
Residential pl - 7:23,
9:12
residents Is] - 15:25,
17:13, 20:4, 28:8,
28:10
resolve It] - 27:9
resolved [1] - 29:14
respect 111- 2:19
Responding [11-
10:15
response pi -10:15,
26:3, 26:8
responsibilities It] -
10:4
responsibility Ill -
12:2
rest 111- 31:3
rested It] - 25:11
restrictions 121 -
16:19, 32:14
restrooms [1] - 25:23
rests [21- 8:13, 9:1
retail 111- 16:5
return [1l - 27:13
returned 111- 27:10
revealed i1] - 24:12
reverse 131- 8:10,
21:3, 34:4
review [21- 10:12,
11:6
rhetorically Ell - 26:19
rigid Ill - 22:16
risk Ell - 17:13
RMR Ell -1:23
role 131- 4:13, 20:18,
27:14
roll it) -2:4
rough Ell - 9:14
rough -out I1] - 9:14
RS -5[5] - 6:22, 6:23,
7:9, 11:2, 25:12
rule 0] - 29:10
ruled Ill - 31:15
rules 131- 4:10, 20:18,
31:11
run 111- 23:25
S
safe [21- 26:16, 26:23
safety[21- 12:24, 26:6
sanitary [31- 10:3,
21:24, 26:5
SAO [2] -17:20, 17:25
Sarah [11- 1:11
saw Ell -18:2
scale [21- 14:7, 14:8
scrutiny 11]-5:16
second [21- 4:5, 4:6
secondary [11- 26:3
seconded 11] - 32:25
Section 121- 17:14
section [41- 7:23,
20:1, 22:12, 24:3
sections E1] - 20:14
see [21- 25:23, 26:1
seek Ill - 23:10
seeking 111- 18:5
seem [11- 35:11
sense 111- 29:16
sensitive [9] -10:12,
11:7,16:22. 17:17,
20:9, 22:4, 28:20,
30:20, 31:13
separated [1] - 27:24
September [41- 2:3,
14:11, 17:14, 20:19
SEPTEMBER Ill -1:5
series 1t] - 24:4
some 15] - 7:16, 20:21,
27:16, 29:1, 29:22
served [4] -18:20,
18:21, 18:22, 18:23
Services Eli - 7:7
set 131- 3:15, 35:12,
36:12
setback [11- 23:14
setbacks [1] - 14:16
setting 111- 3:20
settled Et] - 4:10
several (1) - 30:16
sewer [71- 9:17,10:3,
17:2, 21:24, 26:5,
30:19, 31:13
shackled [1] - 30:21
shall [4]- 8:5, 20:21,
21:7, 34:8
shared E1] - 17:2
sheer I11- 5:13
short [2] - 2:14, 23:3
Shorthand [21- 36:2,
36:16
shorthand [31-36:4,
36:5, 36:8
shown [11- 15:21
sic 11] -13:23
SIDE p] -1:6
side 1s] - 13:21, 13:23,
13:24, 29:4, 29:16
sides 111- 6:5
signaling [11- 13:17
significant [11 -10:9
similar[1]-20:13
simple [2l - 24:12,
25:8
simplest [11- 19:18
simply [31-11:18,
21:12, 32:6
single 1251- 4:4, 5:23,
6:2, 7:9, 9:24, 10:20,
11:1, 11:2, 11:4,
12:5, 12:11, 16:11,
17:6, 21:23, 22:3,
22:24, 23:7, 24:7,
26:16, 26:22, 29:7,
31:2, 31:5, 32:23,
33:19
single-family [221-
4:4, 5:23, 6:2, 7:9,
9:24,10:20, 11:1,
11:2, 11:4, 12:5,
16:11, 17:6, 21:23,
22:3, 22:24, 23:7,
24:7, 29:7, 31:2,
31:5, 32:23, 33:19
single -family -home
11] - 12:11
site [41- 7:11, 9:25,
22:1, 26:12
situation 121- 19:3,
36:9
six 111-24:9
size (31- 5:13,15:6.
25:16
sleeping 131- 5:24,
14:25, 16:4
Slope (21- 26:6, 30:20
slopes [31- 3:10,
16:22, 31:13
social Ill - 25:5
SOGLIN 17] - 2:12,
11:16, 17:23, 31:18,
31:20, 33:3, 33:9
Soglin 13] -1:9, 2:11,
33:2
sold 111- 14:2
sometimes [fl -15:15
somewhat Ill - 8:19
sooner If] -32:18
sorry 151- 11:18,
30:10, 31:18, 31:19,
33:5
sort [11-18:15
southern 111-13:24
Space lel - 5:21, 5:22,
6:9, 23:12, 24:14
spatial [11- 25:25
SPEAKER 111- 3:21
specific 131-7:20,
8:14, 34:17
specifically 11] - 21:9
speculative [t] -
12:18
spent ll] -5:9
split 111-22:23
sports 111- 2:23
springboard [11- 31:9
stability 11] - 28:16
Staff 01-1:11
staff (0 - 3:8, 5:5, 7:2,
8:17, 20:16, 23:24,
34:20
stage [11-25:14
stand (11-11:20
standard 11] - 12:17
standards [5] - 14:17,
23:7, 23:9, 32:17,
32:18
start [5] - 4:9, 4:19,
5:4, 10:14, 18:17
State IU - 36:3
state 121-10:6, 17:25
statement [61- 2:15,
4:23, 18:14, 19:4,
23:17, 23:18, 23:20,
27:10
statements [3] - 4:21,
20:13, 23:8
states [3] - 8:3, 8:7,
13:7
still 161- 4:11, 13:15,
16:11, 30:12, 33:20
stop [1] - 26:11
street It] - 22:1
strongly [1] - 31:8
structure [241- 4:3,
4:4, 5:19, 6:1, 6:3,
6:8, 6:12, 6:13, 6:23,
9:24, 10:1, 12:20,
16:10, 22:8, 24:19,
24:25, 25:12, 25:13,
25:20, 26:1, 26:11,
31:1, 32:22, 32:24
structures (q - 12:16
stuff 11] - 19:5
subject 111- 11:7
subsequent[l] - 4:10
sufficiency [11-17:16
sufficient (11 - 17:11
suggest (t] - 20:13
suggested [1]- 13:17
suggestion i1] - 34:15
sum 11] - 16:13
summary 01- 7:3
summed [11- 23:4
superficially [11- 25:3
supervision 11] - 36:7
surprised 111- 17:9
surrounding [3] -
20:9, 28:15, 28:19
Susan It] - 1:11
suspect [2] - 27:6,
34:19
sustainable 111- 20:8
T
tailgating 141-10 11
13:4, 13:7, 13:9
talks Itl - 7:3
Tallman 111-23:5
tap [21- 9:17
ten [31- 25:12, 25:13,
25:15
term ll] -28:15
terms [41-18:20,
18:21,19:18. 33:21
testimony [41- 7:25,
9:18, 22:14, 24:9
thanking Ill - 2:15
Board of Adjustment 9-30-16
THE Ell -1:4
themselves (1] - 22:2
therefore [6] - 6:12,
6:22, 21:21, 22:8,
25:3, 28:24
thereto 131- 8:9, 21:3,
34:2
thinking [1)- 5:16
thorough 131- 14:20,
16:24, 22:17
thoroughlyili-3:11
threatens 111- 28:15
three p] -10:15,
10:16, 22:7, 28:11,
31:22, 33:17, 34:10
throughout [11-27:10
ticketed It] - 13:1
Tim 13] - 1:9, 18:8,
32:19
Title [21 - 7:19, 7:21
title 0] - 8:8, 20:22,
21:2, 27:17, 29:2,
31:23, 34:2
titled If] - 7:21
today [21-13:4, 17:19
tone [11- 26:21
tonight 121- 4:10, 4:16
towed [11 - 13:1
towners [2] - 14:24,
15:23
transcribe 11] - 36:4
transcribed 111-1:18
transcript 121- 1:17,
36:8
transcription [1] -
36:6
treated [2] - 2:19, 16:2
troubled (1] - 22:13
truth It] - 24:4
turn If] - 11:13
turnaround [21-
21:25, 26:7
two [61- 18:20,18:21.
19:15, 25:13, 26:18,
28:7
types (21- 30:20,
31:13
U
ultimately [31- 6:7,
17:4.17:10
unattractive 111 -
14:23
under [9] - 7:19, 8:4,
8:20,16:2. 24:1,
30:18, 33:24, 36:6,
36:9
understandable [11-
32:11
unfair I11- 26:19
UNIDENTIFIED It] -
3:21
uniform 11] - 23:9
University [1] - 16:21
unless [21- 3:18, 32:5
unlike [1] - 5:14
unquote 11] - 21:19
unusual (21- 14:22,
15:10
up M-3:14,3:19,
14:19, 23:4, 31:12,
32:14
upheld [3] - 26:15,
26:22, 33:19
uphold 121- 30:6,
34:11
uses [61- 5:22, 6:8,
6:9, 12:8,12:16,
25:5
utilities (11- 9:19
V
values 111- 20:15
variations [11- 25:16
various ill - 16:1
vehicles I21- 13:1,
13:11
venue [t] - 26:2
versus Ill- 6:7
view [2] - 21:10, 31:1
vision p] - 20:1
voice 111- 11:19
voluntarily [ll - 7:16
vote p1- 29:24, 30:3,
30:5, 30:6, 33:1,
33:7, 35:22
votes [21- 33:17,
34:11
W
WALZ [121- 2:5, 2:7,
2:9, 2:11, 4:6, 30:2,
33:2, 33:7, 33:10,
33:12, 33:14, 35:20
Walz [1] -1:12
water [1] - 9:17
weight [11- 29:15
Weitzel [s] - 1:9, 2:9,
4:6, 33:10, 35:20
W EITZEL [to] - 4:1,
4:20, 4:25, 7:1,
11:14, 32:20, 33:6,
33:11, 35:9, 35:19
wetlands [21- 3:10,
22:3
WHEREOF It] - 36:12
wholly [41- 8:10, 21:4,
24:23, 34:5
wife 111- 18:13
windows [2] - 13:21,
13:22
Wise (31- 20:2, 28:2.
28:5
WITNESS [1] - 36:12
word 121- 22:16,
26:13
words [2]- 26:4, 26:9
worse (21- 26:12,
26:14
write 111- 18:24
written [21-18:12,
32:5
wrongful It] - 7:11
Yapp [21- 1:12, 2
years [21- 18:20,
18:25
Z
zone [to] - 6:22, 6:23,
7:9, 8:25, 11:2,
14:12, 24:21, 25:4,
25:12, 26:14
zones [2] - 8:12, 9:2
Zoning [9] - 7:18,
7:20, 7:21, 8:3, 8:7,
9:1, 9:3, 10:5, 10:25
zoning (211- 6:19,
6:21, 7:12, 8:15,
8:19, 8:20, 8:21,
8:23, 8:24, 9:7, 9:11,
16:17, 18:22, 19:16,
19:21, 19:23, 20:16,
21:20, 24:16, 25:7,
30:17, 30:21, 31:10,
31:14, 34:16, 34:21
MINUTES
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
DECEMBER 14, 2016 — 5:15 PM
EMMA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL
APPROVED
MEMBERS PRESENT: Larry Baker, Gene Chrischilles, Connie Goeb, Becky Soglin, Tim
Weitzel
MEMBERS ABSENT:
STAFF PRESENT: Doug Boothroy, Susan Dulek, Sarah Walz
OTHERS PRESENT: Jeff Clark, Adam Brantman, Greg Buehner
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.
Weitzel moved to approve the transcripts of the September 14, 21, and 30 hearings with
corrections as the minutes. Chrischilles seconded the motion.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 5-0.
CONSIDER THE NOVEMBER 9, 2016 MINUTES:
Goeb moved to approve the minutes of November 9, 2016. Soglin seconded the motion.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 5-0.
APPEAL ITEM APL12:00002:
Discussion of an appeal submitted by 324 & 326 N Dubuque LLC regarding the classification of
a use/structure located in the High Density Multi -Family Residential (RM -44) zone located at
324 North Dubuque Street.
Boothroy began the staff report and stated that the appeal is on a determination the he made to
deny a building permit at 324 North Dubuque Street. He stated the issue revolves around what
a nonconforming single family use can do and how that particular paragraph is to be read.
Boothroy explained that his decision was based on the reasoning that this particular home was
nonconforming with terms to occupancy it is not allowed to increase to that particular occupancy
in the Zoning Code. Boothroy showed a location map of the area, the house is in the middle of
Board of Adjustment
December 14, 2016
Page 2 of 12
the block and does not have driveway access nor any parking. The home is nonconforming for
a number of reasons. (1) It is a single family house located in a multi -family zone and under the
Zoning Code single family uses are not permitted in this particular multi -family zone. (2) There
is no parking and (3) it is nonconforming with regards to occupancy. Boothroy stated the
language that was used at the time of the building permit denial from 14-4E-4 Nonconforming
Single Family Uses "Except with regard to the occupancy...." If the occupancy is non-
conforming, then the conforming rights granted to non -conforming single-family uses do not
apply. The property cannot be expanded". Boothroy explained that this particular provision (14-
4E-4) was added to the Zoning Code in 1984 to single family uses that were being used as
single family the right to continue as conforming even if not permitted in a large multi -family,
industrial, or commercial zone. Boothroy explained that existing house is a four bedroom house
with a bath on the second level. It is a small house and the proposal was to add an addition
onto the back of the house for a fifth bedroom, a laundry area, and a couple baths. The house
is nonconforming in terms of occupancy, at the time the 2005 Zoning Code was being
considered (prior to its adoption) there was a provision of time that was allowed for existing
rental properties to document the occupancy that they had in place. If they documented that
occupancy and it was recorded on the rental permit by a specific date that occupancy would be
grandfathered. In this case the occupancy was five unrelated individuals and at the time of the
2005 Code adoption single family uses in a RM -44 zone were allowed a family, two unrelated
individuals plus three roomers. Subsequently the City has changed the definition of household
(in this situation) to allow only three unrelated individuals, two as a family and one unrelated
roomer.
Boothroy shared the section of the Code that is being discussed, and noted this is the only issue
in contention this evening, they are not debating the occupancy or that it is a nonconforming
single family use, they are debating how this particular section of the Code is applied and
whether or not his reading of it is the correct reading.
Except with regard to the occupancy [bold added], any single-family use, structure for a
single- family use, including any accessory structures, and any lot on which a single-family use
is located, that was established lawfully prior to the establishment of the currently applicable
development regulations and, due to a change in the regulations, is no longer in conformance
with the provisions of this title, will generally be treated as conforming for as long as the
dwelling is used for a single-family use (City Code Section 14-4E-4)
Boothroy explained that the discussion he had with the owner of the property is that because it
is a nonconforming property and because the way the Code is written this particular paragraph
(in his opinion) states if there is a nonconforming occupancy then they are not to be treated as
conforming. The owner was given the option of reducing the occupancy to three unrelated and
if so then this paragraph would apply. Boothroy acknowledges that the paragraph is not artfully
drafted and perhaps is confusing in how it is stated. It could be stated "any single family use
that was lawfully established prior to the applicable regulations and is no longer in conformance
with this provision of this chapter, except with regards to occupancy, should be generally treated
as conforming for as long as the dwelling is used as a single family use".
Chrischilles asked if this particular house was grandfathered in. Boothroy acknowledged that
for a number of reasons it was. Chrischilles asked if in a RM -44 Zone is multi -family and ideally
apartments. Boothroy conformed that is correct and if this house was removed, or if it were a
vacant lot, a single family structure would not be allowed, only a multi -family use structure could
be built. Chrischilles asked what the intent was behind adding the verbiage "except with
regards to occupancy" in this rule. Boothroy said it was meant that occupancy was
Board of Adjustment
December 14, 2016
Page 3 of 12
grandfathered only before the adoption of the 2005 code, but that does not give the owner the
right to expand the single family use with a nonconforming occupancy. This was done to try to
control some of the occupancies in the University impact areas and student housing, so they
reduced the occupancy throughout the area and added this phrase to the Code to control that
particular issue. Chrischilles asked if it were a family in this home, could they then add the
addition. Boothroy said that it would comply then, or even if it were only three unrelated
individuals, it would comply.
Soglin asked about the definitions of household that Boothroy shared with the Board and if
household and family were synonymous. Boothroy stated that a single household is considered
a single family.
Baker asked if there were any historical preservation issues with this property. Boothroy
confirmed that this structure is not in a historical district.
Baker asked if the issue regarding the expansion is if the assumption was if they expand the
size of the house (and add a bedroom) that they would expand the occupancy of the house.
Boothroy said by adding the bedroom, baths, and laundry area it makes the property more
attractive for renting and makes it easier to rent to five unrelated individuals than the way it is
configured right now.
Jeff Clark (representative for the applicants) stated he disagrees with the interpretation of the
zoning ordinance, in particular this section. The property was built around 1925, one bathroom
and four bedrooms which is basically functionally obsolete so he is trying to make the home
more functional and up to today's standards. Clark stated he has worked with the Building
Department for over 20 years and generally they get along and often do agree to disagree such
as in this situation. Clark noted that the Code generally changes with controversial issues but
this section of the Code has been around for a very long time. Lots of times there are Code
clarifications that are needed and one can sit down with Staff and Legal and things can be
resolved but this time it was unable to be resolved. Clark contends that the reason the building
permit was denied was because of those first five or six words. His disagreement is that there
really never has been this interpretation on single family dwellings, it actually states "Except with
regard to the occupancy' and the occupancy is generally stated as maximum occupancy or
unrelated roomers. Occupancy is more of what type of use the structure is, and that is what has
been presented to him over many years. Clark stated he has utilized this specific ordinance
several times over the years and has been allowed to add bedrooms and bathrooms to updated
properties and take them out of obsolete states. Clark noted that the 1999 Zoning Ordinance
has a very similar section (Article T -14-16-2-B) which states "notwithstanding any provisions of
this Chapter any single family use a single family dwelling, accessory structure, or lot with a
single family dwelling should generally be treated as conforming for as long as the dwelling is
used for a single family use". Clark said the ordinance has been in effect for about 45 years
and there have been several zones that have been downzoned to only three or four people and
the maximum occupancy that was allowed was five and the City honored that. He stated that
the property in question was purchased with the idea to upgrade it, and to make the house as
only three unrelated is not viable, it was purchased as a four bedroom five occupant house.
The living room actually has egress windows so if people really wanted to push the limits it
could be counted as another bedroom. Single family are based on occupancy and not number
of bedrooms and the occupancy allowed is five.
Clark stated that currently the single family dwelling at 324 North Dubuque allows five
occupants but there are only four bedrooms on the rental permit. As far as the upgrade, Clark
Board of Adjustment
December 14, 2016
Page 4 of 12
maintains that everyone knows how hard it is to have to wait to use a bathroom, and it has
become a norm to have laundry facilities in a home so adding a little more room to
accommodate more amenities is a good thing. Clark contends to take an older home out of the
functionally obsolete is what is right and how the Code reads. Updates will allow for keeping
these older homes around for a longer time and also keeping downtown more historic. For
years, decades, and possibly centuries many others will benefit from the update to this property.
Clark is requesting that the Board find error in the Building Official for denying this building
permit and allow the issuance of permits that have always been allowed on nonconforming
single family dwellings. Clark noted there is no definition in the Zoning Ordinance or Housing
Ordinance regarding occupancy. When one looks up occupancy in the International Building
Code it talks about a type of use (industrial, commercial, etc.) or defined as how much is rented
in a particular area versus vacancy.
Weitzel asked if Clark has specific examples of the situation where there is a nonconforming
single family house in a larger zone (where the single family use in now not allowed by right, just
by grandfathering in) and he's received a building permit to expand the occupancy of that
property. Clark gave the example of 208 Davenport Street several years ago and 608 South
Johnson Street last year. Clark said both examples were the exact same situation as this and
the Code was interpreted in a different way.
Soglin asked if the zone was the same for the other two examples. Clark said the Davenport
Street house was not in the same zone, but it was the same situation where only three
maximum occupancy was allowed and there was a four maximum occupancy on the rental
permit. 608 South Johnson was the same zone and it was an enlargement and expansion of
that property adding bathrooms, laundry room, and bedrooms.
Weitzel asked if four was the occupancy listed on the rental permit that was issued this year for
the subject property. Clark replied that the rental permit states an occupancy of five.
Goeb asked how long Clark has owned the subject property. Clark responded that he has
owned the property for a little over a year. Goeb asked if Clark was allowed to do the expansion
on the property would the occupancy still be a maximum of five and Clark replied that was
correct.
Soglin stated that she wish the Board had the details of the other two cases Clark mentioned so
they could compare the situations. Clark stated that the 208 Davenport Street situation was in
2011 and is likely in a RS-8 or RS-12 zone. The rental permit showed a maximum occupancy
of four. The home originally had three bedrooms so they did the addition to add a fourth
bedroom and a remodel of the existing structure to add a second bathroom. For the property at
608 South Johnson (in 2015) the rental permit has a maximum occupancy of five and had five
existing bedrooms and they added two bedrooms and two bathrooms and a laundry room and a
garage.
Chrischilles asked why they made it into a seven bedroom house and Clark noted that they
abandoned the basement bedrooms, so it remained a five bedroom house after the addition.
Baker asked if the examples that Clark is stating now were part of his discussions with City
Staff. Clark said he had talked to Boothroy about having been allowed to do this type of
expansion in the past, but doesn't remember if he raised these exact examples with Staff.
Board of Adjustment
December 14, 2016
Page 5 of 12
Boothroy stated that he and Clark did not discuss any specific examples but Clark had
mentioned he had been allowed to do these expansions in the past. Boothroy pointed out that
the property can continue to rent as a nonconforming occupancy (with up to five renters) what is
being denied is the rental permit for the addition. Additionally Boothroy acknowledged even if a
mistake was made previously that doesn't necessarily justify continuing to make mistakes.
Boothroy noted he was not involved in those other two decisions so he is not familiar with those
two project.
Goeb asked then what role does consistency play in making these decisions. Boothroy says it
plays no role if the decision was not legal. It can play a role in decisions when the interpretation
is a reasonable interpretation, but if the decision is that it is not allowed under the law (and it
happens from time to time with regards to enforcement) the mistake in and of itself does not
justify it again just for sake of consistency. Goeb asked if Boothroy feels that the decisions he
has made have been consistent and Boothroy confirmed his decisions are consistent. He
acknowledged that having been in the business for 41 years mistakes are made.
Chrischilles asked if within the course of discussions with Mr. Clark when he stated that the City
has let him do this before why specific examples were not inquired about at that time. Boothroy
stated that he was focusing on the language of the Code and he felt the Code was clearly
obvious. Chrischilles noted that he is concerned that there may have been a lack of
consistency and the fairness. Boothroy stated that what is fair is that the property can still be
rented to up to five unrelated individuals. Chrischilles asked what the harm is for the addition
then, if five are allowed now and only five will be allowed in the future. Boothroy stated that the
whole idea of nonconforming uses is that at some point they go away. So if allowed to make
the property more usable and more profitable then it wouldn't ever likely convert back to a single
family use nor purchased and redeveloped with other properties.
Baker asked Dulek about the sense on the Board regarding consistency, with the applicant
stating that the City has allowed this in the past, so if the Board is going to uphold the applicant
based on consistency shouldn't the Board continue this meeting after verification of all the facts
and other examples. Dulek acknowledged that certainly would be a reasonable response.
Baker opened up the public hearing
Seeing no one, Baker closed the public hearing
Goeb noted that the perceived inconsistency is of a concern to her, but recognizes what Mr.
Boothroy stated about the idea of nonconforming is that the use will go away at some time and
the property would then come into a conforming status and that makes her support the City's
view.
Chrischilles stated that if this were the only example or instance where this was called into
question he would agree with the City because it is clearly stated in the Code about the
occupancy. However the issue of inconsistency puts him in a grey area and is unsure what to
think about that. He questions what the Board of City's responsibilities are regarding how things
were handled in the past and maybe having the specific detail informant about examples is
necessary.
Weitzel stated his is sympathetic to a situation where the property owner or developer has been
allowed to do something in the past and made a financial decision on this property based on
past situations but ultimately believes the Board needs to go back to the Code, look at how it is
written, and enforce it consistently even if it has not been so in the past.
Board of Adjustment
December 14, 2016
Page 6 of 12
Soglin agrees with all statements made and noted that the Board is to deal with preponderance
of evidence. Dulek noted that this is a legal matter and is not necessarily evidentiary. Soglin
believes there was an opportunity to bring more evidence and data to this meeting and that was
not presented.
Baker stated that even if the Board consented that the examples cited were consistent with the
issue before us tonight then there are only two decisions. Either they were right to be allowed in
the past or it was wrong and if they were wrong that is irrelevant to the issue this evening. Staff
is stating that the way the Code is interpreted now is the application should be denied. That
being said one of the options for the Board is to accept, reject, or amend the appeal and is
curious if there is any desire of the Board to amend this appeal.
Weitzel believes the Board would have to find an error in judgement first before amending the
appeal.
Baker asked if there had to be an error in judgement to amend the appeal. For example,
hypothetically, an additional bathroom seems to be appropriate if the idea is to make the
structure more livable for five occupants. Goeb noted that the idea is to not keep the structure
as desirable to be nonconformitive so eventually it may not exist.
Dulek noted that reading from Section 14 -8C -3B(4) it states "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". Therefore the
Board will need to find error if they wish to modify the appeal.
Weitzel moves to approve APL16-00002 an appeal submitted by 324 & 326 N Dubuque
LLC regarding the classification of a use/structure located in the High Density Multi -
Family Residential (RM -44) zone located at 324 North Dubuque Street.
Soglin seconded the motion.
A vote was taken and the motion failed 0-5.
Baker stated the motion declared denied, 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.
SPECIAL EXCEPTION ITEM EXC16-00012:
Discussion of an application submitted on behalf of Ellis Ave LLC, for a special exception to
allow the establishment of a fraternity house on property located in the Neighborhood
Stabilization Residential (RNS-20) zone at 332 Ellis Avenue.
Walz showed an aerial view of the property and it is surrounded by the RNS-20 zone and the
shift to the single family zone begins at the next block over. The property is surrounded by
multi -family uses, there is a fraternity next door and has frontage on two public streets (although
Ridgeland Avenue functions more like an alley). There is also a public alley that runs between
Ridgeland and Ellis Avenues and is used by both the fraternity to the south and the current
Board of Adjustment
December 14, 2016
Page 7 of 12
property (currently a rooming house). Walz explained that he RNS-20 zone is a mix of different
uses (multi -family and fraternity houses), it is a stabilization zone so there are special
requirements within that zone. The property is currently nonconforming with regards to the
required off-street parking, a rooming house with 25 rooms is required to provide 19 parking
spaces and this location is not able to provide those 19 spaces. Walz also noted that the
parking area layout is problematic as it doesn't meet the current zoning code standards.
Parking is provided along the back and the front, typically according to the Zoning Code once
you have parking area of more than four cars it is not allowed to have them back into the street
or into the public alley as it is along this area. If this building were to redevelop altogether there
would be more ways to address the issues, as the situation is now the current structure is set far
back in the lot.
With regards to the specific criteria Walz explained that the subject property consists of 15,145
square feet of lot area. The applicant is seeking to acquire an additional 2,600 square feet of
property by acquiring the alley directly to the south. If the applicant is successful in acquiring all
of the adjacent alley right-of-way to the south of the house, the lot area will increase to 17,745
square feet, which will allow for the 19 roomers and the City would allow the 20 residents in the
fraternity. Right-of-way vacations are reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission, which
provides a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council makes the final decision on
vacation requests. On top of the requirement for the lot area is the requirement of the maximum
occupancy which is one per 300 square feet floor area in the building. The applicant has
indicated 5,952 square feet of living are on floors one -three of the structure. This also would
allow 19 roomers.
The next criteria is that the group living use must have bath and toilet facilities available for use
by roomers in such numbers as specified in title 17, "Building and Housing", of this code. In
addition, the occupants shall have access to kitchen facilities, a dining room, and other shared
living spaces and common facilities related to the use. The applicant has provided floor plans
showing 20 bedrooms along with bathroom facilities on floors one through three of the house.
The floor plan shows 2 bedrooms along with a lounge and large common area on the first floor
with the remaining 18 bedrooms to be located on floors two and three. The basement level of
the house shows a second lounge along with kitchen, dining, and laundry facilities. Staff
recommends that a condition of approval limit the number of bedrooms to match the density of
roomers. For example, if the lot area is 17,745 square feet, the applicant would be allowed 19
roomers. In this case, staff would recommend that one bedroom be removed from the first floor
level of the house in order to discourage over -occupancy of the property. Changes to the
ground level plan should be designed to discourage over -occupancy and should be subject to
approval by the by the Building Official. Shared shower facilities should be limited to floors 2 and
3 for the same reason. The building code requires 1 shower for every 8 roomers. Floors two and
three each have 9 rooms and three showers. The resident manager's room, which is on the first
floor, includes a private bathroom with shower.
Additional Approval Criteria for Special Exceptions states the proposed use must be designed to
be compatible with adjacent uses. The board of adjustment will consider aspects of the
proposed use, such as the location, site size, types of accessory uses, anticipated traffic,
building scale, setbacks, landscaping and amount of paved areas to ensure that the proposed
use is compatible with other residential uses in the neighborhood. The board may prohibit
certain aspects of a use or impose conditions or restrictions to mitigate any incompatibilities.
These conditions or restrictions may include, but are not limited to, additional screening,
landscaping, pedestrian facilities, setbacks, location and design of parking facilities, location and
design of buildings, establishment of a facilities management plan, and similar. The applicant
Board of Adjustment
December 14, 2016
Page 8 of 12
has indicated that there will be substantial investment in the property and one of the important
things they are going to do is sprinkler the building (which is not required) but is vital as safety
for the functions of a fraternity house. Walz notes the nonconformities with parking in the Staff
Report and acknowledges that Staff knows it is unreasonable for the location to become
completely compliant but feels it is important to come as close to conformity as possible while
still allowing the property to function. The proposed improvements that bring the property
closer to conformance with current parking area standards are:
1. The parking area on the south side of the property will be paved and set back from the
front plane of the building. Landscape screening will be installed at the west and east
ends of this parking area. The setback from the east property line, adjacent to
Ridgeland, appears to be 5 feet; 10 feet is required.
2. Both parking areas are served by a sidewalk that provides access to building
entrances.
3. A condition for the right-of-way vacation requires paving of the east-west alley.
Pavement for the parking area off of Ridgeland extends up to the building wall. The Code
requires a 10-foot setback. In this area, pavement should be removed and landscaping (lawn)
should be installed between the building and the private sidewalk.
The applicant has submitted a management plan that shows various levels of supervision and
maintenance for the site and the fraternal use, most notable of which is a live-in graduate
student manager. Staff recommends that a resident manager who is not an undergraduate
student, should be a condition of the special exception.
Walz stated with regards to the general standards there is no doubt that reinvestment into the
property will improve the property. The maintenance on this property has been deferred for
many years so reinvestment will be a good thing. The proposed modifications bring the
property closer to Code standards. The second criteria, it will not be injurious to the use and
enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity. Walz explained that this is an area that is
surrounded by multi-family and there are other fraternity houses in the area. Walz showed a
map from The University of Iowa website that showed the cluster of fraternities that are around
this area. Fraternities are allowed in the Zoning Code so it makes sense to have them close to
campus and in an area that is served by other fraternities and other multi-family areas. Walz
noted that she handed out to the Board before the meeting started a recommendation that was
made for the fraternity that was approved last year on Dubuque Street regarding social
functions and fraternity houses which states that more than three convictions and or findings or
pleas of guilt or civil judgement for "disorderly house" within an 18-month period will result in a
loss of the special exception.
Walz noted this property is not in an historic district now but that is something that is being
looked at in Manville Heights. A survey that was done in Manville Heights some years ago did
note that the fraternity houses are an important feature of the neighborhood so Staff is
recommending that any modifications to the exterior of the building be reviewed to be in
compliance with historic standards.
Staff recommends approval of EXC16-00012, an application to allow a Fraternal Group Living
Use to be established at 232 Ellis Avenue in the RNS-20 zone subject to the following
conditions:
1. The occupancy of the converted use is limited to the maximum number of rooms based on
the requirement of the zone (currently 19 roomers based on a lot area of 17,745 square
feet). The maximum number of bedrooms allowed is limited to this same number.
Board of Adjustment
December 14, 2016
Page 9 of 12
[NOTE: If the applicant does not acquire additional lot area, the maximum density is limited
to the code requirement and the number of bedrooms should not exceed the maximum
number of roomers.]
2. All changes to the exterior of the structure must meet Historic Preservation guidelines.
3. Substantial compliance with the floor plans submitted. Adjustments to reduce the number of
bedrooms on the first floor in a manner that discourages over -occupancy to be approved by
the Building Official.
4. Installation of sprinkler system and waterproofing and tiling of the basement level to ensure
a safe living environment for residents.
5. Substantial compliance with the site plan submitted with modifications to the parking areas
as indicated by staff. All drives and parking spaces to be paved.
6. In order to establish the conversion, the applicant must apply for a rental permit.
7. More than three convictions and or findings or pleas of guilt or civil judgement for "disorderly
house" within an 18 -month period will result in a loss of the special exception.
Chrischilles asked if the property remains as it is right now and they are not allowed any
additional lot space by purchase of the alley what would be the maximum occupancy. Walz
said they would be limited to 18 or fewer. Chrischilles asked if they are allowed the 19
occupants what would the parking requirement be and Walz replied it would be the 15 spaces.
Soglin noted that in the Staff Report it states if they only acquire half the alley they will be limited
to 18 occupants and if they acquire none of the alley the occupancy would then be even less,
only 16. Walz agreed and said that becomes difficult because then the house is too big for the
lot size. Soglin then asked about the other fraternity and what the vacation of the alley would
mean to them if they wanted to increase their space at some point. Walz confirmed that the
other fraternity would not be able to do so, but the way vacations work is that half of the property
is always offered to the owner on each side so the fraternity to the south would have to agree
and not be interested in their half and so far as the City knows, they are amenable to that so
long as there is an easement so they can access the parking on the side of their building.
Soglin asked if there was a space for bikes or mopeds and Walz said they will be required to
provide bike parking.
Baker asked the applicant to come forward to speak.
Adam Brantman (member of Ellis Avenue LLC) stated that Walz did a good job summarizing
what the application is for and they are proposing to renovate the property with connection to
the sale of property to Pi Kappa Phi Fraternity. The vacation of the alley did go before the
Planning and Zoning Commission two weeks ago and was approved so next it will go before
City Council.
Baker opened the public hearing.
Greg Buehner (Pi Kappa Phi Properties) from the national housing corporation is very excited
about the potential of offering this to their membership here at The University of Iowa and want
to be a good partner not only to The University of Iowa but to the City. Unique within the
fraternity world as one of only 10 within the 75 that have a housing arm and will be the
owners/operators of this property with full-time staff members and good management plans.
With regards to the 20 occupants on the property, The University of Iowa requires fraternities to
have a live-in house director so the 20th resident would be a non -revenue occupant and would
be providing management services.
Board of Adjustment
December 14, 2016
Page 10 of 12
Soglin asked if there was a reason they would only be allowed the 19 roomers what that would
mean. Buehner said it would impact their financial structure but the of course would follow what
is approved.
Baker closed the public hearing.
Goeb noted it will be an improvement over the property right now and seems like a perfect use
for the property.
Soglin stated that the letter from the engineering firm that is involved notes that four of the
nearby property owners have voiced their support of the project.
Walz made a correction to the staff recommendation regarding the last condition: More than
three convictions and or findings or pleas of guilt and/or civil judgement for "disorderly house"
within an 18 -month period will result in the denial of a rental permit.
Soglin moved to approve EXC16-00012 an application submitted on behalf of Ellis Ave
LLC, for a special exception to allow the establishment of a fraternity house on property
located in the Neighborhood Stabilization Residential (RNS-20) zone at 332 Ellis Avenue
subject to the following conditions:
1. The occupancy of the converted use is limited to the maximum number of rooms
based on the requirement of the zone (currently 19 roomers based on a lot area of
17,745 square feet). The maximum number of bedrooms allowed is limited to this
same number.
[NOTE: If the applicant does not acquire additional lot area, the maximum density is
limited to the code requirement and the number of bedrooms should not exceed the
maximum number of roomers.]
2. All changes to the exterior of the structure must meet Historic Preservation
guidelines.
3. Substantial compliance with the floor plans submitted. Adjustments to reduce the
number of bedrooms on the first floor in a manner that discourages over -occupancy
to be approved by the Building Official.
4. Installation of sprinkler system and waterproofing and tiling of the basement level to
ensure a safe living environment for residents.
5. Substantial compliance with the site plan submitted with modifications to the parking
areas as indicated by staff. All drives and parking spaces to be paved.
6. In order to establish the conversion, the applicant must apply for a rental permit.
7. More than three convictions and or findings or pleas of guilt and/or civil judgement
for "disorderly house" within an 18 -month period will result in the denial of a rental
permit.
Chrischilles seconded the motion.
Weitzel stated that regarding agenda item EXC16-00012 he concurs with the findings set forth
in the Staff report of December 14, 2016, and conclude the general and specific criteria are
satisfied, specifically the surrounding properties are multi -family as well and the proposed
changes will make the building more safe and the reinvestment will help stabilize possible
decline in property value in the area. So 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 carried 5-0.
Board of Adjustment
December 14, 2016
Page 11 of 12
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.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT INFORMATION:
Walz announced that this is Baker's last meeting, he has served five years, and next month they
will welcome onto the Board a new appointment, Bryce Parker, and will also nominate for roles
on the Board at that meeting.
Baker thanked everyone noting it has been a pleasure to serve on the Board.
ADJOURNMENT:
Weitzel moved to adjourn this meeting.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 5-0
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
ATTENDANCE RECORD
NAME
TERM EXP.
1/13
2/17
319
4/13
6/15
7113
8110
9/14
9/21
9/30
10112
11/9
12114
BAKER, LARRY
1/1/2017
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
GOEB, CONNIE
1/1/2020
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
CHRISCHILLES, T. GENE
1/1/2019
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
SOGLIN, BECKY
1/1/2018
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
WEITZEL, TIM
1/1/2021
—
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
KEY: X = Present
0 = Absent
0/E = Absent/Excused
— = Not a Member
r
._,--®�; CITY OF IOWA CITY
-'°'��aft
�� MEMORANDUM
Date: January 20, 2017
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Kris Ackerson, Community Development Planner
Re: Recommendations from Housing and Community Development Commission
MmTrTr-
4b(3)
At their January 19th meeting, the Housing and Community Development Commission
approved the December 15, 2016 meeting with the following recommendations to the City
Council:
1. By a vote of 8-0 the Commission recommended that rooming houses with more than 10 units and
dwelling units owned by service providers providing support services to their resident clients shall
receive annual housing inspections.
2. By a vote of 8-0 the Commission recommended hiring a realtor to purchase land for affordable
housing. The bonds used to pay for the land will be repaid by future budgeted land banking
funds.
Additional action (check one)
No further action needed
_X_ Board or Commission is requesting Council direction
Agenda item will be prepared by staff for Council action
MINUTES FINAL
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
DECEMBER 15, 2016 — 6:30 PM
HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Peter Byler, Syndy Conger, Christine Harms, John McKinstry, Harry
Olmstead, Dorothy Persson, Emily Seiple, Paula Vaughan
MEMBERS ABSENT: Bob Lamkins
STAFF PRESENT: Kris Ackerson, Stan Laverman, Tracy Hightshoe, Sue Dulek
OTHERS PRESENT:
RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL:
By a vote of 8-0 the Commission recommended that rooming houses with more than 10 units and
dwelling units owned by service providers providing support services to their resident clients
shall receive annual housing inspections.
By a vote of 8-0 the Commission recommended hiring a realtor to purchase land for affordable
housing. The bonds used to pay for the land will be repaid by future budgeted land banking
funds.
CALL MEETING TO ORDER:
Byler called the meeting to order at 6:30 PM
APPROVAL OF THE NOVEMBER 17. 2016 MINUTES:
Persson moved to approve the minutes of November 17, 2016. Vaughan seconded the motion. A vote
was taken and the motion passed 7-0 (Conger not present for the vote).
PUBLIC COMMENT FOR TOPICS NOT ON THE AGENDA:
Ackerson suggested moving agenda items around so that Laverman can leave after his items.
RENTAL INSPECTIONS FOR SRO UNITS, ROOMING HOUSES, AND FRATERNITIES/SORORITIES:
Laverman noted that the Commission had asked for some data regarding inspections at SRO units as
well as houses that were owned by the social service provider as these units may be occupied by tenants
who are not familiar with how to file a housing complaint, if it should ever be necessary. He stated there
are 24 houses where the owner of the property also provides support services to the tenants. The
supportive services are usually for persons with disabilities or who have a chronic mental illness. In
addition, there are 92 properties that are considered rooming units, some of which Laverman stated
should not be in the every year inspection recommendation because there aren't that many rooms in
those houses. Laverman suggested doing annual inspections on anything over 10 units - 14 dwellings fall
in that category. So if they looked at the 24 houses that have the service owner providing services and
the 14 dwellings with more than 10 units that is a very manageable addition to their inspection schedule
each year.
Byler agreed that seemed reasonable and suggested the Commission recommend that these types of
rental properties get annual inspections rather an every other year.
Olmstead noted that the complaint the Commission heard a few months ago wasn't at a rooming house.
Hightshoe stated it would be covered because it was a dwelling owned by the service provider.
Housing and Community Development Commission
December 15, 2016
Page 2 of 6
Olmstead moved that rooming houses with more than 10 units and dwelling units owned by
service providers providing support services to their resident clients shall receive annual housing
inspections. Seiple seconded the motion.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 8-0.
CHALLENGES AND POSSIBLE INCENTIVES FOR HOMEBUILDERS
Byler noted this item was part of the Affordable Housing Action Plan and said he has had discussions
over the past couple weeks with some homebuilders. There is frustration with some of the hoops they
have to jump through and have said it is easier to build in communities other than Iowa City. Byler noted
that it would be too difficult to review all the Codes and compare them to other municipalities but if
specific items are known, perhaps they can be discussed.
Laverman suggested having the senior building inspector come to a meeting to address this issue.
Hightshoe noted that she presented the Affordable Housing Strategies at the Planning and Zoning
Commission meeting. They discussed possible regulatory code and design changes. She stated she
periodically hears concerns from the development community about design requirements that make
affordable housing difficult. The Planning and Zoning Commission asserted that the design standards are
important because if they are sacrificed it impacts the neighborhoods and neighborhoods aren't designed
as well. Hightshoe stated she has told these developers if they could identify what specific requirement is
costing them more, such as certain materials or the number/size of windows, she would discuss with
Development Services.
Byler suggested the commission make an effort to gather information and then revisit it in the future and
perhaps form a subcommittee to seek solutions.
Persson suggested inviting speakers to discuss the topic.
Hightshoe noted that Development Services is looking at implementing a form based code and other
possible regulatory changes as stated in the Affordable Housing Strategies.
Byler asked who would want to serve on a subcommittee; volunteers included Vaughn, Seiple, Conger
and Byler.
AFFORDABLE HOUSING LOCATION SUITABILITY MODEL:
Per the commission's request, staff created two variants of the Affordable Housing Location Suitability
Model. One map uses the current methodology but has removed single units and duplexes, while the
others outline the current elementary school boundaries and data.
Byler noted that in the packet there is also a memo from the City Attorney providing background on the
development of the policy, and other memos from 2010 and 2011 from when the policy was created. He
stated that the original criteria is sound:
1. Not further burdening neighborhoods and elementary schools that already have issues related to a
concentration of poverty.
2. Having diverse neighborhoods in terms of a range of incomes.
3. Determining the views of the Iowa City Community School District (ICCSD) on affordable housing
Additionally in the memo are the seven factors used to create a map identifying those locations in which
City funds could be used to support new rental housing projects: 1) distance to existing assisted rental
housing (400 feet or approximately one city block from existing subsidized and assisted rental housing);
Housing and Community Development Commission
December 15, 2016
Page 3 of 6
2) elementary school mobility rate; 3) median household income; 4) change in residential sales price; 5)
crime density; 6) elementary school ITBS performance; 7) elementary school free and reduced lunch rate.
Byler believes that the first factor, distance to existing assisted rental housing (400 feet or approximately
one city block from existing subsidized and assisted rental housing), is somewhat subjective and just
made up to have a starting point. He stated he believes that 400 feet or approximately one city block from
existing subsidized and assisted rental housing is too restrictive and a city block with two units of
subsidized rental housing in not a detriment. Therefore the reason he wanted to see the data with single
family and duplexes exempt was to see how that first factor would be affected.
Ackerson stated he took out of the mix the single family unit properties and duplexes (any parcel that has
two units). The Commission discussed the maps and the difference between the maps with the single
family unit properties and duplexes and without. Ackerson noted that at the time of the creation of the
map they were unable to map housing density which is important because if there is a single unit on a city
block with single family dwellings around it is one out of ten homes, but if it is a condo unit, it could be one
out of 48 units in that same area. However they learned this week that all of the rental permits have the
parcel number attached so it is now more possible to address density.
Byler explained that the City Attorney has instructed the Commission to look at the three goals and then
apply the criteria to determine an affordable housing location model. Byler agreed that there shouldn't be
a group of single family homes all grouped together, but perhaps the first factor could use a percentage
(rather than area or feet) of density (i.e. the maximum percentage of density is ten percent).
Persson noted that in the Riverfront Crossings area the City agreed that ten percent of the units had to be
affordable so why not use ten percent for all areas.
Byler agreed and originally thought they should go with a neighborhood approach following the school
district maps, but now doesn't think that is the right approach.
Hightshoe suggested that Staff go back and use the density data from the rental permit and GIS software
and give a better overview using density criteria and not distance.
Seiple questioned if there have been any meetings with the school district regarding these maps and the
goals and factors. Hightshoe said there have not been specific conversations with the Superintendent,
noting that the model has not reduced concentrations of poverty, rather it prevents the City from adding to
existing concentrations of poverty, so they have achieved that goal.
Persson asked about the change in school district boundaries over time. Hightshoe said they do modify
the map every year based on school district changes.
Byler noted that the school district changes their maps based on minimizing busing and maximizing
walkability, not on balancing social economics at the elementary level.
The Commission discussed the school district boundaries and the map criteria.
Ackerson noted that people liked the current approach because it takes into account different factors that
don't have the same boundaries, which is difficult to do without GIS mapping. For example the boundary
of the median income map doesn't align with the school district boundaries.
McKinstry supports the goal that every neighborhood offer mixed housing, but that is a counter-cultural
message because people tend to choose to live by other people that are exactly like them. Having all the
data is very necessary to justify the plan moving forward.
Ackerson said there is now also new data (that other cities are using) that could be included in a new
model/map such as location to parks, transit stops, and other such options.
Housing and Community Development Commission
December 15, 2016
Page 4 of 6
Conger stated that the current model has not been in place very long and is leery of introducing a model
based solely on school district data.
Olmstead noted that when talking about affordable housing it is important to recognize the people that will
be renting houses and the need for things like transportation to get to their job and such. Therefore
having a map that shows the transit routes would be beneficial.
Ackerson will research the data and bring the list of data to the Commission for review and decision on
what the map criteria should be based on. Once the criteria are decided upon, Ackerson will add that data
into the map for review.
MEMO (9/14/16) FROM AFFORDABLE HOUSING COALITION TO CITY COUNCIL:
Seiple asked for this agenda item to discuss funding and land banking and what are the next steps.
Hightshoe said she talked with area affordable housing organizations and their recommendation was to
start looking for land once the City had $600,000 to $750,000 available to buy a few acres somewhere.
So that money will need to be accumulated. Then once the City has land that can be developed and
properly zoned, she doesn't feel there will be any problem finding a developer.
Byler asked whether there was any discussion of the City selling bonds to acquire the land so we don't
have to wait to accumulate the funds. Hightshoe said that has not been discussed in Council yet, but the
City maybe up to $450,000 if $200,000 is not applied to the FY18 CDBG/HOME round. Staffwill be
discussing at what point the City should hire a realtor and begin the process to identify possible sites.
Staff has had conversations with some landowners, but all is extremely preliminary.
Seiple recommended hiring a realtorto purchase land based on the expectation of buying the land
with bonds that are paid for by future budgeted land banking funds. Olmstead seconded the
motion. A vote was taken and the motion carried 8-0.
FY18 CDBGIHOME AND AID TO AGENCIES FUNDING TIMELINE:
Ackerson stated the first thing is the Aid of Agencies applications, they will be sent out tomorrow (the link
is already online). The timeline of the process is included in the Commissioners' packets.
Hightshoe noted that depending on when they receive their budget for HOME and CDBG, the
Commission may have to create a contingency allocation plan based on funds available.
ALTERNATIVE MEETING TIME AND/OR LOCATION:
With regards to location, Persson noted that some locations are harder to hear and that can be a problem
for the Commissioners as well as guests. It is best to meet in rooms where there are microphones,
especially if there are lots of people.
Ackerson said it would be nice to have one standard location so there isn't confusion and the Senior
Center is available at the current Thursday time. An issue with that space is the screen projection.
Persson asked about the Public Library spaces. Ackerson said those rooms are very popular for meetings
and it is hard to get a standing meeting scheduled in those rooms.
Ackerson suggested that the Commission could use Harvat Hall if they changed their meeting day to the
second Tuesday of every month.
Ackerson will email the Commission to see their preferences, and may need to update the bylaws of the
Commission.
Housing and Community Development Commission
December 15, 2016
Page 5 of 6
CORRESPONDENCE:
Olmstead shared a memo that was included in the meeting packet. No future discussion or information
was added.
Ackerson mentioned that Charm Homes (who received FY16 funds) will not be proceeding with their
project so the $61,000 will be added into the CBDG fund for reallocation.
The City will be issuing a RFP from nonprofits to do energy efficiency projects in their facilities (lighting,
windows, heating/cooling). There will an information meeting regarding this after the New Year and they
will be applying for funds in January and February.
Ackerson noted commissioners are invited to the dedication to the Habitat Home on Prairie Du Chien (the
Pat Heiden Women Build home) on Saturday, December 17 at 10:00 a.m.
Hightshoe noted that the developer that is doing the affordable senior housing at Towncrest will have the
closing next week and the demolition permit has been received. Construction will start this spring.
Also, the Invest Health grant the City received is focusing on three neighborhoods (Town and Campus
Apartments, Hilltop Mobile Home Park, and Taylor/Broadway areas).
ADJOURNMENT:
Olmstead moved to adjourn. Persson seconded the motion. Meeting adjourned.
Housing and Community Development Commission
Attendance Record
Name
Terms Exp.
1121
1121
2/18
3/10
4/21
5/1916/16
---
811819/15
10/20
11/17
12/15
Byler, Peter
7/1/17
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Conger, Syndy
711/18
X
X
X
O/E
X
O/E
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
Harms, Christine
7/1/19
---
---
---
---
---
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Lamkins, Bob
711/19
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
O/E
O/E
X
O/E
X
O/E
McKinstry, John
7/1/17
---
---
---
---
---
X
X
O/E
O/E
X
X
X
Olmstead, Harry
7/1/18
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
Persson, Dottie
7/1/17
X
X
O/E
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Seiple, Emily
7/1/18
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Vaughan, Paula
7/1/19
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
X
X
O/E
X
X
Key:
X
= Present
O
= Absent
O/E
= Absent/Excused
---
= Vacant
4b(4)
Minutes
Human Rights Commission
December 20, 2016
Helling Conference Room
APPROVED
Members Present: Eliza Willis, Paul Retish, Shams Ghoneim, Adil Adams, Kim
Hanrahan, Joe D. Coulter, Barbara Kutzko.
Members Not Present: Andrea Cohen, D'Angelo Bailey.
Staff Present: Stefanie Bowers.
Recommendations to City Council:
No.
Call to Order:
Ghoneim called the meeting to order at 5:32 PM.
Approval of November 15, 2016 Minutes:
Coulter moved to approve the minutes; the motion was seconded by Willis. A vote was taken and the
motion passed 5-0. (Kutzko, Hanrahan not present).
Presentation of Certificate to Outgoing Commissioner Retish:
Relish was thanked for his many years of service on the Commission. Retish also agreed to continue to
volunteer on the job fair planning committee.
Funding Request Annual Choice Event:
Coulter moved to approve the funding request for $250; the motion was seconded by Willis with a
friendly amendment that payment of the $250 is contingent on the Commission being sent an itemized
budget for the event. A vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0. Bowers will speak with organizers to
see if any complimentary tickets are available for Commissioners for the event.
Proclamations:
A proclamation for Martin Luther King, Jr. National Holiday will be submitted for the Mayor's
consideration for the January 3 formal City Council meeting.
Ad Hoc Committee on Know Your Rights:
Due to extreme cold temperatures this event was canceled and will be rescheduled for late March 2017.
Building and Crossing Bridges Together:
Commissioner Kutzko volunteered to serve on this ad hoc committee. The next event is planned for April
2017.
Iowa City Community School District Equity Committee:
There has not been a meeting held since November. At that meeting the committee discussed the
District's Report Card for schools with District administrators.
University of Iowa Center for Human Rights Advisory Board:
The Center has many upcoming programs, events and seminars coming in 2017, many of which are
student led. To see all upcoming events please visit the Center's website. httos://uichr.uiowa.edu/.
Inclusive Communities:
The following items will be considered as future programming for the "Know Your Rights" series. Willis
suggests that Commission members rotate serving on this Ad Hoc Committee to assist in the planning of
those topics of most interest to them.
1. Workshops, booths/tables and web -video on what is considered hate speech/crime.
2. Sponsor events/workshops addressing topics related to interaction between law enforcement and
communities of color, refugee and immigrant.
3. More programming geared at refugee and immigrant communities.
4. Hate speech/act hotline, hate speech/act online support community and recurring hate speech/act
emotional support group meetings.
5. Publicize the availability of protective services (police/fire/etc.).
The following items will be discussed at a future meeting.
1. Create a "rapid response" team that can participate in public events or demonstrations of support
when such incidents of hate occur. (Willis would like to include with the future discussion the
topic of Commission protocol as a responder).
2. Become vocal when the Commission is aware of a negative incident that occurs in the
community.
3. Continuation of the `Building & Crossing Bridges Together" program.
4. Publicizing more prominently the City's stance on hate speech/a hate speech and act -free
messaging campaign with audio and visual messages.
Reports of Commissioners:
Adams reported on a negative interaction he recently had with the University Heights Police Department.
Willis and Kutzko are both serving on the Martin Luther King, Jr. Day planning committee. The event is
scheduled to be held at Grant Wood Elementary School on Monday, January 16 from 10-3. The annual
celebration will include a panel discussion and vendor booths.
Coulter was recently reappointed to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights Advisory Committee for the
state of Iowa.
Adjournment: 7:07 PM.
Human Rights Commission
Attendance Record
Key
X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
R = Resigned
— = Vacant
TERM
1/19
2/16
3/15
4/18
5/17
6/21
7/7
7/19
8/16
9/20
10/18
11/15
12/20
NAME
EXP.
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
Joe D. Coulter
1/1/2019
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
O/E
X
O/E
X
X
X
Adil D.
1/1/2019
O/E
O
O/E
O
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Adams
Eliza Jane
1/1/2019
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Willis
Paul Retish
1/1/2017
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Orville
1/1/2017
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
R
R
R
R
R
Townsend, Sr.
Karol Krotz
1/1/2017
--
---
—
--
O
O
O
R
R
R
R
R
R
Andrea Cohen
1/1/2018
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
Kim
1/1/2018
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
O
X
X
X
X
Hanrahan
Shams
1/1/2018
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
Ghoneim
Barbara
1/1/2020
--
—
---
---
—
---
--
--
—
—
X
X
X
Kutzko
D'Angelo
1/1/2020
—
—
--
--
--
—
—
--
--
—
X
X
WE
Bailey
Key
X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
R = Resigned
— = Vacant
-TT-ar-Tr-
4
IOWA CITY
j� PUBLIC LIBRARY
123 S. Linn St. •Iowa City, IA 52240
vS Cr"-31R3WSM•w 31 3W"%-w kpl.w
BOARD OF TRUSTEES
Minutes of the Regular Meeting FINAL APPROVED
December 15, 2016
Members Present: Diane Baker, John Beasley (in at 5:10 pm), Adam Ingersoll, Tom Martin,
Robin Paetzold, Meredith Rich -Chappell, Jay Semel.
Members Absent: Janet Freeman, Monique Washington.
Staff Present: Terri Byers, Susan Craig, Kara Logsden, Anne Mangano, Patty McCarthy, Elyse Miller,
Brent Palmer, Angela Pilkington.
Guests Present: Terri Byers, on behalf of AFSCME.
Call Meeting to Order. President Semel called the meeting to order at 5:01 p.m.
Public Discussion. Byers said Iowa City opened the contract and tentatively agreed on a proposal
which the Board will receive next month. Membership will vote next Thursday, 1/3. Craig reminded the
Board that the AFSCME Local 183 bargaining unit includes the Library and we bargain jointly with the
City.
Approval of Minutes.
The minutes of the November 17, 2016 Library Board of Trustees meeting were reviewed. A motion to
approve the Minutes was made by Ingersoll and seconded by Martin. Motion carried 6/0.
Items to be discussed.
Bookmobile Update. Logsden had a meeting this morning with Antelope Lending Library (ALL) to plan
the National Bookmobile event and bookmobile schedules. We are coordinating schedules so we are
not in the same place at the same time. Craig discussed the bookmobile session presented at Inservice
Day. Logsden visited the bookmobile manufacturer when she was on vacation.
FY18 Budget. City is still on track to publish a recommended budget in approximately one week and it
will appear in the Council packet. Adjustments to the Library's FY18 budget were viewable in MUNIS,
the City's Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) software. The City's adjustments to the Library's FY18
budget submission included about $22,400 in reductions from what was requested. Craig said this is a
budget we can work with. She will be attending a City Council budget work session on January 7.
Geoff Fruin, City Manager, provided a budget overview at the end of Inservice Day. Craig believes we
are okay for next year and beyond that we will have to see. Beasley asked what the Library's total
request was, Craig said approximately $5.5 million. He said trimming $22,000 from the overall request is
not too bad at all.
Policy Review #801: Circulation. This is a regularly scheduled policy review. Craig said this is longest and
most rule -drive library policy. Staff discussed children's library cards and informally the County Attorney
told us if we have a computer record and a camera record then we may prosecute. The other policy
issue was about not charging fines to children using the bookmobile. Semel asked about the rationale
for giving cards to children who are too young to be responsible for them. Pilkington said there a
families who wish their children to have a card from the moment they are born. This creates a library
habit which people value. Semel asked about limiting children's checkouts. Logsden said we have a 75
item limit for all patrons. Craig said children often read five books or more each day. The level of
materials loss is a price of doing business said Craig. Martin asked if there is any other downside risk to
our checkout limit. Logsden said there was not. We value developing a love of libraries and literacy in
our community and one cannot put a price on that except to know it has lifelong consequences.
Ingersoll said his favorite parts of the policy are library cards for kids and no fines for bookmobile
children's materials. Ingersoll asked when we would consider prosecution. Logsden said there are some
identified threshold amounts when we refer to the Police. These are for materials, not for fines. Ingersoll
asked if there is fine reporting at a family level. Logsden said we do not report this way but we know
who the families are. Martin asked how many times a year we involve the Police. Logsden said in
FY2016, we referred to the Police 25 times.
Paetzold asked how we verify how many children are in a family. Logsden said we look at a parent ID
and address. Logsden said we are compassionate toward children whose parents may have used their
card and we work with them when they are teens. Beasley said he believes a child should have a library
card they day they are born. He believes there could be a different item limit on materials. He believes
bringing a child to a library program should be separate from owing the library money. Logsden said
the majority of people who check out large amount of materials are responsible with their materials and
if someone is going to steal materials from us, they are going to figure out a way to do so. Craig said
there are a hundred families that have 100 or so materials checked out currently. Ingersoll said power
users of the library should be embraced and without evidence of their usage impeding others' usage,
he is all for it. Rich -Chappell asked if there was something precipitating this attention to the policy.
Ingersoll asked if our checkout limit was greater than other libraries. Craig said we are in the high end
of the average checkout limit. Logsden said we have loosened some of our checkout limits as the
collection matures. Craig said small areas of the collection may get a different checkout limit than newer
or larger parts of the collection. Paetzold asked if we are solving a problem we don't have.
Ingersoll asked if staff have identified abusers and if we have enough protection. Logsden said if a
parent owes us money and a child owes us money and they want a two-month old child to get a card,
we will say the fines need to be cleared before the new card can be issued. Staff are trained to go to
Tom Jordan, our Customer Services person, and to use their discretion. Semel asked if we typically get
the materials back. Craig said our loss rate has been consistent over the years and on par with other
libraries. Beasley asked about fines and fees and replacement cost. Beasley asked to include language in
the policy about equipment with a replacement cost of $100 or greater. Ingersoll asked about eligibility
for cards and first checkout if no parent is available. First checkout for a sixth -grader or under you may
have a card but checkout only two items; a letter is mailed to the parent. Ingersoll does not like that a
grade school child at the bookmobile alone cannot get checkout anything from the bookmobile.
Logsden said the child may checkout two items as long as they know their home address. A motion to
z
approve the policy as amended by staff and with the language change proposed by Beasley clarifying
replacement cost was made by Paetzold and seconded by Ingersoll. Motion carried 7/0.
Policy Review #802: Confidentiality. This is a regularly scheduled policy review. Craig said we talk
regularly with patrons about this policy. We assume a person, often a parent, has permission to use the
card if they are in possession of it. It is difficult to keep siblings or family members from "sharing" library
cards. Paetzold asked if we tell parents the format of a material a child has checked out when there is an
outstanding fine. Craig said we would tell the parent the amount of the fine and would take the money
but would not tell them what the items are. Once the item is billed, however, it is the parent's
responsibility by state law. Craig said we occasionally get into a back and forth with law enforcement
because by law and policy checkout information is confidential and a subpoena is needed. Semel wants
to have some members of the Board see what the security cameras see. Ingersoll asked if the public is
informed about the security area. Craig said the public is informed. Beasley asked about the specific
information included in a library account. Craig believes section 802.4 of the policy speaks to this.
Ingersoll asked if confidentiality would include general usage data, notjust specific titles or queries.
Craig said in the context of a parent returning materials for a child, we would inform the parent that a
certain number of books were checked out. Semel, Ingersoll, and Paetzold would like more explicit
language describing confidentiality. For Ingersoll, the issues are informing parents of the titles when
they are billed. He would like to see a notice in emails warning patrons about when a bill is given to our
collection agency. Beasley thinks the document needs to be reworked so confidential and non -
confidential items are identified. Craig said we will revise the policy and bring it to the January meeting.
Ingersoll asked to look at the notifications we send to the public as part of the conversation/discussion
of the policy. Paetzold asked about the Electronic Frontier guidelines and whether we abide by them.
Craig said we will provide a report on how we measure up to the standards. The Confidentiality Policy
will be reworked to address Board members' concerns and brought back at the January meeting.
Staff Reports.
Director's Report. The annual State Library survey was included in the packet. The Legislative reception
has been rescheduled to January 3, 2017, in Tiffin. Craig said Inservice Day was great; there will be a
report next month. A beta version of the ICPL app is now available and Craig welcomes feedback.
Departmental Reports:
Children's Services. No comments.
Collection Services. No comments.
IT. Paetzold asked if IT wishes Board participation in providing website feedback. Paetzold asked how
we will count app use. Palmer said we will count it as website use.
Development Office. McCarthy said everyone has received a copy the Window newsletter with the
annual giving envelope included. She said the response to including the annual appeal envelope in the
Window is positive. The annual Arts &Crafts Bazaar raised nearly $8,000.
Spotlight on the Collection. No comments.
Miscellaneous. No comments.
President's Report. Semel enjoyed Inservice Day.
Announcements from Members. Beasley was surprised at work yesterday when Gary Watts, realtor,
dropped off his company's annual calendar. All of the calendar photos were taken by Beasley's 89 -year
old father, who rides his bike everywhere. This bike was sold to Mr. Beasley by Board member Baker's
son.
Committee Reports.
Foundation Members. Baker reported that the Friends Foundation 2015 tax return was reviewed and
approved. Pilkington spoke to the FFB about Children's activities. David Bright talked about the Planned
Giving Society and defining categories in which people will be recognized for their contributions. Baker
said the fundraising calls she made were great and people were responsive. Each FFB member was
asked to fundraise by telephone.
Communications.
Email from Derek Johnk.
Email from Mary Dyer.
A flyer/invite to the end of the year Downtown District social at 5:00 pm at the Englert Theatre on
December 21 was distributed.
Ingersoll out at 6:30 pm.
Disbursements.
The MasterCard expenditures for November, 2016 were reviewed. A motion to approve the
disbursements for November, 2016 was made by Martin and seconded by Rich -Chappell.
Motion carried 6/0.
Set Agenda Order for January Meeting.
Confidentiality Policy review.
6 month strategic plan report.
2nd quarter goals/statistics.
Naming policy.
Security camera images.
Union contract.
Adjournment. A motion to adjourn the meeting was made by Martin and seconded by Beasley. Motion
carried 6/0. President Semel closed the meeting at 6:47 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Elyse Miller
Board or Commission:1CPL Board of Trustees
ATTENDANCE RECORD
12 Month
KEY:
X = Present
0 = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
NM = No meeting
MeetingDate
Name
Term
Expiration
2/25/16
3/24/16
4/28/16
5/26/16
6/23/16
7/28/16
8/25/16
9/22/16
10/27/16
11/17/16
12/15/16
1/26/17
Diane Baker
6/30/19
X
X
0
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
John Beasley
6/30/21
0
O/E
O/E
O/E
X
X
0/E
0/E
X
X
X
X
Janet Freeman
6/30/19
O/E
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
O/E
O/E
Adam Ingersoll
6/30/21
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
O/E
X
X
X
Tom Martin
6/30/17
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
Robin Paetzold
6/30/17
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
0/E
X
X
X
X
Meredith
Rich -Chappell
6/30/17
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Jay Semel
6/30/19
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Monique
Washington
6/30/21
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
O/E
KEY:
X = Present
0 = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
NM = No meeting
_rrzT-iT
4b(6)
MINUTES APPROVED
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
DECEMBER 14, 2016
RECREATION CENTER — MEETING ROOM B
Members Present: Lary Brown, Clay Claussen, Maggie Elliott, Wayne Fett, Cara Hamann, Lucie
Laurian, Joe Younker
Members Absent: Suzanne Bentler, Paul Roesler
Staff Present: Juli Seydell Johnson, Chad Dyson, Zac Hall
Others Present: Patrick Alvord, Dell Holland
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Claussen called the meeting to order at 5:00
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (to become effective only after separate Council action):
Moved by Fett, seconded by Elliott, to approve the Parks and Recreation proposed fees and charges
for FY18 as proposed. Motion passed 7-0 (Bentler and Roesler absent).
OTHER FORMAL ACTION:
It was noted by Younker that there was an error in his commission term dates on the attendance record
within the minutes. Hamann also noted the same was true for her. Neumann will check all term dates
within the chart and make necessary corrections.
Moved by Younker. seconded by Fett. to aDDrove the November 9. 2016 minutes as amended.
Passed 7-0 Gentler and Roesler absent).
PUBLIC DISCUSSION
None
COMMISSION OFFICER ELECTIONS - JULI SEYDELL JOHNSON:
Brown nominated Clay Claussen to continue as Chairperson of the Parks and Recreation Commission.
Moved by Brown. seconded by Fett. to re-elect Clav Claussen as the Chairnerson for the Parks and
Recreation Commission for 2017. Motion Dassed 7-0 Gentler and Roesler absent).
Elliott nominated Cara Hamann as Vice -Chair of the Parks and Recreation Commission
Moved by Fett, seconded by Younker, to elect Cara Hamann as the Vice -Chair of the Parks and
Recreation Commission for 2017. Motion passed 7-0 Gentler and Roesler absent).
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
December 14, 2016
Page 2 of 6
2017 PARKS & RECREATION FEES AND CHARGES — CHAD DYSON
Dyson reminded Commission that each year the City Code requires the Parks and Recreation Department
to submit a schedule of fees and charges for approval by City Council. These are presented to the Parks
and Recreation Commission for review prior to submitting to Council.
While Dyson included a full matrix of all fees and charges to the Commission, he gave a summary of
those changes. Essentially all program fees are proposed to increase by 3% to cover increased staff and
materials fees. Other recommended increases, also by 3%, include park shelter rental fees, garden plot
fees and meeting room fees. The daily pool admission price will remain the same based on fees in other
facilities in the area. Laurian asked if the department offers a low income discount. Dyson explained that
the department does offer such a discount which is noted in the activity guide as well as the web site. He
also noted that nonprofit groups and the school district are aware of the program. Younker asked if there
is a strong participation in the low income program. Dyson said that while there hasn't been a report done
recently, the previous report showed there to be $25,000 in discounted funds. Younker said he would be
interested in seeing an updated report. Dyson said he will provide that information in the January
commission packet. Claussen asked if the department goes out further than one year when projecting fees.
Dyson said that the department projects fees one year at a time.
Moved by Felt, seconded by Elliott, to approve the Parks and Recreation proposed fees and charges
for FY18 as proposed. Motion passed 7-0 Gentler and Roesler absent).
RIVERFRONT CROSSINGS PARK, PHASE 1 DESIGN REVIEW -PATRICK ALVORD,
CONFLUENCE
Patrick Alvord of Confluence presented preliminary designs for Phase 1 of Riverfront Crossing Park for
commission review. Alvord first reviewed the 2015 Riverfront Crossings Master Plan completed by
RDG. Current design of the park is respectful of the 2015 Master Plan but updated based on current
conditions and additional public input. Phase 1 of the project includes wetland creation, creek bank
restoration, trail connections and site grading on the land currently owned by the City. Funding for Phase
1 is largely from State Flood Mitigations funds. This agreement for this funding included the requirement
of wetland creation on the site.
Commission member Laurian asked if road work was included in the park project. Alvord responded that
no roadwork is included. Laurian asked if there were changes with the Pleasant Valley nursery property.
Alvord responded no, other than a trail connection along Highway 6 from Gilbert Street to the park.
Property to the east of Ralston Creek is private development and not included in the park project. Brown
asked if bike path connections are included. Alvord said they were and more information would be
included later in the presentation.
Alvord showed the commission a rendering of an updated Master Plan for the entire park. The full master
plan was updated in order to guide the grading and trail connections included in Phase 1. Phase 1 does
not include the driveway, parking area, artist plaza, Sabin Arches feature, artful rainwater feature,
restrooms or any other park structures. The park design features opportunities for people to engage with
Ralston Creek, the wetlands and the Iowa River. Seydell Johnson added that these are themes that were
suggested by residents during the early input stages of the overall Park Master Plan. She also added that
there is a strong possibility that a kayak and/or boat launch included in a future phase will be designated
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
December 14, 2016
Page 3 of 6
as part of the larger Iowa River Trail. Brown asked if it was possible to float from this access to Terry
Trueblood Park. Seydell Johnson said that it is possible to do this.
Future phases of the park design include a vehicular entrance from Kirkwood Avenue with a circle drive
around literary plaza space and parking lot for 46 cars. A space suitable for large concerts/events will be
graded into the site as well as a smaller amphitheater and kayak launch on the western edge. A third
bridge will eventually cross Ralston Creek to increase connectivity to the rest of the Riverfront Crossing
neighborhoods.
There was considerable discussion by the commission regarding the one way circle drive, plaza space and
parking area. Seydell Johnson pointed out that the hard surface areas are designed to support large events
in the park by allowing for sound trucks, stages, food trucks and vendors. The parking would be closed to
the public during these events with all hard surface spaces contributing the event services and atmosphere.
Alvord described the new entrance as being sited so as too makes the entrance a functioning four way
crossing. Laurian expressed concerns about having a park space in the middle of the circle drive. Alvord
presented additional photos of similar circles from other cities. The intent is that the center space would
serve as a plaza for either a literary element, public art and/or re -use of the Sabin school archways. Final
design of this area is not included in Phase 1 of the project. Laurian expressed concerns about the speed
of cars going around the plaza space. Alvord explained that the cars would be in a parking lot and
moving at a slow speed. He also offered that the western side of the loop could potentially be closed to
traffic during daily park operations.
Laurian asked if there was a major play/water feature included in the design. Seydell Johnson answered
that an Artful Rainwater Feature has been requested for a future phase of the project. Alvord pointed to a
space intended for this south of the proposed parking area. He also pointed out the slope planned for
Ralston Creek between the northern boundary of the park and the 2"" Street Bridge. This slope is planned
to be gradual in order to invite the public to access and explore Ralston Creek.
Elliott asked about the location of the trail along Gilbert St. Alvord pointed out that the new development
along Gilbert would include a trail along the eastern edge of Ralston Creek. This portion of trail is not
part of the park project.
Alvord next explained some of the hydrology that was studied and considered in the wetland design. The
new wetland area will have water entering from Ralston Creek as well as backflow during high water
events from the Iowa River. Alvord stated that this makes the design of the wetland unique. Stone
outcropping features constructed within the creek bed will allow water to run over them, cascade down
rock, continue downstream to a second feature which will regulate the water flow. There will be a
separate channel available to divert flash flood waters away from the wetlands. A separate riffle structure
on the southern end will act as backstop to the river. Laurian asked how the water will reach the wetland.
Alvord explained the series of riffle structures which will direct the flow from Ralston Creek. Laurian
commented that wetlands are slow moving water and felt it was a good thing that the design slows the
water.
Alvord explained that the wetland boardwalk included in the 2015 Master Plan was not possible as
planned due to the hydrology of the creek and river. An alternate was explored, but is not included in
Phase 1 of the project since it would not provide a low -land experience in the wetland and would not be a
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
December 14, 2016
Page 4 of 6
part of a primary trail connection. There will be natural surface trails in the wetland area and potentially
an overlook to provide an experience similar to the original boardwalk proposal.
Alvord next explained the bike trail connections through the park. Currently the Iowa River Corridor trail
travels through the park crossing river on Benton. Proposed trail system in phase 1 that follows along
wetland and up along east side of traffic circle and west of Ralston creek. An alternate is being consider
along the west side of the park and will be constructed if the budget allows.
Seydell Johnson emphasized that Phase 1 of the project includes the wetland creation, Ralston Creek
improvements, site grading and trail connections. This will provide a nicely sculpted park with basic trail
connections and the wetland required by the project funding. There will not be shelters, restrooms,
parking or other park amenities in Phase 1. Construction is planned for late summer through early fall of
2017.
Laurian asked for clarification regarding the berm elevations and view within the park. Alvord explained
the various areas and views from several sites within the park. Laurian next expressed concerns about the
circular driveway with plaza in the middle. She was concerned that the plaza space would not be suitable
for children due to vehicular traffic. Seydell Johnson explained that the area would likely be an artist or
literary plaza and that the areas of the park with natural play areas and access from the creek would be
away from the parking area. She also mentioned that the design received positive feedback during the
public open house. Alvord discussed other potential options for the parking area explaining that the
circular design seemed to provide best for the large event space planned for the a future phase as well as
provide a location for the artist/literary plaza. The final design for the entrance and parking area would be
completed with design for a future phase of the park. Younker expressed his approval of the concept
drawing for the park, including the circular drive and plaza area. He said that he felt that the circle
concept used throughout the design would draw people into the park and add to the overall experience.
Fett and Elliott also made note that they liked the parking area and circle drive as presented.
Fett asked additional questions regarding changes to Kirkwood Avenue. Hamann asked about the width
of the circular parking entrance adding concerns for pedestrian safety. Alvord explained that it would be
20 feet wide specifically to allow for vendor tents and pedestrian traffic during festival -type events. It
would be designed to slow vehicular traffic while encouraging bicycles and pedestrians. Claussen
inquired if there were other options for the items placed in the plaza. Laurian suggested that it be a place
for art, and not a place for people to actively spend time. Laurian inquired if anything was known about
the future of the City Carton property. Seydell Johnson said that the property was in private ownership
with no date set for future development.
Alvord then explained that the bridges being used for the park would be similar the trail bridge just south
of the park. Seydell Johnson mentioned that an old railroad bridge which currently crosses Ralston Creek
was evaluated but not chosen for future use. The railroad bridge will be removed as part of the project.
Seydell Johnson reminded the commission that project updates and renderings are available on the project
website at: www.riverfrontcrossingspark.com
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
December 14, 2016
Page 5 of 6
EAGLE SCOUT PROJECT REQUEST POLICY AND PROCEDURE — JULI SEYDELL
JOHNSON:
Seydell Johnson reported that the Parks and Recreation Department receives a number of requests from
Eagle Scout candidates to place projects within the parks. Staff would like to update the policy and
procedures used for such projects in order to streamline the process and ensure better service to the
requesting parties. This policy will be written to also include girl scouts working towards their Silver and
Gold Awards. She presented a draft of the policy to commission for their review and comments. This
policy will provide parameters and guidelines. The scout will be asked to complete an application and
staff will review to assure that it fits within the department plans for that particular location. The scout
will then be required to give a presentation to Commission. Younker suggested that the policy include a
completion timeline. Laurian expressed her approval of the projects that have been done by scouts to date
and believes that this policy and application process will encourage more scouts to approach the
department when planning their projects. Claussen asked what the status was of the gaga pit proposal that
was presented earlier this year by a boy scout. Hall said that he will be contacting the scout about that
project soon to find out his future plans. Seydell Johnson mentioned that while the department has some
idea of what is needed in the parks, the park inventory process during the master planning project will
help a great deal when reviewing these applications.
REPORT ON ITEMS FROM CITY STAFF:
Recreation Division Superintendent — Chad Dyson: Dyson reported that the Activity Guide for winter
spring programs is available and were delivered to schools on December 6.
Dyson also noted that Mercer Park Pool was shut down due to a chemical delivery issue. If was reopened
on December 5.
Parks Division Superintendent— Zac Hall: Hall noted that the most recent Eagle Scout project included
the constructions of a 40' osprey nesting tower and platform at Terry Trueblood Recreation Area. Iowa
City High School student Max Otaoadese worked with MidAmerican Energy to erect the platform. Max
will be at the January Commission meeting to give his report.
Hall announced that a consultant from Plan-It-GEO from Arvada, CO. has begun the tree inventory
process for the City. The arborist will be present now through the holidays and then will return again in
the spring to continue. In just four days, one arborist counted and collected information on 1,200 trees.
They hope to have the project wrapped up in mid to late summer. Laurian asked about whether it is better
to do the inventory with leaves on or off of the trees. The contractor said that you will get a better sense of
the structure of the tree without leaves while trees with the leaves give you a better look at the health of
the tree based on the upper canopy. With their schedule, they will be able to look at both.
Hall noted that the staff from the Horticulture Division have been busy putting in some new plantings
around City Hall and Terry Trueblood Recreation Area. They have removed bushes and other plant
material on the Gilbert Street side of the Recreation Center as well. Hall said that Tyler Baird, the city
horticulturist, has some very exciting plans for City Hall, as well as around the Recreation Center and the
area east of the Chauncey Swan ramp. His plan will include some type of screening around the
transformer that is in this area. Laurian suggested that there are some clever ideas to do so.
Parks & Recreation Director — Juli Seydell Johnson: Seydell Johnson thanked Maggie Elliott for her time
and dedication to the Parks Commission, announcing that tonight is her last commission meeting as a
board member. She also announced that Suzanne Bentler has been reappointed to the commission and a
new member, Jamie Venzon, will start her term in January. Seydell Johnson announced that due to
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
December 14, 2016
Page 6 of 6
obligations of his recent school board appointment, Paul Roesler has resigned from the commission.
Applications are coming in now for that vacancy.
Seydell Johnson announced that Cindy Coffin, the Parks and Recreation Special Populations Supervisor,
is retiring on December 16. Coffin has worked in this capacity for 35 years. All members are invited to
her reception from 1 to 4 p.m. on that same day. The department received 70 applications for the position
which have been narrowed down to 8. The interview process is complete and staff plans to extend an
offer soon.
Seydell Johnson said that RDG, the consultant who is creating a master plan for the department, held a
stakeholder workshop a week ago which was well attended and where a lot of valuable input was shared
Then on Saturday, December 10, RDG held an open house for the public which was very well attended
and once again, provided them with great feedback.
Seydell Johnson announced that the Parks and Recreation Department is very busy with a number of
projects which include the following: City Park Cabin Restoration, Ashton House Project Green
landscaping, Frauenholtz Miller Park Construction, Mercer Tennis Courts/Pickle Ball Court
improvements, Wetherby Park Sport Court project, and Hickory Hill Bridge Replacement. She referred
commission to the project master list within their packet for a more projects.
Hamann asked who the consultant is for the Bicycle Master Plan. Seydell Johnson said RDG is working
with Alta Planning & Design out of Kansas City.
CHAIRS REPORT — CLAY CLAUSSEN:
Claussen thanked Elliott for her service on the commission and expressed his appreciation for her
dedication.
Claussen noted that he believes that much of the public have the idea that The Chauncey will be taking
over the Chauncey Swan Park. This is not the case. He also said that he believes the park will be a
welcomed change, will be much more appreciated and will generate more activity for this area of
downtown. Laurian asked how many stories The Chauncey will include. Seydell Johnson said it will be
15 stories. She also mentioned that there has been some confusion recently regarding another building in
downtown that was to be 14 stories and has been reduced to 7. This is not the Chauncey.
COMMISSION TIME/SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS:
Elliott said that she has appreciated her time on the commission and has enjoyed getting to know
everyone. She has liked the feeling of being involved and knowing what's planned for the City of Iowa
City.
Other members of commission expressed their gratitude to Elliott for her time and dedication to the
commission over the years.
F40111 It ►Bill`►
Moved by Elliott, seconded by Brown, to adjourn the meeting at 6:29 p.m. Motion passed 7-0
(Gentler and Roesler absent).
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
December 14, 2016
Page 7 of 6
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
ATTENDANCE RECORD
KEY: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused
NM = No meeting LQ = No meeting due to lack of quorum
* = Not a member at this time
'u
NAME
b
b
TERM
EXPIRES
o,
�a
Suzanne
1/1/17
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
Bentler
David
1/1/15
O/E
*
Bourgeois
Larry Brown
1/1/18
O/E
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Clay
1/1/18
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Claussen
Maggie
1/1/17
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
O/E
X
X
X
O/E
X
Elliott
Wayne Fett
1/1/19
*
*
X
X
X
X
X
O/
X
O/E
X
X
E
Cara
1/1/20
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Hamann
Lucie
1/1/10
X
X
O/E
O/E
X
X
O/E
O/
X
X
X
X
Laurian
E
Paul Roesler
1/1/18
X
O/E
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
O/E
Joe Younker
1/1/20
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
O/E
X
X
KEY: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused
NM = No meeting LQ = No meeting due to lack of quorum
* = Not a member at this time
r
�-ar-rT
�.® CITY OF IOWA CITY 4
MEMORANDUM
Date: January 20, 2017
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Bob Miklo, Planning & Zoning Commission
Re: Recommendations from Planning & Zoning Commission
At their January 19, 2017 meeting the Planning & Zoning Commission approved the December
15th minutes with the following recommendations to the City Council:
By a vote of 6-0 (Signs abstained) the Commission recommends approval of REZ16-00007, an
application submitted by TSB Investments fora rezoning from OPD -5 to RM -12 for 3.48 acres of
property located at the southeast corner of Camp Cardinal Road and Gathering Place Lane,
subject to City Council approval of the pending amendment to the Comprehensive Plan and
conditioned on general compliance with the submitted concept plan, payment of Neighborhood
Open Space fees based on RM -12 density, staff design review with emphasis on the entrances
to the two buildings and on making the buildings appear less massive, provision of outdoor
usable space, and parking for persons with disabilities close to each building.
Additional action (check one)
No further action needed
Board or Commission is requesting Council direction
_X_ Agenda item will be prepared by staff for Council action - Done
MINUTES APPROVED
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 15, 2016 — 7:00 PM — FORMAL MEETING
NDS CONFERENCE ROOM 2N° FLOOR — CITY HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Carolyn Dyer, Mike Hensch, Ann Freerks, Phoebe Martin, Max
Parsons, Mark Signs, Jodie Theobald
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo
OTHERS PRESENT: Michael Thomas
RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL:
By a vote of 6-0 (Signs abstained) the Commission recommends approval of REZ16-00007, an
application submitted by TSB Investments fora rezoning from OPD -5 to RM -12 for 3.48 acres of
property located at the southeast corner of Camp Cardinal Road and Gathering Place Lane,
subject to City Council approval of the pending amendment to the Comprehensive Plan and
conditioned on general compliance with the submitted concept plan, payment of Neighborhood
Open Space fees based on RM -12 density, staff design review with emphasis on the entrances
to the two buildings and on making the buildings appear less massive, provision of outdoor
usable space, and parking for persons with disabilities close to each building.
Freerks called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA:
There were none
ZONING ITEM (REZ16-00007):
Discussion of an application submitted by TSB Investments for a rezoning from Planned
Development Overlay (OPD -5) to Low Density Multifamily Residential (RM -12) for
approximately 3.48 -acres of property located at the southeast corner of Camp Cardinal Road
and Gathering Place Lane.
Signs recused himself due a to real estate transaction regarding a nearby property.
Miklo noted that this area was recently discussed for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment. The
current zoning is RS -5 with a planned development overlay (OPD) because of the sensitive
areas on the property. The proposed zoning is Low Density Multifamily (RM -12). This property
does have characteristics appropriate for multi -family zoning and therefore Staff and the
Commission have recommended that the City Council approve an amendment to the
Comprehensive Plan to reflect that. That amendment will be considered by the Council at their
January 17, 2017, meeting. Staff's review of this application is based on assuming that the
Comprehensive Plan amendment will be approved.
Planning and Zoning Commission
December 15, 2016—Formal Meeting
Page 2 of 5
Miklo said Staff also looks at compatibility with the neighborhood. He said there is little
development in this neighborhood, just a couple of single family homes located several hundred
feet to the north. Saint Andrew Church is under construction to the east. The area to the west
contains a tract that was recently sold by the County to an individual, who may build a house on
it. To the north and east there is a wooded ravine that is zoned Interim Development. The
Comprehensive Plan indicates that depending on the sensitive areas there may be some
multifamily on that property. The area to the north is currently zoned RS -5 so it will be some
type of residential (there have been some inquiries about doing a planned development to allow
clustering of units on the site). But for now it is designated for single family.
In terms of traffic, Miklo said this proposal will generate considerably more traffic than the five to
seven house lots that could occur here under the current zoning. However the area has direct
access to Camp Cardinal Road (a collector street) and it will be the first development on that
street so it will be able to handle the traffic. Miklo did note that the increased traffic count could
limit the amount of density allowed to the north in the future without some second way in and
out of the neighborhood. He said it is not a concern for this rezoning, but may be a factor for
development for property to the north.
Martin asked about street access for the land to the northwest. Miklo said that the presence of
steep topography will dictate how street access will be provided to that property. He said that it
may be from Camp Cardinal Boulevard but to the north of Deer Creek Road. He said a second
means of access through that property would be a benefit to the larger neighborhood.
Miklo discussed the concept plan for the area (included in the Commission packet) and the
driveway access and the two buildings (one with 30 units and one with 24 units) with
underground parking. He showed drawings of the buildings. He said a parking level would be
located under each building.
Martin asked about the paving of Camp Cardinal Road. Miklo indicated the point to where Saint
Andrew Church has paved the street up to Gather Place Lane, a new street that was built to
provide access to the church building. He said before development occurs to the north, the
remainder of Camp Cardinal Road would need to be improved to City standards or an
alternative street route would need to be identified.
Miklo noted that when the larger subdivision was approved, the neighborhood open space
requirement was calculated based on five units per acre. If density goes to twelve, it is Staffs
recommendation that the payment of Neighborhood Open Space fees be based on RM -12
density.
Staff recommends approval of REZ16-00007, an application submitted by TSB Investments fora
rezoning from OPD -5 to RM -12 for 3.48 acres of property located at the southeast comer of Camp
Cardinal Road and Gathering Place Lane, subject to City Council approval of the pending
amendment to the Comprehensive Plan and conditioned on general compliance with the
submitted concept plan, and payment of Neighborhood Open Space fees based on RM -12
density.
Freerks asked where visitor parking would be for the two buildings. Miklo pointed out the
location behind the buildings. Freerks said that there should be handicapped parking provided
close to each building. Freerks asked that the applicant address that concern.
Freerks opened the public hearing.
Planning and Zoning Commission
December 15, 2016— Formal Meeting
Page 3 of 5
Michael Thomas (HBK Engineering) came forward to answer questions.
Freerks asked about parking for guests and what sort of outdoor amenities or usable open
space would be provided. She said that this is a considerable increase in density and is
concerned about the exterior design of the buildings.
Thomas said that usable outdoor space is something the applicant is the thinking about and
would like to provide, but hasn't worked out the details. He noted that the site was very steep.
Martin asked if the property would be age restricted to persons age 55 and older. Thomas
replied it was not. Martin said walkability was a concern and questioned how pedestrians would
walk around the site given the lack of sidewalks between the buildings.
Martin said the building design seemed to just meet the minimum standards. She asked if the
buildings could be designed to take advantage of the forest landscape. Freerks said she felt
that the building designs do need some work, but she did not want to design the buildings at this
meeting. Freerks asked that the applicant work with staff to provide a building design that is not
so massive in scale. Martin and Theobald agreed. Freerks noted that Staff can review the
fagade and design features of the buildings to make them fit into the neighborhood.
Dyer noted that the entrances to the buildings seem small and uninviting relative to the size of
the buildings. Freerks agreed and noted that making the jump from 5-7 units in the area to 54
units is a big increase. Given the increase, design of the buildings to make them more
appropriate in scale is something that Commission has addressed in similar rezonings.
Hensch asked about the footprint of the buildings. Thomas replied that the larger building is 192
feet long and 64 feet 9 inches wide.
Regarding the earlier question about parking: Miklo said in the larger building there are 30 units
and 32 parking spaces within the building itself. For the smaller building there are 24 units and
20 parking spaces within the building and the remaining required parking spaces are outside. A
total of 81 parking spaces are required for the entire site so between the two buildings and the
surface parking lot there are 81 spaces. Miklo also noted that visitors will be able to park on
Gathering Place Lane.
Freerks noted there should be handicap spaces near each building. Martin said she would like
to see pedestrian connections to the parking areas and between the buildings.
Freerks stated she was glad they would be able to retain the woodlands on the parcel. Martin
said that she was o.k. with the zoning aspect but would like to see a better design.
Theobald asked what size the units would be (number of bedrooms). Thomas replied they
would be a combination of one and two bedroom units.
Based on the discussion, Miklo summarized the issues that the Commission would like
addressed. He noted that some conditions might be to have Staff do design review of the
buildings with emphasis on the entrances to the two buildings, focus on making them appear
less massive, have some sort of outdoor usable space (picnic, barbeque area or playground),
pedestrian access and additional parking for persons with disabilities closer to the buildings.
Theobald would like the more attention to the way the buildings address the open space
Planning and Zoning Commission
December 15, 2016 — Formal Meeting
Page 4 of 5
Thomas said the buildings were located to take advantage of the views.
Dyer asked if the fire truck turnaround could be turned the other way. Miklo said that would get
them it close to the sensitive slopes area. Thomas said that there was a retaining wall required
to provide for the turnaround area.
Freerks closed the public hearing
Hensch moved to approve REZ16-00007, an application submitted by TSB Investments
fora rezoning from OPD -5 to RM -12 for 3.48 acres of property located at the southeast
corner of Camp Cardinal Road and Gathering Place Lane, subject to City Council
approval of the pending amendment to the Comprehensive Plan and conditioned on
general compliance with the submitted concept plan, payment of Neighborhood Open
Space fees based on RM -12 density, staff design review with emphasis on the entrances
to the two buildings and on making the buildings appear less massive, provision of
outdoor usable space, and parking for persons with disabilities close to each building.
Martin seconded the motion.
Freerks feels this will be a wonderful addition to this neighborhood but the details will be
important.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 6-0 (Signs abstained).
VIEWING OF "A MORE WALKABLE IOWA CITY" BY JEFF SPECK:
Freerks asked if everyone would be willing to postpone this viewing to another time. Miklo
noted it is not time sensitive so could be viewed later. It can also be seen by going to City
Channel 4 and watching it online.
CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: DECEMBER 1, 2016
Theobald moved to approve the meeting minutes of December 1, 2016, with corrections.
Signs seconded the motion.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0.
PLANNING AND ZONING INFORMATION:
None
ADJOURNMENT:
Parsons moved to adjourn.
Martin seconded.
A vote was taken and motion carried 7-0.
Z
O
� O
20
OU
Z U N
OZ�
N O N
06 Z
0 W
Z
Z Q
Z
J
EL
N
L
O
Lu E
c �
c �N
N w9 0
a) � Q O
O Q II Z
It 11 Lu
XO01
r
W
Y
N
r
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
N
x
x
x
LLJ
X
X
X
r
X
x
X
x
x
LU
x
r
CM
r
X
X
X
X
X
X
cc
o
x
X
x
X
X
x
x
r
a -
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
co
X
X
x
x
x
x
x
N
n
x
X--
X
X
X
n
x,
x
x
x
x
X
X
x
X
x
x
x
x
T
X
0
X
X
X
X
X
I
X
x
X
X
X
X
x
x
x
X
X
X
I
x
n
4
x
x
x
X
x
I
X
I,
XXXx
W,
I
X
M
X
x
x
x
x
X
am
X
x
X
X
x
I
X
N
N
X
O
X
x
I
X
x
X
X
X
X
X
I
X
>
Z
WW
W
W
0
JO
ZQ
Y
0
E
y
-3
�ayQo
V
y
2
Z
Z
Q
K
W
N
U)
Z
O
W
W
Z
S
K
CD
W
W
LU
0
LL
=2IL
V)
N
L
O
Lu E
c �
c �N
N w9 0
a) � Q O
O Q II Z
It 11 Lu
XO01
r
W
Y
Approved Minutes
December 8, 2016
MINUTES
SENIOR CENTER COMMISSION
DECEMBER 8, 2016
ROOM 208, IOWA CITY/JOHNSON COUNTY SENIOR CENTER
Members Present: Jay Honohan, Mark Holbrook, Kathy Mitchell, Cheryl
Clamon, Margaret Reese
Members Absent: Jack Hobbs
Staff Present: Linda Kopping, Kristin Kromray
Others Present: None
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order by Honohan at 4:00 PM.
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL:
None.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM NOVERMBER 17, 2016 MEETING:
Motion: To accept the minutes as amended from the November 17, 2016
meeting. Motion carried on a vote of 5/0. Mitchell/Clamon
COMMISSION ASSIGNMENTS:
Holbrook may attend the January 5t' Board of Supervisors meeting.
REVIEW AND DISCUSSION OF THE CMO BUDGET RECOMMENDATIONS:
Kopping reported that she will present the budget to the City Council in January
2017. The budget will be finalized in March. She highlighted some new revenue
items and a couple changes to the initial request made by finance and city
manager's office. Finance and the City Manager increased revenue projections
in two areas. Membership revenue was increased from $52,000 to $69,000; and
contributions and donations, which includes donations given directly to the Senior
Center and endowment earnings from Friends of the Center, was increased by
$15,000. An additional $25,000 contribution from Friends of The Center to
support operational expenses was added to the FY18 budget.
M6fZT- r -
4b(8)
Approved Minutes
December 8, 2016
A few expense lines were reduced by Finance and the City Manager. These
include travel and associated fees for educational seminars, and funding for
banners for the exterior of the building, bulk mailing, and office supplies.
COMMISSION MEMBERSHIP
Kopping reported both commissioner Honohan and commissioner Hobbs terms
will end at the end of December. Kopping thanked Honohan for his 18 years of
service on the Commission. Kopping noted that the city was going to re -advertise
the three open spaces on the Senior Center Commission. Commissioners
discussed various people who they might approach to consider applying.
OPERATIONAL OVERVIEW:
Update on work with Friends of the Center: The first draft of the Friends of the
Center website was received. Staff reviewed the draft and will be communicating
recommendations to the designers. Kopping has been working on additional
Friends of the Center policies. The Friends annual appeal letter went out two
weeks ago and has raised $11,100 to date.
Nutrition Program Update: The Senior Center has received many complaints
regarding Elder Services' congregate meal program. Concerns have been
expressed about running out of meals and the quality and temperature of the
food. Kopping spoke with the director of Elder Services and he indicated that
they can only guarantee the meal will be hot for 30 minutes after it is delivered.
They are working on ways to adapt the program to accommodate this limitation.
Kopping met with representatives from Heritage Area on Aging to discuss the
various grant -funded programs Heritage offers that could be run by The Center.
Included in the discussion were the meal and volunteer transportation program,
chore services, evidenced based programming, and an information and referral
program. Grant applications for all these services are due in February 2017,
which does not allow much time to consider options or develop an organizational
plan. Any program considered would need to fit the mission of The Center and
not place an additional financial burden on The Center or City.
Operations:
The elevator is back in working order. The chiller has been winterized for the
season.
Programming:
The first day of registration is December 14th. Kromray reported the next
Newcomers Breakfast will be January 18`h and invited commissioners to attend.
Approved Minutes
December 8, 2016
She also noted that on April 13th from 2-3:30 will be a Member Engagement Fair
that the membership committee is organizing.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION:
None.
ADJOURNMENT:
Motion: To Adjourn. Motion carried on a vote of 5/0. Reese/Mitchell
Approved Minutes
December 8, 2016
Senior Center Commission
Attendance Record
Year 2016
Name
Term Ex ices
2/18/16
3/17/1614/21/16
O/E =
5/19/16
6/11/16
6/16/16
7/21/1618/18/16
Not a member
9/15/16
10/20/16111/17/16
12/8/16
Joy Beadleston
12/31/19
X
X
NM
O/E
X
NM
O/E
I —
--
--
--
--
Cheryll Clamon
12/31/18
X
X
NM
O/E
X
NM
X
X
X
NM
X
X
Jack Hobbs
12/31/16
X
O/E
NM
X
X
NM
X
O/E
O/E
NM
X
O/E
Mark Holbrook
12/31/18
X
X
NM
X
O/E
NM
X
X
X
NM
X
X
Jay Honohan
12/31/16
X
X
NM
X
X
NM
X
X
X
NM
X
X
Kathy Mitchell
12/31/19
X
X
NM
X
X
NM
O/E
X
X
NM
X
X
Margaret Reese
12/31/17
X
X
NM
O/E
X
NM
X
X
X
NM
X
X
Key: X=
Present
O=
Absipt
O/E =
Absent/Ezcused
NM =
No meeting
— =
Not a member
G2-a7-17
�bL9 )
APPROVED
MINUTES
Iowa City Telecommunications Commission
December 12, 2016 — 5:30 P.M.
City of Iowa City Cable TV Office, 10 S. Linn St. - Tower Place, LEVEL 3A
Call to Order: Meeting called to order at 5:48 P.M.
Members Present: Laura Bergus, Derek Johnk, Paul Gowder
Members Absent: Nick Kilburg
Staff Present: Ty Coleman
Others Present: Gerardo Sandoval, Bond Drager
Recommendations to Council: NONE
Approval of Minutes:
Bergus moved and Gowder seconded a motion to approve the October 24, 2016 minutes
as presented. The motion passed unanimously.
Announcements of Commissioners:
None
Short Public Announcements:
None
Consumer Issues:
Coleman noted a couple of updates included in the cable complaints report regarding
ongoing issues. Coleman mentioned he has been receiving some messages from
residents regarding issues with their CenturyLink service and that he has been able to
connect with local CenturyLink staff to assist with the resolution. He discussed a phone
cable burial issue that had encountered some confusion in communications with
CenturyLink wherein it was suspected that two separate issues with two separate
customers were being mixed up. Coleman said he touched base with his CenturyLink
contact to pass on what the customer had recently reported. He noted that he hadn't yet
heard whether CenturyLink had contacted the customer and would be following up with
the customer.
Mediacom Report
Coleman mentioned the recent announcement made by Mediacom regarding its
billion -dollar investment project and a transition to the DOCSIS (Data Over Cable
Service Interface Specification) 3.1 platform. Coleman said the transition appeared to be
happening ahead of schedule. Coleman stated he did not think that the entire project,
APPROVED
announced earlier in 2016, had been fully completed, but that progress had been made.
Johnk noted that the project was an ambitious one and it was good to hear that the
company was making progress.
Coleman said he received a letter informing him that Mediacom would be adjusting its
rates in 2017 due to increased surcharges associated with the retransmission of local
broadcast programming and increased costs to carry regional sports programming.
Coleman said the local broadcast station surcharge would increase by $1.61 per month,
the regional sports surcharge would increase by $0.24 per month, and the Family TV
package would increase by $2.00 per month. He noted that Mediacom's letter said the
company prefers not to raise rates due to the potential for losing customers and that the
company has been attempting to inform legislators about the issue of these increasing
costs affecting consumers.
Local Access Reports:
Sandoval reported that PATV would be closed to the public during the upcoming holiday
week, but would be using that time to go through the PATV inventory. Sandoval said
PATV may be changing its hours over the winter by opening earlier and closing earlier so
that it can be open more during the daylight hours.
Sandoval said the public has been reacting positively to social media efforts, noting that
PATV has been adding new members and seeing an increase in the number of programs
made available for playback. Sandoval said he sensed a new interest in public TV.
Sandoval also asked the Commission about PATV's reports and whether the information
provided was enough to give commissioners a good idea of what PATV is doing on a
regular basis. Bergus said that the intention of the reports is not to require more work for
the access channels, but if PATV wanted to submit more information, they would be
welcome to do so. Gowder said that the Commission would gladly take a look at any
information that is already being prepared by PATV for other purposes, such as that
which is distributed to its board.
Sandoval said PATV has been more active with social media to encourage the public to
use its facility and to promote programming. He noted that staff had created a mascot to
use on social media for messaging and that it seems to have caught on.
Johnk said the Commission wishes to enable PATV and Bergus said being more educated
about PATV's activities will help the Commission to provide more feedback.
Drager reported that there has been an increase in children's programming at the Library
due to the break. She said that adult programming will slow down until February, when
the Library is holding a lot of Black History Month events. Drager also made note of the
Library's Noon Year's Eve program for kids on New Year's Eve.
Drager mentioned that the Iowa City Public Library would be circulating wireless hotspot
devices in the near future and would be making an official announcement when the units
APPROVED
are available. Gowder noted that there will likely be a great demand. Drager said the
Library was able to acquire a grant for ten devices and has arranged for a partner for the
service, which will be provided by Sprint. She said that a goal of the initiative was for
students to be able to do homework and that speed tests had been successfully conducted
at various points around town. Johnk commended Drager for the work that had been
done to make the project happen. Coleman inquired about the timeline for availability of
the devices. Drager said the launch date was set for January 30, 2017. Gowder asked if
the project was something that could be expanded. Drager said the grant allows for ten
devices per year and that she anticipated more would be purchased after the first year.
Drager said that five of the hotspot devices are planned to be bundled with newly
available laptops and the five remaining units would be separately available.
City Cable TV Office Report:
Coleman said the Cable TV Office programming also tends to slow down at the end of
the year due to fewer meetings and non-profit events. Coleman said the City Council
would be starting the year off with budget -related meetings and that Cable TV staff
would be recording some of the meetings.
Coleman noted a previous question from a commissioner regarding ImOn. He said he
checked with City staff to see if there was any new information regarding ImOn's efforts
in Iowa City or if the Commission would be able to approach ImOn in hopes of learning
more about the company's plans. Coleman reported that there was not any new
information and that it was advised not to approach ImOn at this time. Coleman also
mentioned that he learned from Sandoval that PATV had recently been working with
ImOn to receive services. Coleman said it was positive to see some competition in Iowa
City. Sandoval said the Internet and phone service they would be receiving was at a very
affordable price and that they would be saving approximately 65% of what they had been
paying.
Coleman also noted that there had not been any activity regarding applications for filling
the vacant seat on the Telecommunications Commission. He reported that the vacancy
had been posted on the City's website as well as on a bulletin board in the lobby of City
Hall. Bergus asked if Coleman would send the commissioners a link to the application so
that the Commission could help to promote the open spot. Johnk asked whether reaching
out to University entities would make sense. Bergus said that students who are over the
age of eighteen should be able to apply. Coleman said he would send the link to the
commissioners as well as to the local access entities for pushing out through various
channels, including social media.
Adjournment:
Bergus moved and Gowder seconded a motion to adjourn. The motion passed
unanimously. Adjournment was at 6:05 p.m.
3
TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
12 -MONTH ATTENDANCE RECORD
(x) = Present
(o) = Absent
(o/c) = Absent/Called (Excused)
Elias
Bergus
Kilburg
Johnk
Homewood
02/22/2016
x
x
x
x
o/c
Gowder
03/28/2016
x
x
0/c
o
x
04/25/2016
x
x
0/c
x
x
05/31/2016
x
x
x
x
0/c
06/27/2016
o/c
x
x
x
0/c
07/25/2016
0
x
x
x
0/c
08/29/2016
x
x
x
x
x
resignation
09/26/2016
x
x
x
0
vacant
10/24/2016
x
x
x
x
vacant
11/26/2016
Meeting not held
Due to lack of
quorum
12/12/2016
x
x
o/c
x
vacant
01/23/2017
o/c
x
x
x
vacant
(x) = Present
(o) = Absent
(o/c) = Absent/Called (Excused)