Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-07-2016 Board of AppealsCITY OF IOWA CITY 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240-1826 (319) 356-5000 (319) 356-5009 FAX www.icgov.org NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING The Iowa City Board of Appeals will convene at 4:00 p.m. on Wednesday, December 7, 2016 in Emma Harvat Hall, City Hall, 410 E. Washington St., Iowa City, Iowa AGENDA 1. Meeting to be called to order 2. Consider the minutes of the August 1, 2016 meeting. 3. Appeal the decision of the Building Official and/or Fire Chief because the Building Official/Fire Chief has incorrectly interpreted a provision of the code. (101 Lusk Avenue) 4. Adjournment 12/02/2016 g CITY OF IOWA CITY 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa S2240- 826 (319) 356-5000 (319) 356-5009 FAX www.lcgov.org I!T �C OF PUBLIC MEETING The Iowa City Board of Appeals will convene at 4:00 p.m. on Wednesday, December 7, 2016 in Emma Harvat Hall, City Hall, 410 E. Washington St., Iowa City, Iowa AGENDA 1. Meeting to be called to order 2. Consider the minutes of the August 1, 2016 meeting. 3. Appeal the decision of the Building Official and/or Fire Chief because the Building OfficiaVFire Chief has incorrectly interpreted a provision of the code.(101 Lusk Avenue) 4. Adjournment MINUTES APPROVED IOWA CITY BOARD OF APPEALS MONDAY, AUGUST 1, 2016 DALE HELLING CONFERENCE ROOM, CITY HALL 410 E. WASHINGTON STREET IOWA CITY, IA 52240 MEMBERS PRESENT: John Roffman, Scott McDonough, Andrea French, Jim Walker MEMBERS ABSENT: John Gay STAFF PRESENT: Tim Hennes (Sr. Building Inspector), Sue Dulek (Asst. City Attorney), Stan Laverman (Sr. Housing Inspector), John Yapp (Development Services Coordinator), Brian Greer (Fire Marshall), Jann Ream (Code Enforcement Specialist, acting as minute taker) OTHERS PRESENT: Lisa Udell (applicant) RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL - None CALL TO ORDER: John Roffman called the meeting to order at 4:01 PM ELECTION OF OFFICERS French moved to elect John Roffman as chairperson of the Board of Appeals. McDonough seconded. VOTE: Roffman was elected as chairperson of the BOA by a unanimous vote. McDonough moved to elect Andrea French as vice -chair of the Board of Appeals. Walker seconded. VOTE: French was elected vice -chair of the BOA by a unanimous vote. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES - Minutes from the May 18th, 2015 meeting had previously been approved on June 8th, 2015. Appeal of Notice of Housing Code Violation (605 607 Holt Avenue) Stan Laverman gave the Board a brief overview of what the appeal was about. The violation item under appeal related to a furnace and water heater located in a basement bathroom closet. This rental property had been routinely inspected many times previously. In the latest rental permit inspection, the housing inspector noted this particular violation which had been present during the previous inspections. The furnace and water heater are in the bathroom closet. There is no combustion air from the outside being brought in to these appliances. There is metal behind the louvered doors that further restricts air to the appliances. Bathrooms and bedrooms are prohibited locations for fuel burning appliances. This was a APPROVED prohibited location in the 1979 Uniform Building Code which was the code that this structure was built under. Laverman felt this situation was a health and fife safety issue no different than if they discovered a flue that was not venting properly -the City would expect and require repair. In this particular situation, the area is a prohibited location and there is no combustion air for the fuel burning appliances. John Roffman asked the applicant, Lisa Udell, to state her reasons for appeal. Udell showed the Board photos of the area and appliances in question. She stated that she and her husband had bought the property in 2005 as an investment property and they did have investment related expectations. She stated that the Board did have an important role in making sure the housing stock in Iowa City was safe but that they also had an important role in protecting the rights of property owners. She said that when they bought the property, it was important to them that they acquire a legal rental property that had passed inspections and had a valid rental permit. They relied on the rental permit that was in place when they bought the property that stated the property was compliant. Their understanding was that they would have to properly maintain the property but that they would not be expected to make structural corrections. She pointed out that this property had been inspected for the past 25 years and that, during the two previous rental inspections, this equipment in particular had been closely looked at. This inspection was the first time this situation had been cited as a safety issue. She felt that the language in the Housing Code was very clear and that, when it refers to maintaining a property, it does not mean tear down and rebuild. She felt the question in front of the Board was not that a property had to comply with building code but whether it was required to be brought into compliance with current building code. She stated again that "maintain" is not the same as requiring structural corrections and that a housing inspector does not have the authority under the code to require these types of changes. She stated that investors should be able to rely on certificates and permits issued by the City that verify a property is compliant with applicable codes. She asked that, if this is truly a safety issue, why could it not be addressed with the installation of a carbon monoxide detector? Board members discussed the violation and possible solutions. McDonough asked if the purpose of the code was to address the possibility of backdraft into the bedroom. Udell clarified that that referral was to building code. Laverman responded yes and that the housing code was a referenced code to the building code. And, that when the housing code states "maintain in a safe condition", it is directly referencing the building code. Walker stated that the real issue is more about combustion air than carbon monoxide. Walker asked that, since one of solutions offered by the City was to remove the shower, how that made a difference. Laverman responded that then it would not be considered a bathroom. McDonough asked when the requirement for carbon monoxide detectors came into effect. Laverman explained that the requirement in the housing code for the installation of carbon monoxide detectors came into effect this year. McDonough wondered if, when the furnace was replaced, whether it could be power vented which was one of the solutions presented by Housing Inspection. Udell clarified that the property was under contract to sell and that a replacement of the furnace would not occur under their ownership. Laverman said, since the area is adjacent to an outside wall, it would be fairly straightforward to bring in combustion air from the outside to the existing appliances and install new solid gasketed doors. Udell said she did explore that possibility in order to avoid the appeal but that she had great difficulty finding anyone willing to do the work and the only estimate she did receive was for over $1500.00. McDonough suggested a possible compromise that would require compliance when the furnace was replaced. Udell stated that there are lots of things that can be done to old buildings to improve their safety but the code does not require that and it should not be expected. Roffman explained that the Board does not have authority to override or ignore health and safety issues. So it doesn't matter when the violation is found; it becomes a matter of what is a reasonable correction. McDonough asked Udell what would happen if her tenants experienced a health issue that could be traced back to this violation and then it was discovered that the City not only knew about the issue but did nothing to remedy it. Udell cited a legal case in which a tenant put his hand through a door that did not have safety glass and he sued the City and the landlord based on his assertion that the landlord should have been required to comply with the building code. The court held that the landlord had a duty to abide by the housing code but not the building code. APPROVED McDonough asked if the owner knew that door did not have safety glass in it. Udell did not recall but she said the court was very clear that the landlord could not be required to upgrade the glass to safety glass as a maintenance issue. Dulek clarified that the City was not sued in that case -just the landlord. Laverman stated that it was unfortunate that this violation was not discovered during the years the Udells owned the property. He suspected that the previous owner established the basement bathroom without a permit and that should have been caught earlier. However, this is the current situation and it has to be addressed. French asked K there was a valid Certificate of Structural Compliance on file. Laverman said Yes, but that the basement bathroom was added after that. Walker said also that was not a good reason to overlook a safety issue. Udell asked again if there wasn't some point where property owners could and should rely on certificates and permits issued by the City that state a property is in compliance. Don't those certifications have to mean something? McDonough responded yes but that the system is not perfect. And now the hazards of carbon monoxide are better known and the City is now aware of this particular hazard in a rental property. Udell asked again why the installation of carbon monoxide detectors wouldn't be sufficient? Hennes explained that detectors can only warn about a potential hazard; they do not eliminate the hazard. Walker said it is a safety issue that should not be overlooked. Udell stated that she thought the law did not give the Board that ability- only the ability to "maintain" the property. Hennes said it was his understanding the property was not being maintained to the level of safety that was required at the time of construction. Udell reiterated that prior certifications have to mean something and they had the right to rely on those certifications that said the property was being maintained in a good and safe condition. Roffman asked Dulek to address that issue. Dulek said that sadly mistakes happen and the City is immune to claims based on errors in inspections. She said the Board has to decide if City staffs interpretation of "good and safe working condition" means that this particular situation must comply with the building code. She understands the owner's situation but that's what it comes down to. Udell asked for clarification of the housing code section that states the City cannot require retroactive structural changes. Hennes said the solutions offered are not structural changes. Laverman elaborated that the City was not telling her to remove a staircase or take a beam out or remove roof trusses - her options to provide outside combustion air and gasketed doors or remove the shower were not structural. Roffman asked if anyone had any further questions or comments. Udell reiterated that she did not see how the term "maintaining" could be stretched that far. McDonough said he understood the applicant's predicament but that he just could not ignore the safety concerns —especially if children moved in. He hoped there might be a compromise where the situation could be remedied when the appliances were updated. Roffman said he did not think $1500.00 was a hardship and that the Board should address the issue now and not place this situation on a new owner. Health and safety issues should not be circumvented. Udell said this situation has existed for 25 years — how is this now a health and safety issue? Laverman made the point that, as the furnace and water heater age, the chances of malfunction increase. MOTION: Roffman moved that the appeal be denied based on the fact that a health and safety issue exists and, even though it had been missed on previous inspections, it doesn't nullify the situation. Seconded by Walker. Further discussion None VOTE: The appeal was denied with a unanimous vote 4-0. McDonough said he would help the applicant find a contractor who could do the work. Udell asked for the time frame for compliance. Laverman said they would start with 30 days. Udell stated that if this situation was one that required more expensive work to remedy, she would be pursuing further court action because she did not feel the City had the right to require this action. She thanked the Board for their time and said she would find a contractor to do what was required. APPROVED OTHER BUSINESS - Hennes said the Board would be looking at the 2018 codes in a few years. Roffman adjourned the meeting at 4:34 Chairperson, Board of Appeals Date REQUEST FOR A HEARING BEFORE THE BOARD OF APPEALS City Clerk City of Iowa City 410 East Washington Iowa City, Iowa 52240 Property Address: /o l L us I- / HEARING REQUEST FOR: kn> I - �7iQ93 r , *�m� .,e.®oaf #! CI�T�YLO_F IOWA CITY Data: // —/�— /6 ❑ Appeal of Notice of Housing Code Violation. ❑ Request for a Variance from Housing Code Section Appeal the decision of the Building Official or Fire Chief (attach copy of decision) because: S (1) There are practical difficulties involved In carrying out the provisions of this code. Practical difficulties means that: (a) the strict letter of this code Is impractical; (b) the modification is in conformance with the intent and purpose of this code; and (c) such modification does not lessen any fire -protection requirements or any degree of structural integrity; or (2) Any material, alternate design or method of construction not specifically prescribed by this code is appropriate. Any material, alternate design or method of construction is appropriate if: (a) the Proposed design is satisfactory and complies with the provision of this code; and (b) the material, method or work offered is, for the purpose intended, at least the equivalent of that prescribed in this code in suitability, strength, effectiveness, fire resistance, durability, safety and sanitation; or A3) The building officiaUFlre chief has incorrectly interpreted a provision of the code; or ❑ (4) The provisions of the code do not fully apply. State all code provisions applicable to the appeal. Explain basis for appeal. SEE �tTACh4ED Attach relevant supporting documentation. Signature: Please print name: Address: `v'?7 44-w O RC,,- .04 C &CV4f rgg%f- Daytime Phone #: cam/ S5L/ g2q-peicrr� S,t FILING FEE — $100.00 hl86191rgglhigfim.doc 4/15 REQUEST FOR A HEARING BEFORE THE IOWA CITY BOARD OF APPEALS-, BY , NEIGHBORS OF MANVILLE HEIGHTS ASSOCIATION, Karin Southard, President, ANNE LAHEY, CRAIG SYROP & ANNE SADLER, BILL & KAREN ACKERMAN, and BRADLEY & CATHERINE ERICKSON, REQUESTORS Neighbors of Manville Heights Association (NMHA), Karin Southard, President, Anne Lahey, Craig Syrop & Anne Sadler, Bill & Karen Ackerman and Bradley & Catherine Erickson (hereafter, collectively, "Requestors") request a hearing before the Iowa City Board of Appeals to contest an action dated October 19, 2016, a LIFT STOP WORK ORDER decision made by Building Official Doug Boothroy, or persons working under his supervision, related to the proposed construction of a very large entertainment venue in an RS-5 zone at 101 Lusk Avenue, a paved road 155 feet, 5 inches in length and twenty feet wide, with parking on one side, by property owners F. Reed Carlson and Sandra Carlson. A copy of that decision is marked as Exhibit A and is attached hereto. Drawings submitted by the Carlson depict an approximately 7500 square foot structure (that does not include the square footage of a very large interior courtyard; if included, the structure would measure approximately 9,000 square feet), designed to replicate the appearance of Kinnick Stadium, principally to be used for large entertainment events, used accessorily for residential purposes. As proposed, the entertainment venue's plumbing infrastructure includes: multiple bathrooms (men's, with urinals, and women's, with stalls, each with lockers/storage units); showers to accommodate guests, including those using a multi -story basketball court; commercial -grade kitchen facilities; bars (and tables) sized larger than many commercial establishments in Iowa City. The proposed structure replaces a dwelling constructed in 1911, approximately l /5t' the size of the Kinnick Replica, which the Carlsons demolished. No part of the original structure remains in -place. The Carlsons propose to use for their new building a private sewer line: that traverses 2 private properties without any written easement agreement: that was unknown to affected aajoining neighbors; that was unused for many years; and that was disconnected by the Carlsons when they demolished the original house in early 2016. Requestors challenge the effect of an unlawful issuance of the LIFT STOP WORK ORDER by Doug Boothroy on October 19, 2016, which, if not reversed by the Board of Appeals, will result in the construction of a building that fails to comply with certain provisions of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Iowa City over which The Board of Appeals has jurisdiction of review and the power to modify and correct actions of City Officials. The challenges of Requestors include, but may not be limited to, the following: The proposed building fails to comply with the International Plumbing Code, the International Residential Code (IRC) and thus the International Building Code (IBC) requiring a proper separate private sanitary sewer connection between a building such as the one proposed byhe Carlsons and a public sanitary sewer, in violation of Iowa City Code & 16-30-5 and associated Provisions of the IRC. A. The Building Official's approval of the Carlsons' Site Plan and Building Permit Application for a residential structure violated the Iowa City Code of Ordinances and Iowa law because the submitted documents do not show, and the building, as proposed, does not have, a private separe sanitary sewer connecting the proposed structure to the Cityks sews' main. B. Perhaps without precedent in the history of the City's issuance of ," + i7 Building Permits for new residential construction, the proposed buildin' at 101 Lusk Avenue, as approved by the City, has no provision for a private separate sanitary sewer —no such sewer for a building equipped with a gymnasium, locker rooms, multiple bathrooms with toilets, sinks and urinals, and a commercial grade kitchen that is designed to host 200 people for party events. C. This is contrary to the Uniform Plumbing Code 2015 (UBC 2015 331.0), which states that, "The drainage system for each new building... shall be separate and independent from that of any other building and, where available, every building shall have an independent connection with a public or private sewer." D. This is also contrary to the definition of many states and jurisdictions throughout the United States. For example, "single family dwelling" contained in the Iowa Uniform Landlord Tenant Act, Iowa Code § 562A.6.13 (2016) states as follows: "Single family residence" means a structure maintained and used as a single dwelling unit. Notwithstanding that a dwelling unit shares one or more walls with another dwelling unit, it is a single family residence if it has direct access to a street or thoroughfare and shares neither heating facilities, nor water equipment, nor any other essential facility or service with another dwelling unit. E. No provision of the City Code or Iowa law allows the Carlsons to "grandfather" in non -conforming uses to a sanitary sewer line that they demolished and capped. As considered in Iowa City code 14-4E4A, the prior residential home at 101 Lusk Avenue was not destroyed or damaged by fire, explosion, act of God or by a public enemy, provisions that are required to allow a non -conforming use of the property. F. When the Carlsons demolished the century -old residential home at that location, they also terminated its access to a non -conforming, aging sanitary sewer that had been tied to neighbors' private sewer lines — unbeknownst to those neighbors. In addition, while the existing home may have been grandfathered-in to this use, the private sanitary sewer line at 101 Lusk Avenue had not been used for years prior to the Carlsons' demolition of that property and resulting termination of its connection to this shared sewer. 13 r G_ G. A prior owner of 101 Lusk Avenue, Mr. Oliveira, with Prds(ige Properties, LLC, hired licensed civil engineers (Hart -Frederick s Consultants, October 1, 2015) to review the shared sanitary! -sewer.,; situation and reported to the City that the aged sanitary sewer liner -in its present condition, was not capable of handling safely the waste for two much smaller new homes that Mr. Oliveira had proposed to construct at that same property. H. The City, with respect to Mr. Oliveira's proposal, originally insisted that the owner either install a new sewer line to Lusk Avenue, or show proof that there existed a written Easement Agreement between 101 Lusk Avenue and neighbors to the north (Requestors Anne Lahey; Anne Sadler & Craig Syrop) whose property interests would be threatened by the added sewerage of newly constructed buildings to the existing shared sanitary sewer line. Ultimately, the City would have required Mr. Oliveira to build a newly constructed sewer, running in the Lusk Ave right-of-way to Bayard Street, and withdrew any option of sharing the private sewer line. I. Statements by the City, when approving a Building Permit for the Carlsons, suggest that the Kinnick Replica's sanitary sewer line will be connected to a non -conforming private sanitary sewer line installed in 1927, and ostensibly once shared by properties to the North of 101 Lusk Avenue and owned by Requestors Anne Lahey, Craig Syrop and Anne Sadler, respectively. However, any such past connection between the private sanitary sewer line for 101 Lusk Avenue and the contiguous properties owned by Requestors Lahey, Syrop and Sadler, had been without the knowledge of these Requestors and was disconnected by the Carlsons. J. No notice of the City's position, that approval of a Building Permit for the Mnnick Replica was based on an assumed connection to others' private sewer line, was given to Requestors Lahey, Sadler or Syrop. No such written Easement Agreement was ever suggested, proposed, created or existed at the time the Carlsons purchased 101 Lusk Avenue or submitted their Site Plan and Application for Building Permit to the City. K. The Carlsons have not subsequently secured the right, by way of any written Easement Agreement with any neighboring property owner(s), to impose their sewage into the shared sewer line or to construct a new sanitary sewage line to traverse adjacent properties owned by the very persons who object to the Carlsons' proposed entertainment venue. L. Requestors Lahey, Sadler and Syrop, pursuant to Iowa Code Chapter 564 have served Notices upon each of the Carlson that any claim to any easement rights they have, or that they believe they may have, to push sewerage upon their property has been terminated. The Carlsons have taken no action, as required by Iowa statute, to obtain a forced easement over the properties of Requestors Lahey, Sadler or Syrop. M. The Carlsons have not proposed any plans to the City, nor has the City reviewed or approved as a part of any Site Plan review or Building Permit process, to construct a sanitary sewer on City right-of-way on Lusk Avenue to connect with the nearest City sewer main on Bayard Street. N. The absence of any provisions for the installation of a private sewer line for what the Carlsons have mis-characterized as a single family dwelling, is contrary to applicable provisions of the International Residential Code (IRC). That Code, incorporated by reference into the Iowa City Code, at section IRC R202, specifically requires that dwelling units must include "...permanent provisions for... sanitation." (Emphasis added). Plans submitted by the Carlsons to, and approved by, the City, lack any description or portrayal of lawful plans to connect the structure's private sewer line to the City's sanitary sewer main. O. The private sanitary sewer line was never made subject to any easement agreement. Moreover, once Requestors Anne Lahey, Craig Syrop and Anne Sadler learned of the situation, they each issued and served upon each of the Carlson a Notice, pursuant to Iowa Code Chapter 564, terminating any ostensible easement interests that the Carlsons claimed to have. P. The City, knowing of the absence of any easement, knowing that thg Carlsons had voluntarily demolished the existing residential:dwelIGg and had capped the prior private sewer line, knowing of the termination 54 Notices served upon the Carlsons, knowing of the civil engineer's opinion concerning the poor condition of the 1927 sewer lirte„ ands'' knowing of no other means by which the Carlsons planned io connei ct their planned building's private sewer line to the City's sewer main, as required by IRC R202 and associated IBC provisions, proceeded, wrongfully and unlawfully, to approve the Building Permit. 2. The proposed building fails to comply with minimum requirements of the 2015 International Fire Code (IFC), which the City has adopted, and, therefore the City's lifting a Stop Work Order to allow the construction of the Carlsons' proposed Kinnick Replica building is unlawful. A. Section 7-1, City Code, requires the construction of turnarounds at the ends of dead-end streets that are longer than 150 feet. That Lusk Avenue's paved surface is 155 feet, 6 inches in length is not disputed. The turnaround requirement arises from international standards meant to protect public safety and to assure that emergency vehicles summoned to dead-end locations are not damaged when attending to emergency calls or delayed in responding to other emergency calls after having been dispatched to the dead-end location. In this instance, remarkably, the City's Fire Marshal imposed the IFC's turnaround requirement, for the same property (101 Lusk Avenue), less than one year earlier, for a developer -owner who had proposed not one very large building, but, rather, two much smaller houses on the same lots. In this instance, however, he did not impose the requirement —even though the requirements are triggered by street length. The IFC does not contain exceptions for "existing dead end streets" with new construction "infiI]s." Yet, the reason given by the Fire Marshal, and approved by the Building Official, for not requiring turnarounds to be constructed as a part of the Carlsons' planned construction of a massive new building meant to attract large crowds is because Lusk Avenue is an "existing dead end street" subject to "infill" development. 7 B. The IFC requires unobstructed street widths of at least 20 feet. Th�c t undisputed evidence is that Lusk Avenue, with parking pernkdkii Qrs one -- side, does not provide this clearance. C. The IFC requires certain minimum fire flow, measured by gallons per minute, to be accessible to fire fighters. Testing was conducted by the City, at the request of experts retained by Requestors, to determine whether minimum requirements were met. According to the report issued by those experts, when the size and composition of the materials to be used by the Carlsons in their construction of the Kinnick Replica building, the rFC minimum requirements for minimal quantities of available hydrant water were not met. SUMMARY AND REQUEST FOR BEARING The Requestors respectfully request that the Board of Appeals consent to the consideration of Requestors' Appeal and, upon consent to the same, set this matter for hearing at which time Requestors can provide additional documentary and testimonial evidence. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Requestors seek a determination by the Members of the Board of Appeals that decision(s) of the Building Official and the Fire Chief, resulting in the City's LIFT STOP WORK ORDER, dated October 19, 2016, has been in error and should be rescinded and that the Stop Work Order should be re -issued and should remain in effect if and until the unlawful defects as described herein have been remedied and made compliant with applicable law. Enc: Exhibit A el C. Larew Attorney for Requestors Case Status of 101 Lusk Ave - a d x a 4 t tJ W a �nZoo y a a r w O ❑ 3 m M y U CD N W m 45 O t CD 'C N _ Y 3 J m E Q c�E W C v W� W O❑ m O c O o m'Fkx c O -- w �D be >UO 8oW3 9oIL s 9 - fi L N ° L2� to).3oa r.- O 20 W L � O! w Y� O c ❑ O. �ggy M1.�' W cc i.Y m G T Qw 00 CL C L aE .0 CLC C m2 CL C o..°im03 tU v) Z : cNi of 4 O m 3 o rD w L N »L+ N .m 0 5a1 � ❑ Im _w €_ ya L. m a C O C Y LO :Q U y C W O c C O c o m9 o �m C U H �� �m E '� s c E m 3�� O W > o c N to N w y 0 Y N N OtaS O � C U c' 3 m m c_o. 'NE y Y N :s c � Q) -- c m s cm C a > O O O U ❑ Q W mLm. O 'SR of x 2 W P CD m o C U O L W o m "> ) N O N N m L a "momL a) cc W o c E v E E (AZQ1- `OP a >. .Ec G W ROD z e 2E o. MOM � Vl N = M 0 c w W L co ON N w Q v� c ❑ o g�S N E� tm y O. m m� a-6 = 01 c inZD:(0 w ZO J m a E a N LL w O 0 fn µF _ (9.w r i to co Rto:,s'-- yy®®� Cc YU Y w co a m 7 N N N N > Q ^y N U U o m o F w o € CD am rn m o a m m m m S O O m E y p m N yN 66 O O O O O O C y cc p p W C i0 cO to N Q. tu ❑ D R 0 'tp m Y .N 0 9 ❑ ❑ ❑ .� C W .p M o._ ° v E o o G O ❑ ,Z_+ A V U.S S c0 N ,y OR OR J _a$ �ma dN.- ccv a.N -5 0 (l) m N .N � a e❑�pIV: Im asa d to ioo m Ash= ata• o._¢ _A N ° o E U N Q N N W a G z w z N LU z z z Y w N 7 Uf ❑ .� ❑ A ❑ ❑ S Q' p a N ai (gyp 7 7 j C •L� m in N m 0 m �m �m m� y) � a) O p lz � wA w in in cn 9 o a .0 LL y J > co0 E U. li m K N d V O1 l0 C a E a� a U. r a E °� * r is c p ua N C W N N 7 N M Y. z a w iL LL ?.. d > m Cori a A o °i m t° U w c Y Oy C7 C7 U' C7 U' o N W v v a ❑ O � F- FI E M J HW �?04 �o� m `iv �m-��Q'S � E 4 � � �S � � � d � 7nzv r�zm in w inz° �i ; a a z z z m' w F c° W '' wa \ \ ¥ 0 } / \ V, » 0 j ƒ % to §! z {CL \ 04 a)0 LU k \{ \ \ -\ 2\ -\� I-W - ®-a a a '2 �i §) \$ t{{ee{f\b000 °7 « o\ (f- {\(n_,C\ =(% <(te\ ¥aƒkn 22�/a );2a.\a_j 7>■�s/7§E)>q�+ Ia co a) IL a) o ow� o a), a)n; |\i;) !t|»(© ■ , ; IL « 04 ju Ul k 99 wi o ;j« % § ` 2 I U. _ } u k § � § § m ■ 0 0 a:■ k z co 0 U449 � » » « W . } 'ul §%k � \ / § 1ur40r4 k\2° j \k�0 _ e 2 2 Is 9 ! '� Opp 4 Gpi i o � 0.' '� Ci P G i� • 1 0 O I G � B N O p O 6 rY .4 4 +-� VJ 1 ; s � ' i i � r � � =urc � � i � cs � � v�i '�° � ' 1 � az,. X Fg-I ~ G C W b'} Y 'IY � � Y,A � � iC t- .-. a � Y G p ,-� G a U ti N F� o� .ti W � W� F" W W Q M Rl � � .-i Y M M Y S R rva 4� � O $ W N d ¢i v:i r�-i � ' G J� Q N � O K *c� � � r [C CC [� W 4 S d f4 1 LTA C` .�e w G 'a � � � rl cY VC}9 �i O M W �C� .ti N ..a u x Y G f� �! U_ V TO: BOARD OF APPEALS FROM: SUSAN DULEK, ASS'T. CITY ATTORNE DATE: 12/2/16 RE: APPEAL —101 LUSK AVENUE This sets forth the legal argument on behalf of City staff regarding why the Board of Appeals should deny the appeal without an evidentiary hearing. 1. There is no "decision" to appeal. The Appellants appeal the lifting of the stop work order. On June 29, 2016, Appellants appealed the issuance of the building permit to the Board of Adjustment. Section 414.11 of the Code of Iowa "stays" all proceedings while an appeal is pending before any board of adjustment throughout the state, and as a result, the Building Official issued the stop work order on the same day as the appeal was filed. After the Board of Adjustment made its ruling on September 30, the stay was lifted by operation of the state law (Iowa Code Sections 414.12 and 414.13) that gives the Board of Adjustment the power to decide appeals from the decisions of the Building Official, Section 17-12-2A of the City Code provides that the Board of Appeals has jurisdiction to hear an appeal of "any decision," which includes "any decision, determination, direction, notice, finding or order of the Building Official." The lifting of the stop work order is not a decision. Webster's New World Dictionary (1976) defines "decision" as follows: 1. the act of deciding or settling a dispute or question 2. The act of making up one's nand 3. A judgment or conclusion 4. Determination; firmness of mind. There was no dispute or question when the City lifted the stop work order. The Building Official did not have to make up his mind or reach a judgment or conclusion. The Building Official did not have to determine anything based on a set of facts or make a finding of facts. The lifting of the stop work order was automatic and required by state law. Just as the Board of Appeals would not have had the authority to hear an appeal brought by the Carlson to challenge the issuance of a stop work order after the neighbors appeal to the Board of Adjustment was filed, there is no decision of the Building Official to appeal when it is lifted. In both instances, the action by the staff was dictated by state law, and because staff had no discretion, there was no "decision." Similarly, the lifting of a stop work order was not a "direction" or "order." Lifting of a stop work order is not a direction or order for a person to take any act. To the extent there was a direction or order, it was the State legislature by virtue of the state code that ordered and directed the City to lift the stop work order. 2. If lifting the stop work order is a "decision." it was the correct decision as a matter of law. Section 414.11 of the Code of Iowa required the City to issue a stop work order upon an appeal to the Board of Adjustment. Once the Board of Adjustment made its decision, the City had no other legal option but to lift the stop work order. The only issue for the Board of Appeals is whether the Building Official was required to lift the stay. The law is clear. As a matter of law, he was required to do so. 3. The Appellants filed their anneal too late. Under Section 17-12-2A, a person aggrieved has 30 days to file an appeal of a decision of the Building Official. The decision that the Building Official made, and what Appellants want to argue about, is the issuance of the building permit which was done in May. Appellants did not file their notice of appeal until November 16, several months after the 30 day time period for appeal had run. 4. The Board of Adjustment has already ruled on the le ality of the City staffs decision to issue the buildin permit. Contesting the lifting of the stop work order is a subterfuge; Appellants simply want another bite at the apple. The question of the legality of the issuance of the building permit was the topic of 12 hours of hearing over 3 nights before the Board of Adjustment, In the end, Appellants were unsuccessful before the Board of Adjustment, and they now wish to rehash everything in front of another board. They cannot do this in the judicial context, and they cannot do this in the administrative context. If one is unhappy with the first decision (i.e., the Board of Adjustment decision), then one's recourse is to appeal to the district court which Appellants have done. The legal term to prevent a "do over" in front of another tribunal is "collateral estoppel," which the Iowa Supreme Court describes as follows: Collateral estoppel is also known as issue preclusion. Issue preclusion prevents parties from relitigating in a subsequent action issues raised and resolved in [a] previous action. The doctrine serves several purposes: protecting parties from the vexation of relitigating identical issues, furthering judicial economy by reducing unnecessary litigation, and avoiding the problem of two authoritative but conflicting rulings on the same question. Winger v. CMHoldings, L.L,C., 881 N.W.2d 433 (Iowa 2016) (internal quotations and citations omitted). Courts give preclusive effect to agency decisions, and thus, there is no reason for the Board of Appeals not to give preclusive effect to the Board of Adjustment decision. Id. This avoids the very problem that the concept of issue preclusion seeks to prevent, namely "two authoritative but conflicting rulings on the same question." 5. The Board does not have suthorlty to bear appeals of the UPC 3310 Section 16-30 5 of the City Code, or Section 562A 5 of the Iowa Code. In the cover page of their appeal, Appellants state that they are appealing "UPC 2015 331.0 and IC §562A.6.13." There is no Section 331 of the UPC. Additionally, the Board has no authority to hear an appeal of Section 562A.6 of the Code of Iowa, which is part of the state residential landlord -tenant law. On page 1 of their appeal, they state the City violates "Iowa City Code § 16- 30-5." There is no such City Code section, and the Board has no authority over Title 16 of the City Code, which is "Public Works." It only has authority over the building and fire codes. CONCLUSION A. The Board of Appeals should consider a motion to deny the appeal because: 1) the lifting of the stop work order is not a "decision" of the Building Official that may be appealed to the Board of Appeals; and, 2) an appeal of the Building Official's decision to issue the building permits is untimely. B. If the motion fails, the Board of Appeals should consider a motion to deny the appeal because the lifting of the stop work order was required by state law and thus the correct decision as a matter of law. C. If that motion fails, the Board of Appeals should consider a motion to deny the appeal because the Board of Adjustment already ruled on the issues. The Board should consider these motions prior to the beginning of an evidentiary hearing. If any motion passes, the Board will not need to hear the merits. l CITY OF r:sWA CITY, .... � �iii IF. Date: November 30, 2016 To: Board of Appeals ! / From: Doug Boothroy, Director, Neighb rhood and Develop ant Services Re: APB16-00003: 101 Lusk Ave peal to the Board of A Deals Contents I. Introduction it. Chronology of Building Permit Review and Approval III. Appeal of Iowa Code Section 562A.6 and Iowa City Code Section 14-4E-4A IV. Compliance with the International Residential Code V. Compliance with the Fire Code VI. Conclusion and Recommendation Exhibits A. Sewer permit #2756 B. 08/25/15 letter from Action Sewer and Septic Service C. 09/14/16 memo from Jason Havel, City Engineer, regarding 101 Lusk Ave. D. 12/01/16 memo from Roger Jensen, Deputy Fire Chief, regarding 101 Lusk Ave. E. Map of fire hydrant locations F. Fire Code Tables 13105.1(2) and C102.1 G. 09/21/16 email from Roger Jensen, Deputy Fire Chief, regarding Fire Code Table C'f02.1; and regarding Fire Code turn-arounds H. Staff response to specific points in the appeal application I. INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND On May 25, 2016 the Development Services Division issued a building permit for a single family dwelling located at 101 Lusk Ave. On June 29, 2016 the appellants filed an appeal to the Board of Adjustment contesting the classification of the proposed home at 101 Lusk Ave. as a single-family dwelling, the approval of a site plan, and the approval of a building permit. 2 The Board of Adjustment did not find error and upheld the classification of the home as a single family dwelling and the issuance of the building permit by a vote of 2-2. Now again, the appellants are appealing the decision of the Building Official and the Fire Chief. This memorandum is to describe the review process used for issuance of a building permit for residential dwellings, including the dwelling at 101 Lusk Ave., and to provide the staff response to the Appeal related to 101 Lusk Ave. In the November 15, 2016 Appeal, appellants allege that: a) the proposed building fails to comply with the International Plumbing Code (IPC), the International Residential Code (IRC), and, thus, the International Building Code (IBC) requiring a proper separate private sanitary sewer connection between a building such as the one proposed by the Carlsons, and a public sanitary sewer, in violation of Iowa City Code section 16-30-5 and associated provision of the IRC; b) The proposed building fails to comply with the minimum requirements of the 2015 International Fire Code (IFC), which the City has adopted, and, therefore the City's lifting a Stop Work Order to allow the Construction of the Carlsons' proposed home. II. CHRONOLOGY OF BUILDING PERMIT REVIEW AND APPROVAL Typically review and approval of building plans for single family residential structures can be done within a week of being received. In the case of the proposed structure at 101 Lusk Ave., however, the review process took longer due to the unique structure being proposed, the infill lot, and the due diligence staff took in reviewing the plans and in seeking more information about the use of the structure. The applicant applied for a building permit to build a 'two story home' to be located on an existing lot of record at 101 Lusk Ave. Following is the chronology of the approval process for the structure at 101 Lusk Ave.: Building Permit Application Received: Applicant Uploaded Plans: Permit was Issued: Permit was Suspended: 30-day Appeal period ended: Revised Site Plans Submitted: Revise Site Plans Approved: April 6, 2016 April 11, 2016 May 25, 2016 (initial site plan showed the drive access on the south side of the lot) June 14, 2016 (Permit suspended due to the recognition that the proposed driveway did not connect to the paved portion of Lusk Ave., and Lusk Ave. was not being extended) June 24, 2016 June 28, 2016 June 28, 2106 (Plans now showed the drive access on the north side of the lot) Board of Adjustment Appeal Received: June 29, 2016 (Appeal to the Board of Adjustment identified numerous sections of City Code including Title 14: Zoning Code; Title 16: Public Works; and Title 18: Site Plan Review) Stop Work Order Issued: June 29, 2016 Board of Adjustment Meeting Written Decision of Board of Adjustment Appeal recorded: Lift Stop Work Order: September 30, 2016 (A motion to grant the requested appeals to the Board of Adjustment was denied on a 2-2 vote i.e. the City's decision was upheld) October 19, 2016 October 19, 2016 (Lifting the suspension on the building permit with the following notes): 1. Locate and mark property pins 2. Fence property lines, including along Lusk right of way with orange construction fence. 3. Erosion control must be in place and installed during construction to prevent erosion onto adjacent properties and Lusk Ave right of way 4. Any work in the right of way must be reviewed and approved by Iowa City Engineering Department. III. APPEAL OF IOWA CODE SECTION 562A.6 AND IOWA CITY CODE SECTION 144E-4A In their appeal, Appellants state they are appealing based on Iowa Code Section 562A.6, which is part of the state residential landlord -tenant law. This code section is not under the Board of Appeals' purview, and the Board of Appeals has no authority to hear an appeal based on tenant -landlord law. Similarly, Appellants state they are appealing based on City Code Section 14-4E-4A, which is part of the Iowa City Zoning Code Nonconforming Use chapter. The Board of Appeals has no authority to hear an appeal based on the Zoning Code. See the attached memo from Assistant City Attorney Sue Dulek. IV. COMPLIANCE WITH THE INTERNATIONAL RESIDENTIAL CODE A. The International Building Code is not applicable. Iowa City has adopted the 2015 International Building Code (IBC) and the 2015 International Residential Code (IRC) as the 'building codes' under which building plans are reviewed. See Section 17-1 of the City Code. This is consistent with most other cities in the country. The IBC specifically exempts detached one- and two-family dwellings, and states that these structures are to be reviewed under the IRC: The scope of the International Residential Code for One- and Two — Family Dwellings applies to the construction, alteration, movement, enlargement, replacement, repair, equipment, use and occupancy, location, removal and demolition of detached one. and two-family dwellings and townhouses not more than three stories above grade plane in 4 height with a separate means of egress and their accessory structures not more than three stories above grade plane in (IRC R101.2) The purpose of the IRC is to establish the minimum requirements to provide a reasonable level of safety, public health and general welfare through structural strength, means of egress facilities, stability, sanitation, adequate light and ventilation, energy conservation, and safety to life and property from fire and other hazards attributed to the built environment and to provide a reasonable level of safety to fire fighters and emergency responders during emergency operations (IRC R101.3) The IRC defines 'dwelling' as any building that contains one or two dwelling units used, intended, or designed to be built, used, rented, leased, let or hired out to be occupied, or that are occupied for living purposes. It also defines dwelling unit as a single unit providing complete independent living facilities for one or more persons, including permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking and sanitation (IRC R202) B. The City has compiled with the IRC and IFC The appellants are contesting that "The proposed building fails to comply with the International Plumbing Code, the International Residential Code (IRC) and, thus, the International Building Code (IBC) requiring a proper separate private sanitary sewer connection between a building. . " The Appellants' allegations can be broken down into two general issues: First, will the new home have a sewer drainage system that is compliant with the 2015 Uniform Plumbing Code; Second, will the Fire Department access and water flow be adequate to protect the new home. The City granted permission for the shared private sewer (shared by the three lots on the west side of Lusk Ave.) in 1927 (see Exhibit A). On March, 9, 2016 the owner was issued a permit to demolish the existing home at 101 Lusk Ave. The house was demolished. On April 6, 2016 the owner applied to build a new home at 101 Lusk Ave. The City was not called to inspect for termination of the existing water and sewer to the site. This is not uncommon when the intent is to build a new structure on the existing lot that has a permitted sewer service. From the City's perspective, the sewer service to 101 Lusk Ave. was disconnected but never terminated (i.e. capped, terminated within five feet of the property line, and inspected). A copy of a letter from Action Sewer & Septic Service dated 08/25/15 states the sewer line was water jetted (ran three times) from City manhole into house and they determined the sewer line would be able to handle two new buildings. (See Exhibit B). The letter states "The line starts as 4" cast and goes to 6" bell hub tile." This information along with Permit to Make Sewer Connection #2756 was used to confirm the size of the sewer system. 101 Lusk Ave. is served by a 4" cast pipe service which will accommodate 216 fixture units, according to the 2015 Uniform Plumbing Code. The 4" sewer line connects to a 6" private sewer that also serves the other two homes on Lusk Ave. A 6" pipe will accommodate 720 fixture units. The number of fixtures shown on the plans for 101 Lusk Ave, is 50 fixture units, which is substantially under the 4 inch limit of 216. Staff did assume the two existing Lusk Ave. structures that connect to the private 6" sewer main do not have enough plumbing fixtures to exceed 670 fixture units, the remaining capacity of the 6" pipe. The City did investigate and confirm the existing City sewer main is adequate to accommodate the flow from the new home proposed by the Carlsons (See Exhibit C). The Carlsons understand that the property cannot be occupied without sewer service and that a certificate of occupancy will not be issued until sewer service is provided. Sewer service is available (public or private) and the Carlsons will be able to comply with the IRC. V. COMPLIANCE WITH THE FIRE CODE Lusk Avenue is twenty feet (20') wide and that is the minimum standard for a Fire Department access, as required in the 2015 International Fire Code (IFC). The fact that the City allows parking on one side of the street does not prohibit issuance of a Building Permit for the new home on an existing lot of record. There are other streets in Iowa City with residences on 20-foot streets where parking is allowed, including Rowland Court just to the east of Lusk Ave. (See Exhibit D) There is an existing fire hydrant in the public right of way near the northeast corner of the 101 Lusk Ave. property and another hydrant within 400 feet near the intersection of Bayard St. and Lexington Ave. Based on information provided by the Iowa City Fire Department these hydrants provide the necessary water flow required for the new home (See Exhibits E, F & G). Lusk Ave. is approximately 155 feet in length, which exceeds the maximum length of 150 feet the code specifies when a turnaround is required. Since this is an existing lot of record and fire department access is provided to the site, installation of a turnaround in the public right of way is not the responsibility of the lot owner, and cannot be required. This is consistent with the City's practice of allowing for the issuance of building permits (remodels and new construction) on existing lots of record on dead-end streets in Iowa City, including other streets in the Manville Heights neighborhood (e.g. Rowland Ct., Hutchinson Ave., etc.) Exhibit D goes into more detail on the fire department access, water flow and turnaround issues. V. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION When the City issued the building permit for 101 Lusk Ave., the property had (and still has) a sewer service to the property. The 4" service connects to a 6" private sewer main, which connects to an 8" public sewer main. The private 6" sewer main was permitted by the City in 1927, and staff confirmed it has capacity to serve the proposed home. If use of the private sewer main is terminated by the appellants, the Carlsons have the ability to extend a public sewer main to their property. 2. Lusk Ave. meets the minimum requirements for Fire Department access. The hydrants near the 101 Lusk Ave, property have adequate water flow according to the Fire Code standards. The Fire Department is not requiring a turn -around, consistent with the practice of not requiring turn -grounds for buildings on existing lots of record on dead-end streets (including other streets in the Manville Heights neighborhood). 3. 101 Lusk Ave. is an existing lot of record. A subdivision of the property, which would trigger City authority to require upgrades to infrastructure, is not being requested (such as was the case when Mike Oliveira previously owned the property). All that was requested was a building permit for an existing lot that has a permitted sewer service and access from an existing public street (Lusk Ave.) 4. The Board of Appeals does not have the authority to hear appeals to the Zoning Code (Title 14), State Code Section 562A, nor to Public Works Chapter 16-3D-5, 5. Staff recommends APB16-00003, an appeal of decisions of the Building Official and Fire Chief related to 101 Lusk Ave., be denied. r I 2 \�{`2��� :\ co t jk 3619 Taft Avenue G. E. Iowa City, IA. 52240 Telephone. 319-354-2784 FAX. 319-351-2749 08,25/15 To Whom It May Concern: E-1 BIT i. After televising the sewer fine at 101 Lusk Stand locating where it goes. I believe the sewer line would be able to handle two new buildings after it is water Jetted from the road back. The line starts as 4" cast and goes to 6" bell hub tile. The cast has some scale in it that would need to be removed and the die has some roots that would need to be removed. Mark Dawson Action Sewer & Septic Services, Inc. E7i111BR —� DATE: September 14, 2016, TO: Doug Boothroy, Neighborhood and Development Services Director FROH: Jason Havel, City Engineer RE: 101 Lusk Avenue With the proposed single-family development at 101 Lusk Avenue, there have been concerns raised by some opposed to the project. In an effort to address some of. these concerns, please note the following information: Sewer Service Based on available Information, it is our understanding the house previously at 101 Lusk Avenue was serviced by a 4" sanitary sewer service line. This line tied into a 6" private sanitary sewer main that runs behind the houses at t 11 and 117 Lusk Avenue, before tying into the 8" public sanitary sewer at a manhole located at the intersection of Bayard Street and Lexington Avenue. Records show a permit was approved for the sanitary service to this property in 1927. It is my opinion the capacity of the system is sufficient based on the proposed users and the size of the existing sanitary service and mains. When the previously demolished house was located on the lot, the existing sanitary service was a permitted and operational service that provided direct access from the house to the public sanitary sewer system, as required by Code. In my opinion, the existing sanitary service can be reused by the proposed new single-family home because It is an existing permitted sanitary sewer service that ties into the public sanitary sewer system, and the proposed use is replacing the previous similar use. However, the property owner will be responsible for maintenance and repair (including possible replacement) of the 4" sanitary service line as necessary to maintain it in working order. In addition, the property owner at 101 Lusk Avenue will share similar responsibilities for the 6" private sanitary sewer main that is shared with the property owners at 111 and 117 Lusk Avenue. These responsibilities are consistent with those of owners of existing sanitary sewer services and shared private sewer mains within Iowa City. A requirement of installing new public sanitary sewer along Lusk Avenue has also been discussed in relation to the proposed project at 101 Lusk Avenue. This was a requirement for a proposed project from the previous property owner (Prestige Properties, LLC). The difference between the proposals from the current and previous property owners is that the proposal from the previous owner included a subdivision of the existing lot into two separate lots with new homes, while the existing owner has proposed a new single-family home on the existing lot. Site Drainage The property at 101 Lusk Avenue generally slopes such that drainage from the site will travel to the south and east, into existing City and/or railroad right-of-way. Based on Iowa drainage law, the City of Iowa City allows overland drainage from properties to occur in situations where the drainage is reasonably following the existing terrain and does not create additional damage to neighboring properties or right-of-way. The City allows properties to be graded such that runoff enters the right-of-way from adjacent private property with the condition that the runoff is not concentrated such that it causes erosion or other damage where it is entering the right-of-way. Any additional runoff from development at 101 Lusk Avenue will be required to be managed as September 14, 2016 - Page 2 to not damage the 'areas where It enters the right-of-way. These requirements are consistent with other properties within the City. LUSK. Avenue is a dead-end street with pavement that terminates in front of 101 Lusk Avenue, but the Lusk Avenue right-of-way extends to the railroad right-of-way to the south. Currently, the and of Lusk Avenue does not include curb or other means to stop stone water from traveling down the hill to the south within the ROW. Strom water that reaches the end of Lusk Avenue is generated from areas within the right-of-way, as well as surrounding private properties, which is common within Iowa City. Over time, some erosion has occurred where storm water generally travels from the end of Lusk Avenue to the south within the right-of-way, This Is an existing condition, and does not appear to have been caused by any recent activity at 101 Lusk Avenue. Where erosion is present within the right-of-way, the City typically accepts responsibility for mitigating any erosion concerns. It is possible that development at 101 Lusk Avenue will result In additional runoff from the property, which will need to be addressed as discussed above. However, any additional runoff directed to the right-of-way in an acceptable manner will be addressed as needed by the City of Iowa City, as is our typical practice. Should you have any questions or need for additional information, please feel free to contact me, "Smdng avith Pride and Ptnfessionalism Since 1872" RfiEM0E AMDUit D(HIB1T TO: City of Iowa City Board of Appeals FROM: Roger Jensen, Deputy Fire Chief SUBJECT: 101 Lusk Avenue appeal 6 DATE: December 1, 2016 Appellants request for a hearing dated 11/15/2016, suggests that sections of the Iowa City Fire Code have been incorrectly interpreted by the fire chief. Specifically, A. IFC 503.2.5, Dead ends. Dead-end fire apparatus access roads in excess of 150 feet in length shall be provided with an approved area for turning around fire apparatus. The Iowa City Fire Department has not applied this code section to existing streets where infill development occurs. Apparatus turnarounds are not connected to life safety concerns. To require apparatus turnarounds on existing streets would be excessive and impractical. The IFC Commentary provides clarity to the purpose of this code section by stating, "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 intends to create a safer situation by requiring that dead-end roads over 150 feet long be equipped with an approved turnaround designed for the largest anticipated emergency response vehicles. " B. IFC 503.2.1, Dimensions. Fire apparatus access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 20 feet, exclusive of shoulders, except for approved security gates in accordance with Section 503.6, and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than 13 feet 6 inches. Lusk Avenue is 20 feet wide with parking allowed on one side of the street. Lusk Avenue meets the width requirements if parking is prohibited. The Iowa City Fire Department has relied on experiential surveys to determine if there is a need to restrict parking where previously allowed. The City retains the right to restrict all parking if necessary. C. Table B 105.1(2), Required Fire -Flow for One- and Two- Family Dwellings, Group R-3 and R-4 Buildings and Townhouses; Table C102.1, Required Number and Spacing of Fire Hydrants Table B 105.1(2), prescribes a fire flow requirement of 2,250 gallons per minute (gpm) for the proposed building. Table C102.1, prescribes the minimum number of hydrants necessary to meet the above gpm to be 2. The fire hydrant in the Lusk Avenue right-of-way was tested and delivered 1,564 gpm. The fire hydrant at Bayard and Lexington would need to deliver 686 gpm to completely satisfy the requirement. The hydrant at Bayard and Lexington is fed from two distinct 6" mains and is expected to deliver far in excess of the required 686 gpm. EXHIBIT SEt` +CP C05 1F EM115NITS FOR -Rl1fWNW TABLE 13105.7(2) RM-73A%40 . YA3LE i=OR TA=313 ; M05,1(1) AWD L: 05.2 RRE-FLOW CALCULATiONAREA nmf FIRE FLOW (gallons per aft!!) FLOW DURATIOk (hours) Type IA and HrITYpe IIA and NIA IV and V-X'Tm Na and BE T a V B' 0.22,70D 042,700 0.6 Wo 02,60D 1 2 22,70120200 12,T01-17,0D0 %201-10,900 5,9Dt-T,900 9601 ,800 1,750 30.201 700 17001-21800 10901-12,9DO 7,901.9,800 4.801-8200 2 38.701.48,300 21,801 200 1 901-17,40D 9,801-1 6W 1-7700 2 D 46=-59,0D0 24,201.33,200 17,40121,300 12.501-15,400 7,701-9p00 2,500 59,001-70 900 39,201-3900 21301.25,t 00 15 40148 400 9 401-11300 2 750 T0,9D1$9700 3970117,100 25,501 30,10f1 ISO00 11,301-19,400 3,000 3 83.701.97,700 47,101.54,900 30,10196200 21,801-258D0 13,401-15,60D 3250 97701Al2,700 .901-63.400 35201.4Q6W 19"--29900 16,601-18,000 3,6OD t12,701-t28,7 63,401-72,4DO 40,601-W 48,4 29,301-33,500 18,001-20,600 3,750 The table above (Table B105.1(2)) indicates the fire flow required for buildings. The building size for the 101 Lusk Ave. property requires an available fire flow of 2,250 gallons per minute (GPM). The table below (Table C102.1) indicates the minimum number of hydrants that must be available to meet the building size fire flow requirement. A minimum of two hydrants are required. As noted in the HBK report, there are two hydrants within 400 feet of the 101 Lusk Ave. property. With the two hydrants, the required fire flow is met. SECTION C102 NUMBER OF FIRE HYDRANTS 0102,1 r 7in(mum number of fire hydrants for a building. The number of lire hydrants available to a building shah be not less than the minimum specified In Table 0102.1. TABLE C102.1 REeUIRED NUWJBER AMD SPACING OF FIRE HYDRANTS FIRE -FLAW REQUIREMENT (9111") MINIMUM NUMBER OF HYDRANTS AVERAGE SPACING BETWEEN HYDRANTS+ 4xta MAXRAUM DISTANCE FROM ANY POINT ON STREET OR ROAD FRONTAGETOANYDRAWtf 1,7 Oor ksa 1 60D 250 OOO,i,250 2 450 226 2 500 3 460 226 3.000 3 400 225 3 50D-4000 4 360 210 4,60D3 000 5 3DD 180 5,500 6 300 ISO 600D 6 250 - 150 6,600-7000 T 250 ISO 7,500 Or mare aamas• 200 120 F. IBrr John Yapp From: Roger Jensen Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2016 3:09 PM To: Doug Boothroy Cc: John Yapp; Roger Jensen Subject: 101 Lusk Avenue hbk Engineering Summary of Findings — There is inadequate fire flow available for the proposed building Table C102.1 of the International Fire Code (supplied by hbk) states a minimum of 2 hydrants are required for the fire flow required for the proposed building. hbk also states, "There is a fire hydrant located in the Lusk Avenue right-of-way near the northeast corner of the subject property and another located at the intersection of Bayard Street and Lexington Avenue. Each of these hydrants is within 400 feet of the proposed building." The fire hydrant on Lusk is a very good hydrant, providing 1,564 gallons per minute. That amount actually exceeds the pumping capacity of our engines which is 1,500 gpm. The fire hydrant at Lusk along with the second hydrant and pumping engine at Bayard and Lexington will provide the additional 750 gpm necessaryto comply with the required fire - flow. The statement that fire flows are inadequate is false. There is Inadequate access for fire apparatus The adopted fire code requires "approved" turn around for access roads longer than 150 feet. The International Fire Code and Commentary clarifies the purpose of apparatus turnarounds by stating, "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 intends to create a safer situation by requiring that dead-end roads over 150-feet long be equipped with an approved turnaround designed for the largest anticipated emergency -response vehicles." The Iowa City Fire Department has not applied this code section to existing dead end streets where infill development occurs. Apparatus turnarounds are not germane to life safety concerns; Therefore, to require them on existing streets is believed to be impractical and excessive and has not been pursued. Roger W. Jensen I Deputy Fire Chief IOWA CITY FIRE DEPARTMENT 410 E. Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 Office: 319-3584259 1 Cell: 319-330.8646 roger-Jensen@lowa-city.org EXHIBIT — EXHIBIT H — --' STAFF RESPONSE TO SPECIFIC POINTS IN APPEAL APPLICATION l = ° 1 - !Y°.. ::_ • _• 1 - 1 c ! lt_ 1 - . I 11 - i • 1 - 'A A. The Building Official's approval of the Carlsons' Site Plan and Building Permit Application for a residential structure violated the Iowa City Code of Ordinances and Iowa law because the submitted documents do not show, and the building, as proposed, does not have, a private separate sanitary sewer connecting the proposed structure to the City sewer main. Staff Response: City Code Section 16-3D-5 is the section cited by the appellant 16-313-5: CONNECTION TO PUBLIC SANITARY SEWER REQUIRED; EXCEPTIONS: The owners of all houses, buildings or properties used for human occupancy and/or employment, situated within the jurisdiction of the city in which there is now located or may in the future be located a public sanitary sewer of the city are hereby required, at their expense, to install suitable toilet facilities therein and to connect such facilities directly [italics added] to the proper public sanitary sewer in accordance with the provisions of this article within ninety (90) calendar days after date of official notice to do so, provided said public sewer is within three hundred feet (300') of the property line and is accessible without the need to acquire additional property rights. (1978 Code §33-20.13) Conclusion; This code section states that the toilet facilities are to be connected directly to the proper public sanitary sewer. The existing private sewer main serving the Lusk Ave. property does connect directly to an 8" public sewer main; furthermore the private sewer main was permitted by the City since 1927. Conclusion regarding the Board of Appeals' Authority to hear appeals to Section 16 3D 5 Public Works: The Board of Appeals Duties and Authority is limited to those spelled out in the By -Laws: ARTICLE V. DUTIES AND AUTHORITY Section 1. Duties. The Board of Appeals shall hear and decide appeals of orders, decisions or determinations made by the City staff relative to the application and interpretation of the Iowa City Building, Electrical, Mechanical, Plumbing, Dangerous Buildings, Fire and Housing Codes as authorized by City ordinance. The Board shall also review each new edition of the model codes and prepare and recommend any local amendments to City Council for adoption. 2 Hearing an Appeal of Section 16-313-5, which is a part of Title 16: Public Works, is not under the purview of the Board of Appeals. This section is not identified as one of the sections for which the Board of Appeals has Duty and Authority. B. Perhaps without precedent in the history of the City's issuance of Building Permits for new residential construction, the proposed building at 101 Lusk Avenue, as approved by the City, has no provision for a private separate sanitary sewer -no such sewer for a building equipped with a gymnasium, locker rooms, multiple bathrooms with toilets, sinks and urinals, and commercial grade kitchen that is designed to host 200 people for party events. Staff Response: Issuing a building permit for the features identified by the appellant is not without precedent. There are several homes built with several of these features (multiple bathrooms with toilets, sinks and urinals, indoor gyms) and a few with all the features mentioned. Basketball courts at or in single family dwellings may be unusual but they are not prohibited and there are several existing in Iowa City single family homes now. Private Recreational Uses are permitted in residential zones (144A-3A(3)). Other locations with basketball courts include: 1. Woodridge Ave (interior) 2. Camp Cardinal Road (interior) 3. Huntington Dr. (exterior) Furthermore, there are recent projects that are approved with the installation of a new private sewer that will serve multiple one- and two-family dwellings and multifamily dwellings. Lastly, Neither the IRC nor Zoning Code limits the number of people that may be in a dwelling during a social gathering. Conclusion: This accusation is unfounded based on the fact that there are homes constructed with these features and we have multiple areas with private sewers serving several residential type structures. Also, the number of people hosted for a social gathering is not regulated by the IRC. C. This is contrary to the Uniform Plumbing Code 2015 (UBC 2015 331.0), which states that, "The drainage system for each new building... shall be separate and independent from that of any other building and, where available, every building shall have an independent connection with a public or private sewer." Staff Response: There is no Section 331 of the Uniform Plumbing Code, The new home will have an independent connection to an existing permitted private sewer main that also serves two other residences, which are independently connected to the same private sewer main which connects directly to the public sewer main. 3 D. This is also contrary to the definition of many states and jurisdictions throughout the United States. For example, "single family dwelling" contained in the Iowa Uniform Landlord Tenant Act, Iowa Code § 562A.6.13 (2016) states as follows: "Single family residence" means a structure maintained and used as a single dwelling unit. Notwithstanding that a dwelling unit shares one or more walls with another dwelling unit, it is a single family residence if it has direct access to a street or thoroughfare and shares neither heating facilities, nor water equipment, nor any other essential facility or service with another dwelling unit. Staff Response: This is state law regulating rental property and issues between the tenant and landlord. The City has no authority over enforcement of the standard. E. No provision of the City Code or Iowa law allows the Carlsons to "grandfather" in non- conforming uses to a sanitary sewer line that they demolished and capped. As considered in Iowa City code 14-4E-4A, the prior residential home at 101 Lusk Avenue was not destroyed or damaged by fire, explosion, act of God or by a public enemy, provisions that are required to allow a non -conforming use of the property. Staff Response: Code Section 14-4E-4A is a Zoning Code section, and the Board of Appeals does not have the authority to hear appeals of the Zoning Code. The Zoning Code is not listed as part of the duties or authority of the Board of Appeals. In addition, the 101 Lusk Ave. property and proposed home are not non -conforming under the Zoning Code. The previous home was demolished in order for the owner to build a new single family residence on the lot. It is not uncommon for new homes to utilize existing utilities on a previously occupied lot nor is there a code provision that prohibits it. There are several existing and recently approved single family dwellings that are / will be connected to a private sewer. F. When the Carisons demolished the century -old residential home at that location, they also terminated its access to a non -conforming, aging sanitary sewer that had been tied to neighbors' private sewer lines unbeknownst to those neighbors. In addition, while the existing home may have been grandfathered-in to this use, the private sanitary sewer line at 101 Lusk Avenue had not been used for years prior to the Carlson's' demolition of that property and resulting termination of its connection to this shared sewer. Staff Response: A Demolition Permit was issued to demolish the existing house at 101 Lusk Ave knowing the owner was intending to construct a new single family dwelling on the lot. Neither the contractor nor owner called to schedule an inspection verifying proper termination of the existing water and sewer service. The private sewer service was disconnected but never terminated. G. A prior owner of 101 Lusk Avenue, Mr. Oliveira, with Prestige Properties, LLC, hired licensed civil engineers (Hart -Frederick Consultants, October 1, 2015) to review the shared sanitary situation and reported to the City that the aged sanitary sewer line, in in its present condition, was not capable of handling safely the waste for two much smaller new homes that Mr. Oliveira had proposed to construct at that same property. Staff Response: The City granted permission for installation of the shared private sewer (shared by the three lots on the west side of Lusk Ave.) in 1927 (see Exhibit H Sewer permit #2756). Staff has determined the sewer is of adequate size to serve the proposed house at 101 Lusk Ave. H. The City, with respect to Mr. Oliveira's proposal, originally insisted that the owner either install a new sewer line to Lusk Avenue, or show proof that there existed a written Easement Agreement between 101 Lusk Avenue and neighbors to the north (Requestors Anne Lahey; Anne Sadler & Craig Syrop) whose property interests would be threatened by the added sewerage of newly constructed buildings to the existing shared sanitary sewer line. Ultimately, the City would have required Mr. Oliveira to build a newly constructed sewer, running in the Lusk Ave right-of-way to Bayard Street, and withdrew any option of sharing the private sewer line. Staff Response: When the previous owner, Mr. Oliveira considered subdividing the property, he had the existing sewer system analyzed for adding more homes through a subdivision of the property. (Staff notes that with a subdivision, the City has authority to require upgrades and changes to infrastructure. The City does not have this same authority with a building permit on an existing lot of record.): o Action Sewer & Septic Service letter dated 08/25/15 states the sewer line was water jetted from city manhole into house and they believe the sewer line would be able to handle two new buildings. (See Exhibit E) The City did investigate and confirm the existing public sewer main is adequate to accommodate the flow from a new home. (See Exhibit C) I. Statements by the City, when approving a Building Permit for the Carlsons, suggest thal the Kinnick Replica's sanitary sewer line will be connected to a non -conforming private sanitary sewer line installed in 1927, and ostensibly once shared by properties to the North of 101 Lusk Avenue and owned by Requestors Anne Lahey, Craig Syrop and Anne Sadler, respectively. However, any such past connection between the private sanitary sewer line for 101 Lusk Avenue and the contiguous properties owned by Requestors Lahey, Syrop and Sadler, had been without the knowledge of these Requestors and was disconnected by the Carlsons. Staff Response: The existing private sewer was permitted and neither the contractor nor owner called to schedule an inspection to terminate the existing sewer service. J. No notice of the City's position, that approval of a Building Permit for the Kinnick Replica was based on an assumed connection to others' private sewer line, was given to Requestors Lahey, Sadler or Syrop. No such written Easement Agreement was ever suggested, proposed, created or existed at the time the Carlsons purchased 101 Lusk Avenue or submitted their Site Plan and Application for Building Permit to the City. Staff Response: The existing private sewer was permitted and neither the contractor nor owner called to schedule an inspection to terminate the existing sewer service. K. The Carlsons have not subsequently secured the right, by way of any written Easement Agreement with any neighboring property owner(s), to impose their sewage into the shared sewer line or to construct a new sanitary sewage line to traverse adjacent properties owned by the very persons who object to the Carlsons' proposed entertainment venue. Staff Response: The existing private sewer was permitted and neither the contractor nor owner called to schedule an inspection to terminate the existing sewer service. In addition, any easement agreement for use of the private sewer between property owners is a civil issue and not a Board of Appeals issue. L. Requestors Lahey, Sadler and Syrop, pursuant to Iowa Code Chapter 564 have served Notices upon each of the Carlsons that any claim to any easement rights they have, or that they believe they may have, to push sewerage upon their property has been terminated. The Carlsons have taken no action, as required by Iowa statute, to obtain a forced easement over the properties of Requestors Lahey, Sadler or Syrop. E Staff Response: Easement rights between private properties are a civil issue to be resolved by the Court. M. The Carlsons have not proposed any plans to the City, nor has the City reviewed or approved as a part of any Site Plan review or Building Permit process, to construct a sanitary sewer on City right-of-way on Lusk Avenue to connect with the nearest City sewer main on Bayard Street. Staff Response: The lot of record at 101 Lusk Ave, has a permitted private sewer with capacity for the new home. If it is determined that, for any reason, the existing private sewer main cannot be used for the new home, a public sewer main will need to be constructed to the lot. Any proposed extension of public sewer main in the Lusk Ave right of way will be required to meet City design standards, as determined by the City Engineer. N. The absence of any provisions for the installation of a private sewer line for what the Carlsons have mis-characterized as a single family dwelling, is contrary to applicable provisions of the International Residential Code (IRC). That Code, incorporated by reference into the Iowa City Code, at section IRC R202, specifically requires that dwelling units must include " ... permanent provisions for.. sanitation." (Emphasis added). Plans submitted by the Carlsons to, and approved by, the City, lack any description or portrayal of lawful plans to connect the structure's private sewer line to the City's sanitary sewer main. Staff Response: The IRC does define Dwelling Unit as "A single unit providing complete independent living facilities for one or more persons, including permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking and sanitation." There is an existing permitted private sewer service located on 101 Lusk Ave and available for the new home. O. The private sanitary sewer line was never made subject to any easement agreement. Moreover, once Requestors Anne Lahey, Craig Syrop and Anne Sadler learned of the situation, they each issued and served upon each of the Carlsons a Notice, pursuant to Iowa Code Chapter 564, terminating any ostensible easement interests that the Carlsons claimed to have. Staff Response: Easement rights between private properties are a private civil issue. P. The City, knowing of the absence of any easement, knowing that the Carlsons had voluntarily demolished the existing residential dwelling and had capped the prior private sewer line, knowing of the termination Notices served upon the Carlsons, knowing of the civil engineer's opinion concerning the poor condition of the 1927 sewer ling, and knowing of no other means by which the Carlsons planned to connect their planned building's private sewer line to the City's sewer main, as required by IRC R202 and associated IBC provisions, proceeded, wrongfully and unlawfully, to approve the Building Permit. Staff Response: The City granted permission for the shared private sewer (shared by the three lots on the west side of Lusk Ave.) in 1927 (see Exhibit H Sanitary sewer permit #2756) Staff has determined the sewer is of adequate size to serve the proposed house at 10 1 Lusk Ave. 1= :• • ! 1! •❑ •millII 1 11 11 =11 1 •J 1- 1 A. Section 7-1, City Code, requires the construction of turnarounds at the ends of dead- end streets that are longer than 150 feet. That Lusk Avenue's paved surface is 155 feet, 6 inches in length is not disputed. The turnaround requirement arises from international standards meant to protect public safety and to assure that emergency vehicles summoned to dead-end locations are not damaged when attending to emergency calls or delayed in responding to other emergency calls after having been dispatched to thedead-end location. In this instance, remarkably, the City's Fire Marshal Imposed the IFC's turnaround requirement,/or the same property (101 Lusk Avenue), less than one year earlier, for a developer -owner who had proposed not one very large building, but, rather, two much smaller houses on the same lots. In this instance, however, he did not impose the requirement -even though the requirements are triggered by street length. The IFC does not contain exceptions for "existing dead end streets" with new construction "infilis." Yet, the reason given by the Fire Marshal, and approved by the Building Official, for not requiring turnarounds to be constructed as a part of the Carlsons' planned construction of a massive new building meant to attract large crowds is because Lusk Avenue is an "existing dead end street" subject to "infill" development. Staff Response: See Exhibit D (IFC Memo) B. The IFC requires unobstructed street widths of at least 20 feet. The undisputed evidence is that Lusk Avenue, with parking permitted on one side, does not provide this clearance. Staff Response: See Exhibit D (IFC memo) C. The IFC requires certain minimum fire flow, measured by gallons per minute, to be accessible to fire fighters. Testing was conducted by the City, at the request of experts retained by Requestors, to determine whether minimum requirements were met. According to the report issued by those experts, when the size and composition of the materials to be used by the Carlsons in their construction of the Xinniclt Replica building, the IFC minimum requirements for minimal quantities of available hydrant water were not met. Staff Response: See Exhibit D (ICF memo) LAREW LAW OFFICE LarewLawOffice.com Phone: 319.337.7079 Fax: 319.337.7082 504 E. Bloomington St. 210 Cedar St. 252 E. 3`d Street Iowa City, Iowa 52245-2858 Muscatine, Iowa 52761-2504 Des Moines, Iowa 50309-4114 James C. Larew Claire M. Diallo James.Larew@LarewLawOffice.com Admitted only in NY and NJ IOWA CITY BOARD OF APPEALS Appellants seek determinations by Iowa City Board of Appeals that Building Official Doug Boothroy and the Fire Chief John Grier have erred by approving plans by F. Reed Carlson and Sandra Carlson to construct an entertainment venue at 101 Lusk Avenue when, in fact, there has been no showing of compliance with fundamental and mandatory provisions of the Iowa City Plumbing Code and the International Fire Code, as adopted by the City of Iowa City. More specifically, Appellants seek a determination by the Board of Appeals that: 1) The proposed building is not in compliance with the Plumbing Code's mandatory requirement that each structure must be connected with an independent private sanitary sewer line to the City's sanitary sewer main; and 2) That the proposed building is not in compliance with the International Fire Code's mandatory requirements that, for paved, 20-foot-wide dead-end streets longer than 150 feet, and, as applied to the size and materials specifications of the Carlsons' building, there must be: a. A paved turnaround to assure that emergency vehicles can turn around efficiently and safely, in a configuration LAREW LAW OFFICE Page 1 specified by the IFC—yet the proposed building makes no provision for such a turnaround; and b. Sufficient water volume ("fire flow") from nearby fire hydrants, in at least the minimum amounts specified by the IFC, to assure prompt fire mitigation —yet, by the City's own testing of the nearby hydrants, it has been demonstrated that the fire flow fails to meet the IFCs minimum requirements. Appellants will present evidence in support of their contention that the City's Building Official and Fire Chief, that by waiving, or failing to apply, mandatory Code requirements, they have exercised discretion that the City Code does not grant to them. Plaintiffs seek a finding and determination by the Board of Appeals that the mandatory provisions of the Pluming Code and International Fire Code, as described herein should be enforced and that the decision to Lift the Stay with respect to the suspended Building Permit should be rescinded. For the purpose of their initial submission to the Board of Appeals, Appellants attach a series of Exhibits in support of three core arguments: 1) That the Board of Appeals has the jurisdiction and authority to rescind the decision to Lift Stay until such time as a showing has been made that the proposed building will comply with the mandatory provisions of the City's Plumbing Code and the International Fire Code; 2)That there is no showing of compliance with the Plumbing Code's requirement that a private sanitary sewer line be installed to connect the proposed building to the City's sanitary sewer main, and that the Code requirement should not be waived; and LAREW LAW OFFICE Page 2 3) That there is no showing of compliance with the International Fire Code's requirements with respect to a turnaround and minimum fire flow, and that the Code requirements should not be waived. THE IOWA CITY BOARD OF APPEALS HAS JURISDICTION AND AUTHORITY TO RESCIND THE DECISION TO LIFT STAY UNTIL SUCH TIME AS THERE HAS BEEN A SHOWING THAT THE PROPOSED BUILDING WILL COMPLY WITH THE MANDATORY PROVISIONS OF THE CITY'S PLUMBING CODE AND INTERNATIONAL FIRE CODE. 1. The Iowa City Board of Appeals has the Jurisdiction and Authority to reverse decisions and actions of a Building Official and the Fire Chief that have been based on incorrect interpretations of provisions of the Iowa City Code of Ordinances. That the Iowa City Board of Appeals has jurisdiction to hear the submitted matters is clear. Iowa City Code Section 17-12-2.A states as follows: Jurisdiction: Any person aggrieved by a decision of the building officials or the fire chief with regard to the building code or fire code may file an appeal to the board of appeals within thirty (30) days of said decision. "Decision" means any decision, determination, direction, notice, finding, or order of the building official or the fire chief. The grounds for an appeal, under Iowa City Code Section 17-12- 2.C.3, can be based on the following —that a provision of the Code has been incorrectly interpreted. Such is the case in this instance. Appellants challenge incorrect interpretations of the Building Code and Fire Code by Building Official Doug Boothroy and Fire Chief John Grier (and persons working under his direct supervision, Deputy Fire Chief Roger Jensen and Fire Marshal Brian Greer), resulting in a wrong decision to LAREW LAW OFFICE Page 3 order a Lift Stay Order that had prevented the Carlsons from moving forward with their planned building construction. 2. Appellants will provide evidence to prove that the City's Building Official has wrongfully interpreted the City's Building Code, including its Plumbing Code, by Lifting a Stay Order for a Building Permit that was issued to the Carlsons' for their proposed entertainment venue at 101 Lusk Avenue even though there is no showing that the building can or will have a private sanitary sewer line that connects with the City's sewer main. More specifically, with respect to the Building Code, Appellants contest the failure of the Building Official to interpret the City's Plumbing Code in such a manner that would assures protection of the public's interest —not just the interest of property owners whose building must be built in conformity with the City Building Code. Chapter 2, Plumbing Code, section 17-5-2: Purpose, of the City Code, states as follows: It is hereby declared that the purpose of the Iowa City housing code is to ensure that housing facilities and conditions are of the quality necessary to protect and promote the health, safety and welfare of not only those persons utilizing the housing, but the general public as well. It is hereby further declared that the purpose of this chapter is to determine the responsibilities of owners, operators, occupants and the city necessary to maintain and administer the standards of the housing code. Iowa City Code section 17-5-3 sets forth a series of definition, one of which defines the term "Dwelling Unit," and which specifically requires the installation of a sanitation system. That section states as follows: LAREW LAW OFFICE Page DWELLING UNIT: Any habitable room or group of adjoining habitable rooms located within a dwelling and forming a single unit with facilities which are used or intended to be used for living, sleeping, cooking, eating of meals and sanitation. Although Plaintiffs contest the City's determination (and, they have contested that action in a proceeding before the Iowa City Board of Adjustment) that the Carlsons' proposed structure can be classified as a "dwelling" —the building should have been classified as an entertainment venue, something that is not permitted in the RS-5 zone where 101 Lusk Avenue is located, under Iowa City Code section 17-5- 17.E certain minimum structure standards are imposed for all dwellings„ including a mandatory requirement for the connection of sanitation systems to the City's sanitary sewer main. That sanitary sewer connection provision states as follow: Connection Of Sanitary Facilities To Water And Sanitary Systems: Every kitchen sink, toilet, lavatory basin, bath and clothes washer shall be properly connected to an approved water and sanitary sewer system. Further, if one were to assume, arguendo, that the Carlsons' proposed building is a dwelling, the structure must have, under Iowa City Code section 17-5-17.E, the following: Connect Of Sanitary Facilities To Water And Sanitary Sewer Systems: Every kitchen sink, toilet, lavatory, basin, bath and clothes washer shall be properly connected to and approved water and sanitary sewer system. In this instance, the evidence provided by Plaintiffs will establish that the City wrongfully approved the Carlsons' Site Plan and issued a Building Permit under an errant and unlawful assumption that the Carlsons would, without the permission of their adjacent neighbors to the north (Anne Lahey; Craig Syrop & Anne Sadler), connect the LAREW LAW OFFICE Page Kinnick Replica's private sanitary sewer line to the private sewer owned by those neighbors. The City's Building Official wrongfully continued with that assumption even after those neighbors demonstrated their opposition to that plan and served Notice on the Carlsons of the termination of any easement rights that the Carlsons' believed they might have to push the Kinnick Replica's sewerage through the Lahey / Syrop & Sadler properties. The Carlsons have every right to establish a sanitary sewer line out to the nearest City sanitary sewer main, at their own expense, or, perhaps, subsidized by Iowa City taxpayers, but the City has required no plans as to how compliance with the City's Building Code will be achieved prior to issuing the Lift Stay Order, thereby allowing the Carlsons to proceed with construction. To support their Appeal, Plaintiffs will be offering witnesses and Exhibits that will include the following attached documents: A. Decision of Building Official B. Carlson building plans C. Carlson bath remodel 6-23-16 D. HBK Site Map with Proposed Sewer Improvements E. HBK Site Investigation Report including Option 3 and Option 4 fire turn-arounds F. Hart -Frederick Consultants, P.C. Sanitary Sewer Evaluation G. Letter to Carlsons' Attorney 10-3-16 H. Email Druivenga to Havel RE: Oliveira request to subdivide lot I. Email Havel to himself RE: Lusk Ave Comments J. Email Havel to Oliveira RE: Lusk Sanitary Option K. Email Havel to Oliveira RE: Question about Easements L. Email Oliveira to Havel RE: Sewer Line Easement M. Email Overton to Havel RE: Questions from Ackerman regarding Sewer N. Affidavit of Anne Sadler and Craig Syrop P. Notices of Termination of Easement Interests LAREW LAW OFFICE Page 6 3. Appellants will provide evidence to prove that the City's Building Official and Fire Chief have wrongfully interpreted the City's Fire Code, by Lifting a Stay Order for a Building Permit that was issued to the Carlsons' for their proposed entertainment venue at 101 Lusk Avenue even though there is no showing that the building can or will comply with minimum requirements of the International Fire Code, as appear in Appendix Chapter D, that mandate the construction of emergency vehicle turnarounds and established minimal levels of water production ("fire flow) from nearby fire hydrants. The City of Iowa City, in section 7-1-1 of its Code of Ordinances, adopted the International Fire Code, including appendix Chapter D. By doing so, the City Council assured the regulation and safeguarding of life and property from fire and explosion. Certain provisions of the International Fire Code impose public safety standards for streets and fire hydrants to assure that emergency vehicles are not damaged or stranded when called to locations and also to assure that, once arriving at the scene of a fire, adequate water pressures and quantities can be produced to mitigate fire damage. Plaintiffs will produce evidence and expert testimony to prove that certain mandatory provisions of appendix Chapter D have been intentionally ignored by the Building Official and the Fire Chief to accommodate the Carlsons' plans to building a very large entertainment venue. The evidence will show that the same fire code provisions with respect to the mandated turnaround were applied to the owner of 101 Lusk Avenue immediately prior to the Carlsons' purchase of the property —causing that prior owner to abandon plans for the construction of two modest single family homes —but that, they have not been enforced in this instance. The mandatory provisions of the IFC with respect to turnarounds are triggered by the length of the street —it is LAREW LAW OFFICE Page 7 more than 150 feet long. It is undisputed that Lusk Avenue is longer than 156 feet. Regarding the issue of fire flow, Plaintiffs believe that the objective requirements of the IFC are clear and that mandated flow for a structure of this size and materials composition impose a burden on the City's hydrant system that the City's own tests prove cannot be fulfilled. Nevertheless, the Building Official and the Fire Chief, exercising discretion that they do not have to over -rule a mandated provisions designed to protect the public safety, was ignored with the Lift Stay Order was issued. To support Plaintiffs' Appeal contesting the Building Official's and Fire Chief s wrongful interpretation of the International Fire Code and resulting wrongful decision to issue a Lift Stay Order, Plaintiffs will be presenting witness testimony and Exhibits that include the following: E. HBK Site Investigation Report O. Affidavit of Patricia Koza Q. Emails Re: Turnaround on Lusk Ave. CONCLUSION Upon the conclusion of the hearing, Plaintiffs ask that the Board of Appeals issue all appropriate opinions and Orders determining that the Building Official's and Fire Chief s interpretations of the Building Code and International Fire Code, as described herein, have been in error and direct said persons to re -impose the Stay Order earlier issued with respect to 101 Lusk Avenue until such time as the City Code of Ordinances shall be complied with fully. 2.Axkn vv m..H w W 1414-h Page 8 EXHIBIT A CASE STATUS OF 101 LUSK AVE Li a m Y T a a r F E O V u A a O U N T m N 0 V � N E N m a+ � O N � N n a O = N V 1 E O c d m L r W O O `1 m O O N T N W C N 0 O O) 'c m y a _ y N J 0 N N N Q n . C m N V N O m m 0 c O N mc in 0: c 0 O-W v vi 0 a (J +�0. U $N$ > 0 m YO O v c 0 _ 0 0 0 U L N 0 rn L 2 c 3 � o O T 0 a O >! O1 N L p C v@ M N W °- Y m N O € mica) p. CCL N 0) O ca ° o � 0 0 g c c m E fQ L .Q C�mc3 o c O C 0 a c rn N.�5_ E- G Ego N p 00. c 0 ca m (D p C 0 O..L+.'mo3 OI O �o$�LLW co U) cc Jc-CJ (i v' 3 m _o a L (p N N N L rn `s m N •y ° n m N m � m L C O C O Y 12 O) @ m c w a o E o c 2 cm N m > ; 0 N O L y c O r N c L— E _ 0 n a0. EE O N m °ate N 3 r m> OcM N NI w Om � N tC6 go �c� Im P a) c n '0 E N N « N mr O N V N O 0 O C o o a U o ¢ m a, O O 0 O = P 5 c o c @ G N 5 Q m 0 € IDU p L 'c m L O O L 3c 'wm 00 > w'D a;o N E a � v o N y v E 2 L N y 0 a m c cL m 0 > o c E-Q E o rz c<S - pH a eo W 00 C mcoZ OLU o. 0 y CD (0) N = m � Qa 0 m �to O N m� N m W c 7 Z O w O N O)O � C _ 0 a(D p_ N N _mr 0 O _ « C a No r .. ( c N a �pa>i U)ZwL, CD 0 N C a 0 N m !0 r F a (D 3 rm O O 0 0 N U) i r N U) N ❑ ID N O CD 0 U N r N C m m m m m N co f0 QN7 + C (O co f0 V C N N N M O ❑ y ❑ O ❑ 5 .0 Em; Y ASU a � W _ o`r° OJo C V T N Z. U �m p.mQm OR oN 22ES9JJo m 14 v 3 E❑v O c.a N m m 7J C L x �>� m❑ m m m o 0 0=0�0 0 c. U � d G E 0 U m W W ZO W W O m �+ O N U )_m 0. � y m — D � O w 7 m C Z (7 cn 7 U H U) o g$ o 0 0 0 a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 C 7 0 Q c 6 pandp o a 0 0 8 o Ui ffi V O o O 00 N N U` - m U d V ' ♦ CoS G LU w g a w a 0 W LL M. a v ❑ Z A a a z z z m7 w N U) a E an.a ce \ $ CL j 0 Q co § f E ) )7 z /f to / os > ^ kƒ )k —\ , 2k ±§ ^ �{ek/■B. _o 0 _ ay{ k E/) tf�z\ta=-e �;t i $f§s /2$t % v ; XZ CD • ƒf SM ■_o k /i.E �[o0 z M =� i\IX§ C%EL � }22m§' a a — \� -_§ )|AE�q| `!©s) \;� EJk� h m m# .a.m,o2��o,.0.. ;l§74 FA ■LU W§§a=kzcoZ4 hd;■■ (n(A��aEA 3 BBB © "4_uIml kkk\�_ 2 \ k Q L CL 10- EXHIBIT B BUILDING . and Approved for C nmructlon with Notations _dew n.c may nm WI., all code deficiencies. ..v m identify a catle defrnency during a mdewef plans xs not alleviate any pbllga[im %candy witla all applicable cade MMiws. unit: 0. 2Sr16 BLDN BL01&B61B2 rc m ieei .yes na allevi DAM: 05125/16 °mn: BLP16-( 4F fill Z d -L= i S1P1 SECf10M AND PFAU 1 .r E' v6. •;:T � f." Ile L. i 1 r § d � w7ir� I* ] m Reed and Sandy Carlson I w/ �§ � ] g z r M m r v S orsuerr �o®IGN '91 ��cu��.awv rvCvv nul IIV rul ]493f4F@ f®F Q G@BIk 9E Builders 'i F§ 1V ? »., ; ., { (319) 331-DS31 Reed and Sandy Carlson D r c C c a n c s u 111 �I N "1),Vf J'1'I11€lg Al Zahasky New norne rui ;;?'-.a...;, R ^ s(E ' F •-- w-•, ownmue r®ise 7 Builders q=ease= Faes (319) 331-0631 Reed and Sandv Carlson EXHIBIT C BATH REMODEL 6/23/16 I ENTRY 4'-0° x 5'-0" 17'-5" FWG80 --------------- BATHROOM 4r Sink BeeeBm 4'-1' dS' Slnk Baca BATHROOM WISIMNG BENCH �I FWG120804 SAAS Exbibit 7 - 039.1 EXHIBIT D PROPOSED SEWER IMPROVEMENTS HBK SITE MAP Appendix 3 PROPOSE® SEWER IMPRO\/EMEINTS jI I PROPOSED 702 Z z 204 SANITARY MH BAYARD Z W < LEXINGTON 8" INV = 706.66 W I lLl Q 8"INV=708.78S Q BAYARD STREET w EXISTING SANITARY MANHOLE w—w—w—w—w—w—w—w—w EX WATERMAIN (6" CI) 8" INV = 705.94 E EXISTING HYDRANT PROPERTY LINE FROM GIS of BAYARD Ackerman Propel+ 701 BAYARD Armstrong PropIty I PROPERTY LINE I I I PRIVATE SEWER (LOCATION MARKED IN FIELD) I ' 117 ILUSK v{IL, LLC Property I W Q I_ahey Prope-.1if U jai 0 111 I W p LUSK r EXISTING HYDRANT - a y (TO BE RELOCATED) I I w — PROPOSED 4" SANITARY SERVICE PROPOSED SANITARY MH 8" INV = 707.36 N PROPOSED BUILDING 101 LUSK x a 612 BAYARD �C�N(y/LRArN r EXISTING PAVEMENT EDGE 110 u LUSK RELOCATED FIRE HYDRANT C"1410C R4QR0,jD _ LEGEND N —) —) — EXISTING PRIVATE SEWER (LOCATION KNOWN) 0 40 80 - - - - - - - - - - - EXISTING PRIVATE SEWER (LOCATION ASSUMED) ` {�' imil MEL FEET • • -^ • • ^• PROPOSED PRIVATE SEWER G EXISTING PUBLIC SANITARY MANHOLE 0 PROPOSED PRIVATE SANITARY MANHOLE HBK Site Plan 021 Appellan4s Exhibit 1 - 021 EXHIBIT E HBK SITE INVESTIGATION REPORT 509 S. Gilbert Street 319.338.7557 unui'r Iowa City, IA 52240 hbkengineering.com uuR;STRIP%I.- SUWpONS bbt. ENGINEERING Project Number: A16-0760 SITE INVESTIGATION REPORT 101 Lusk Avenue, Iowa City, 52246 Manville Addition, Lot 1, Block 14 Prepared for: Neighbors of Manville Heights Association August 30, 2016 HBK Site Plan 001 Exhibit 1 - 001 UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE bk SOLUTIDNS ENGINEERING Project Number: A16-0681 Introduction and Summary of Findings....................................................................................... 2 SanitarySewer............................................................................................................................ 3 Fire Department Access and Coverage...................................................................................... 3 SitePlan...................................................................................................................................... 4 Storm Sewer and Stormwater Management............................................................................... 4 SiteHistory ....................................................................................................................................5 SiteTopography.......................................................................................................................... 5 Easements and Encroachments.................................................................................................. 5 Floodplain.................................................................................................................................... 5 Geotechnical Conditions.............................................................................................................. 5 SensitiveArea.............................................................................................................................. 5 Zoning.......................................................................................................................................... 5 Figure1: Site Topography........................................................................................6 Figure 2: International Fire Code - Selected Sections................................................7 Figure 3: Project Site — 2014.................................................................................. 11 Figure 4: Project Site — 2012.................................................................................. 11 Figure 5: Project Site — 2011.................................................................................. 12 Figure 6: Project Site — 2008.................................................................................. 12 Figure 7: Project Site — 1990s................................................................................ 13 Figure 8: Project Site — 1970s................................................................................13 Figure 9: Project Site — 1960s................................................................................ 14 Figure 10: Project Site - 1950s...............................................................................14 Figure 11: Project Site - 1930s............................................................................... 15 Figure12: Zoning Map........................................................................................... 16 Appendix.....................................................................................................................................17 Appendix 1: MMS Consultants Site Plan Appendix 2: Hart -Frederick PC Letter Appendix 3: Proposed Sewer Improvements Appendix 4: Fire Access Improvements — Option 1 Appendix 5: Fire Access Improvements — Option 2 Appendix 6: City of Iowa City Fire Flow Information Appendix 7: Runoff Information Appendix 8: Opinion of Cost HBK Site Plan 002 Exhibit I - 002 UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE SOLUTIONS hbk ENGINEERING Project Number: A16-0760 Introduction and Summary of Findings HBK Engineering prepared this report to evaluate the proposed site plan submitted to the City of Iowa City for the property located at 101 Lusk Avenue. The 0.38 acre site is located at the south end of Lusk Avenue in the Manville Heights neighborhood in Iowa City. HBK Engineering evaluated the proposed site plan as it relates to zoning regulations and public utilities. The proposed site plan submitted to the City of Iowa City is depicted in the Appendix. The following summarizes HBK Engineering's findings: The site has a non -conforming sanitary sewer service as it relates to current code and standards • Service is shared with 2 other properties (111 Lusk Avenue & 117 Lusk Avenue) • Service crosses multiple properties • There is no documentation of an easement or other agreement for the shared sewer • There are no cleanouts provided on the existing sanitary sewer line There is inadequate fire flow available for the proposed building 2,250 gallons per minute (gpm) fire flow is required for the proposed building (assuming Type V-B construction) • 1,584 gpm fire flow is projected by the City of Iowa City to be available at the property via the existing water main on Lusk Avenue There is inadequate access for fire apparatus • Access road (Lusk Avenue) Is 2U'-A- wide and parking is allowed on one side • Fire code requires unobstructed access road that is at least 20 feet wide and marked with "No Parking — Fire Lane" signs • Lusk Avenue is 155' long and dead ends with no means for turn around • Fire code requires "approved" turn around for access roads longer than 150 feet There are concerns with the site plan • Proposed driveway conflicts with existing fire hydrant • How will the site be graded? • How will storm water be managed to prevent erosion? • How will adjacent properties be protected from damage during construction? 2 HBK Site Plan 003 Exhibit 1 - 003 UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE hbk SOLUTIONS iENGINEERING Project Number: A16-0760 Site Location and Description The project site is approximately 0.38 acres and is located on the west side of Lusk Avenue approximately 150-feet south of the intersection of Lusk Avenue and Bayard Street in the Manville Heights neighborhood in Iowa City. The Lusk Avenue pavement terminates in a dead end in front of the subject property without a cul-de-sac or other means of vehicle turnaround. Sanitary Sewer The site is currently served by a private sewer line that runs across the adjacent property to the north. This line is shared by the subject property (101 Lusk Avenue), 111 Lusk Avenue, and 117 Lusk Avenue. There is no record of an easement for this sewer. The service varies in size from 8 inches at the downstream, 6 inches at intermediate points, and 4 inches when it reaches the subject property. The 6 inch portion of the pipe is believed to have sections both cast iron and clay pipe. The 4 inch portion is cast iron. The private sewer was televised by Action Sewer on August 8, 2016. The televising started at the manhole in Bayard Street and proceeded upstream for approximately 81 feet at which point the crew was unable to advance the equipment further. HBK was able to document the location of the line in the field during this work. This same sewer line was also televised on September 23, 2015 by the previous owner of 101 Lusk Avenue. At that time, they were able to enter the service line from the residential home located at 101 Lusk Avenue and traverse the entire length of the service line. The previous owner hired Hart -Frederick Consultants, PC (HFC) to review the data collected. HFC concluded that the existing 4-inch portion of the service line should be replaced with a new 6-inch line and the existing 6-inch portion of the service line should be lined to prevent future intrusion of tree roots. Relaying and lining the private service would require the approval from the other property owners served by the private sewer. Refer to the Appendix for a copy of the HFC letter. City staff has reviewed the downstream public sanitary sewer located in Bayard Street and has determined that these sewers are capable of handling the sanitary discharges from the proposed building. The Uniform Plumbing Code 2015 (UBC 2015 311.0) states that "The drainage system for each new building ... shall be separate and independent from that of any other building, and, where available, every building shall have an independent connection with a public or private sewer." Installation of a separate and independent sewer would require the construction of approximately 330 feet of public 8 inch sanitary sewer and two manholes in Bayard Street and Lusk Avenue. Refer to the Proposed Sewer Improvement exhibit and associated cost estimate in the Appendix. Fire Department Access and Coverage The property is served by the Iowa City water department. The water main is located near the centerline of Lusk Avenue and the water service connects to this main. There is a fire hydrant located in the Lusk Avenue right-of-way near the northeast corner of the subject property and another located at the intersection of Bayard Street and Lexington Avenue. Each of these hydrants is within 400 feet of the proposed building. Refer to the Fire Access exhibits in the Appendix. The following items are required by the 2015 International Fire Code (2015 IFC). Refer to Figure 2. (htto7//codes iccsafe.org/apo/book/toc/201 511 -Codes/2015 IFC HTML/index.html) 3 HBK Site Plan 004 Exhibit I - 004 UTILITY 11 _ INFRASTRUCTURE K SOLUTIONS ENGINEERING Project Number: A16-0760 • 507.5.1, — onsite hydrants shall be provided if any point of building is more than 400 feet from a hydrant located on an access road B105.1 — required fire flow is 2,250 gpm for a 2-hour duration • C102.1 — 2 hydrants are required for the proposed building • C103.1 — maximum hydrant spacing shall be 400 feet • D103.1 — required width of fire apparatus access road is 26 feet where road is adjacent to fire hydrant • D103.4 — fire apparatus access roads in excess of 150 feet shall provide approved turnaround. Minimum unobstructed road width is 20 feet. The building permit application does not specify the type of construction; therefore, the construction type is assumed to be Type V-B as defined in the International Building Code, 2015 edition. According to the plans submitted to the city, the proposed building has a total floor area of 7,476 square feet. This results in a required fire flow of 2,250 gpm as depicted in Table B105.1 of the 2015 IFC. The City of Iowa City performed flow testing on August 22, 2016. This test indicated that the available fire flow at 101 Lusk Avenue is 1,584 gpm (Refer to the Appendix for a copy of the flow data). This does not meet the code requirements for available fire flow. The existing pavement on Lusk Avenue is 20-feet wide and extends 155'-5" south of Bayard Street. Parking is allowed on one side of the street. The existing pavement terminates prior to reaching the south property line. The street does not meet the access requirements. There is insufficient room for parking while allowing a 20' unobstructed lane. The street also lacks an approved turn around. The public right-of-way on Lusk Avenue is 50-feet wide. This is insufficient width for the required turn around options. Refer to the Fire Access exhibits in the Appendix for evaluation of the improvements required to meet the access requirements. A cost estimate was prepared for Fire Access Option 2. This cost estimate is included in the appendix. Site Plan The Site Plan that was prepared by MMS Consultants on March 15, 2016 was reviewed for completeness and concerns impacting the neighborhood. Refer to the Appendix for a copy of the site plan. HBK Engineering has identified the following items of concern: 1. The proposed driveway appears to conflict with the existing hydrant located near the northeast property corner. 2. It is unclear how the site will be graded and how this will impact adjacent properties. There is approximately six feet of elevation change along the west wall of the building and four feet of elevation change along the east wall of the building. In addition, there is minimal separation between the driveway and the north property line. The site plan does not indicate how these elevation changes will be accounted for and what, if any, impacts this may have on adjacent property owners. Storm Sewer and Stormwater Management The site is not currently or planned to be served by storm sewer. Runoff from the site flows overland generally from the west to the east to Lusk Avenue where it then flows south along the pavement. Upon reaching the end of the pavement the runoff continues to the south into the ravine located along the CRANDIC railroad. Once in the railroad right-of-way, the runoff flows east and ultimately discharges to the Iowa River. 4 HBK Site Plan 005 Exhibit 1 - 005 UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE , SOLUTIONS hbk iENGINEERING Project Number: A16-0760 There is evidence of erosion at the point where the runoff leaves the pavement at the south end of Lusk Avenue. The Iowa City code has no post -construction stormwater requirements for a single- family residence that is not part of a larger, common plan of development. The site is less than 1 acre; therefore, there are not any Iowa DNR requirements related to stormwater management or construction site runoff. The projected runoff from the developed site is calculated to be 1.37cfs and 2.09 cfs for the 10-year and 100-year rainfall events, respectively. Refer to the Runoff Information exhibit in the Appendix. Site History The 1,700 square foot single family residence that had formerly occupied the property was demolished. City assessor records indicate that this house was constructed in 1917. There are presently no structures on the site. Review of the City Assessors' data indicates that the houses on the adjacent properties were constructed at the beginning of the 201h century and available aerial photography from the Johnson County Property Information View (httpsi//ais.iohnson- countv.com/Div/) indicates that there has been little change to these properties since the 1930s (first period aerial photography is available). The area surrounding the site has not seen major changes other than the construction of the VA Hospital in the 19508 and subsequent expansions to the VA facilities. Refer to Figures 4 — 12. Site Topography This site slopes from the northwest corner towards the southeast corner with approximately 13-feet of fall across the site. The site generally drains from the northwest to the southeast. Refer to Figure 1. Easements and Encroachments A desktop review of the subject property did not find any easements on the property. A boundary survey has not been completed; however, there are no obvious encroachments from adjacent properties. Floodplain Consultation of FEMA flood plain mapping indicates that the site is not within or adjacent to a floodplain. The site is contained on FEMA Panel 19103COl95E. Geotechnical Conditions Geotechnical exploration has not been performed on the property; however, review of the Soil Survey of Johnson County Iowa indicates that the soils are generally classified as Fayette Silt Loam which is generally well drained and found on gently sloping sites. When surface vegetation is removed erosion is a hazard. Sensitive Areas The site does not contain features subject to the Iowa City Sensitive Areas Ordinance. Zoning The property is currently zoned RS5 (Low Density Single Family Residential). Refer to Figure 12. The applicable zoning requirements for RS5 zoning are: 1) Building height. The maximum building height shall be 35 feet 2) Front yard setback a. A front yard of 15 feet is required b. No more than 50% of the front setback maybe covered with impervious surface 3) Side yard setback a. Aside yard of 5 feet is required for the first two stories b. Two (2) feet must be added for each additional story beyond the first two stories 5 HBK Site Plan 006 Exhibit I - 006 UTILITY hbk NFRUTRUMME SOLO:'ONS ENGINEERING Project Number: A16-0760 4) Rear yard setback a. A rear yard of 20 feet is required The proposed site plan appears to meet the setback requirements; however, it is unclear how the height of the structure will be determined. This could increase the required side yard setback. 701 1 I F 'I I .i .I i . I '1 N 3 Figure 1: Site Topography 6 HBK Site Plan 007 Exhibit 1 - 007 UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE SOLUTIONS hbk ENGINEERING Project Number: A16-0760 Figure 2: International Fire Code - Selected Sections SECTION B105 FIRE -FLOW REQUIREMENTS FOR BUILDINGS B105.1 One. and two-family dwellings, Group R-3 and R4 buildings and townhouses. The minimum Ore -flow and flow duration requirements for one- and two-famity CweNings, Group R-3 and R-4 buildings and townhouses shall be as specified in Tables 8105.1(1) and 8105.1(2). TABLE B105.1(1) REQUIRED FIRE -FLOW FOR ONE. AND TWO-FAMILY DWELLINGS, GROUP R-3 AND R-4 BUILDINGS AND TOWNHOUSES FIRE -FLOW AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER SYSTEM MINIMUM FIRE, FLOW FLOW DURATION TION AREA CALCULATION (Dealgn Standard) (gallons per (boom) refeet) minole 03,600 No automatic spnnDer system 1,= 1 3,601 and greater No automatic spnnkler system Value in Table 8105.1(2) Duration in Table 9105.1(2) at the required fire -flow rate 0.3,600 snum 903.3..1.3 of the International Fvo Code .1$Olson P2W4 Soo 1. of the Inlern ibonal RevMmfial Code Sechom 903 11.3 0 Me irsernabnnal fine Code or Seclion P2904 11; value m Table 1 3,601 and greater of Me lnfornsh'onal Reaidenber Code 8 I(2) For SI. 1 squire fool = 00929 m4.1 gallon per minute a 3.785 LIM. TABLE 8105.1(2) REFERENCE TABLE FOR TABLES B105.1(1) AND B105.2 FIREFLOW CALCULATION AREA Molume feel FIRE -FLOW (gallons per strudels FLOW DURATION MGM) Type iA and MY Type IM and MIA Type Wand VXITyps IlB and Illi Type V-B' 0-22,700 0.12,700 0-92W 0-5.900 03,600 1 1.500 22,701-30.200 12,701-17,000 8.201-10,900 5,901-7.900 3.601-4,800 1.750 3(l.700 17.001-21.800 10.901.12,900 7,901-9,800 4,8016,200 2,000 2 38.701-48300 21,801-74.200 12901-17.401) 9.501-12,600 6,201-7,700 2,250 48,301-59.000 24,201-33.200 17.401-21.300 12.601-16,400 L701-9.400 2500 59.001-70,900 33.201-39.700 21.301-25.500 15,40148.00 9,401-11.300 2.750 70.901-83300 39.701417.100 25,501-30,100 18,401-21.S00 11,301-13.400 3,000 83,701.97.700 47,101-5d,900 30101-35.200 21,801-25,900 13401-15.600 3,250 3 97.701-112,700 54.901-63.400 35,201-40.600 25.901.29.300 15,601-18,000 3.500 112.704128.91 63A01-72,d00 40,601-46.400 29.301-33.500 16,MCI -20,600 3.760 111512 2701-Id59 72,d01-82,700 l6.40162,500 33,501-37,900 20.W1-23,300 4,000 Fair SI: 1 square foot A 0.0929 ma, 1 gallon per minute = 3.755 Urn, 1 Pound per Square inch = 6.895 We. a. Types of combs ction are based on pie iniemaliimal Bugdmg Code. b. Messu ad at 20 Pan rea l pressure 7 HBK Site Plan 008 Exhibit 1 - 008 UTIUTY `. INFRASTRUCTURE SOLUTIONS ENGINEERING Project Number: A16-0760 SECTION C102 NUMBER OF FIRE HYDRANTS C102.1 Minimum number of fire hydrants for a building. The number of fire hydrants available to a building shall be not Less than the minimum specified in Table C102.1. TABLE C102.1 REQUIRED NUMBER AND SPACING OF FIRE HYDRANTS FIRE -FLOW REQUIREMENT (gpm) MINIMUM NUMBER OF HYDRANTS AVERAGE SPACING BETWEEN HYDRANTS` san ..a (feet) 1 MAXIMUM DISTANCE FROM ANY POINT ON STREET OR ROAD I FRONTAGE TO A HYDRANT" 1.750 or law 1 SOD 250 2A0D-4,2 o 2 450 225 2.5W 3 450 225 3,000 3 400 225 3.5002,000 d 350 210 6.500-5,000 5 300 180 5,500 5 30D 1S0 GOOD 6 250 15O 5.500-7,0(10 7 250 IS0 7.5DO ormoa 8 o more' 200 120 For SI 1 foot = 304 8 min, I gallon per mmuie = 3.7651hn a Reduce by 100 feat M dead�end streets or roads. b. Where streets are Provided with misdian dividers tat cannot be cmeaed by Ore fightso pusrg boss fines, or where arieiial saeels are provided with faun or more traffic more and have a baffie count of more than 30.000 vehicles Par day, hydrant spacing shall average 500 feet on each side of the sheet and be arranged on an a0emating basis c. Where new water mains are extended along streets where hydrants are not needed for protection of structures or similar fee problems, in hydrae es shall be provided a1 spacing not 1° exceed 1,000 het to provide forVampodahon hazards. d. Reduce by 50 feel for dead-end streets or roads. e. One hydrant for each 1,DDO gallons per minute or fraction thereat. I. A 50-penmen spacing lm ume shall be permitted where Vie building Is equipped throughout with an approved automatic springier system in accordance wAh Section 903-3.1.1 at the bla os6orial Frye Code. V. A 25-percenl spacing Vrcreaase shag be permitted where the budding is equipped throughout with an approved automatic spnnitler system in accordance with Section 903.3.1.2 or 903.3.1.3 of the International Fire Code or Section P2904 of Vre IMamaf oraf Residential Code. SECTION C103 FIRE HYDRANT SPACING C103.1 Hydrant spacing. Fire apparatus access roads and public streets providing required access to buildings in accordance with Section 503 of the International Fire Code shall be provided with one or more fire hydrants, as determined by Section C102.1. Where more than one fire hydrant Is required, the distance between required fire hydrants shall be in accordance with Sections C103.2 and C103.3. C103.2 Average spacing. The average spacing between fire hydrants shall be in accordance with Table Cl D2.1. Exception: The average spacing shall be permitted to be Increased by 10 percent where existing fire hydrants provide all or a portion of the required number of fire hydrants. C103.3 Maximum spacing. The maximum spacing between fire hydrants shall be In accordance with Table C102.1. SECTION C104 CONSIDERATION OF EXISTING FIRE HYDRANTS C104.1 Existing fire hydrants. Existing fire hydrants on public streets are allowed to be considered as available to meet the requirements of Sections C102 and C103. Existing fire hydrants on adjacent properties are allowed to be considered as available to meet the requirements of Sections C102 and C103 provided that a fire apparatus access road extends between properties and that an easement is established to prevent obstruction of such roads. 8 HBK Site Plan 009 Exhibit I - 009 UTILITY 11 � INFRASTRUCTUREi �K SOLUTIONS ENGINEERING Project Number: A16-0760 SECTION 0101 GENERAL D1101.1 Scope. Fire apparatus access roads shall be in accordance with this appendix and all other applicable requirements of the Intsmallonal Fire Code. SECTION D102 REQUIRED ACCESS 0102.1 Access and loading. Facilities, buildings or portions of buildings hereafter constructed shall be accessible to fire department apparatus by way of an approved fire apparatus access road with an asphalt, concrete or other approved tldving surface capable of supporting the Imposed load of fire apparatus weighing at least 75,000 pounds (34 050 kg). SECTION D103 MINIMUM SPECIFICATIONS D103.1 Access road width with a hydrant. Where a fire hydrant is located on a fire apparatus access road, the minimum road width shall be 26 feet (7925 mm), exclusive of shoulders (see Figure C103.1). zTvn nJ —20. EV'OIMAEIFH Eo-Parr•v' MNaxW ClEARM1LE CVL-0E3RC WDA T 39'R fi0' 1 TVP• 1 ro' WR a.J ze ACC EPTnEI.E AITERWTIVE I=H ERHEM wlw HAePE c Fa SP t roa = MW 8 mm. FIGURE 0103.1 DEAD-END FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROAD TURNAROUND 9 HBK Site Plan 010 Exhibit 1 - 010 UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE SOLUTIONS ENGINEERING Project Number: A16-0760 0103.2 Grade. Fire apparatus access roads shell not exceed 10 percent in grade. Exception: Grades steeper then 10 percent as approved by the fire chief, 0103.3 Turning radius. The minimum turning radius shall be determined by the fire code official. D703.4 Dead ends. Dead-end fire apparatus access roads in excess of 150 feet (46 720 mm) shall be provided with width and turnaround provisions In accordance with Table D103.4. TABLE 0103.4 REQUIREMENTS FOR DEAD-END FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROADS LENGTH (loan WIUTH peer TURNAROUNDS REQUIRED 0.150 20 None reOuirgl 151-500 20 120-Pool Hammerhead, bo. Wa'Y'm%-foot diameter cul.de sae in mcwdance WO F' om D1031 501-750 26 ll20-tool Hammerhead. 60-foat"Y'a%-toot QumetercWdeaac in accordance with Figure 0103.1 Over 760 Specol approval ngund Fm SI'. 1 fool = 304.8 nun. 0103.6 Signs. Where required by the fire code official. fire apparatus access roads shall be marked with permanent NO PARKING —FIRE LANE signs complying with Figure D103.6. Signs shall have a minimum dimension of 12 inches (305 mm) wide by 18 inches (457 mm) high and have red letters on a white reflective background. Signs shall be posted on one or both sides of the fire apparatus road as required by Section D103.6.1 or D103.6.2. SxiN TYPE •A• SIGNIVPE •C 8xx1 TYPE •P PIUIWW PAWmia T PWEIAK flE IANE iNF1AlE ,P 1 FIGURE 0103.5 FIRE LANE SIGNS D103.6.1 Roads 20 to 26 Net In width. Fire lane signs as specified in Section D103.6 shall be posted on both sides of fire apparatus access roads that are 20 to 26 feet wide (6096 to 7925 mm). D103.6.2 Roads more than 26 feet in width. Fire lane signs as specified in Section D103.6 shall be posted on one side of fire apparatus access roads more than 26 feet wide (7925 mm) and less than 32 feet wide (9754 mm). 10 HBK Site Plan 011 Exhibit i - 011 UTILITY �Ab itJFRASTROCTURE k SOLUTIONS 17NGINE E RING Project Number: A16-0760 Figure 3: Project Site - 2014 Figure 4: Project Site - 2012 11 HBK Site Plan 012 Exhibit I - 012 UTILITY fib iNF%'A3TRJCTURE SOLUTIONS ENGINEERING Project Number: A16-0760 Figure 5: Project Site - 2011 Figure 6: Project Site - 2008 12 HBK Site Plan 013 Exhibit I - 013 C1fRASTRUC,M rN., SQIULQNS «««111LLL .[ ENGINEERING Project Number: A16-0760 Figure I Project Site - 19905 Figure 8: Project Site - 1970s 13 HBK Site Plan 014 Exhibit I - 014 u Ally SOLUTIONS ItdFRpSONS LUTIOib IN. ENGIN EEKING Project Number: A16-0760 Figure 9: Project Site - 1960s Figure 10: Project Site • 1950s 14 HBK Site Plan 015 Exhibit 1 - 015 unuly iNFRAiTRGlabk SOL�;, ARE �:OM: ENGINEERING Project Number: A16-0760 Figure 11: Project Site - 1930s 15 HBK Site Plan 016 Exhibit I - 016 ITV hUgh. 10FRASTR!ICTA7 SD(' 71 DNS ENGINEERING Project Number: A16-0760 i mil. t,, i N • _ � i i'wp' FHId�\7'Iflirf�: r'rli-:� Sy� Figure 12: Zoning Map Legend C] Rural Residential (RR1) - Communit., Commercial (CC2) Low Density Single -Family Residential (RS5) - Central Business service (CBn Medium Density Sintdle-FumBy Residential (R58) _ C r ntml Business Support (CBS) L� High DensitySingle-Family Residential IRS12) - Central Business(CB10) I_ Neighborhood Stabaliz)tion Residential (RNS12) Intensive Commercial (Cl I) I•Ul Low Density Muld-Family Residential (R1,112) - General Industrial (11) Neighborhood Stabalizdtion Residential (RNS20) _ Heavy Industrial 02) :I Medium Density Multi -Family Residential RM20 Research Development Pais (RDPi - High Density Multi -Family Residential (RM44)•- J Office Research Perk (ORP) - Planned High Density Multi -Family Residential (PRMt _1! Interim Development Multi=FamAyResioert0al (ID-Rtrt) ® Mixed Use (MU) _,; Interim Development Singla-Family Residential (1D-RS) ..Commercial Office (C01) '^ - Interim Development Research Park (ID -RP) - Neighborhood Commercial (CN1) _ Neighborhood Public (P1). Highway Commercial (CHI) , Institutional Public (P2j 16 HBK Site Plan 017 Exhibit 1 - 017 APPENDIX UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE bk SOLUTIONS ENGINEERING Project Number: A16-0760 Appendix 1: MMS Consultants Site Plan Appendix 2: Hart -Frederick PC Letter Appendix 3: Proposed Sewer Improvements Appendix 4: Fire Access Improvements — Option 1 Appendix 5: Fire Access Improvements Option 2 Appendix 6: City of Iowa City Fire Flow Information Appendix 7: Runoff Information Appendix 8: Opinion of Cost 17 HBK Site Plan 018 Exhibit 1 - 018 Appendix |! q; z § § �� 22§§§■ ) •� N§! !E |�| | u a ! ■ % aKm Plan 019 Exhibit sm: Appendix 2 HART-FREDERICK CONSULTANTS, I'.C. ENGINEERS 8r SURVEYO& 1 October, 2015 Prestige Properties 239LB, Court 4 Sta 2 Iowa City, IA 52240 Attn: Alike Oliveira Re: Sanitary Sewer Service to 101 Lusk Avenue — Iowa City, Iowa Dear W. Oliveira: ' We have reviewed the video footage from the inspection of the sanitary. sewm service to 101 Lusk Avenue in Iowa City performed on September 23, 2015. Based onthe video, we would not recommend using the existing service liar in its current condition for the proposed additional single family homes. The tubmeulation in the 4-inch diameter cast iron section of the am -vim line will impede flow and possibly cause blockages and backups. The roots protruding through the pipe joints in the VCP section have been removed, but may regrow in the future. These would again become sources of potential blockage and infiltration. Many of the joints are offset slightly from each other. The off" could be considered minor and do not severely impede flow The video camera did reach the manhole in this Inspection and only two smvices discovered. The service to 631 Bayard Street was not found. This makes a total of four residential conn6cts on the service line that is believed to be 6-Inches in diameter. Typical standard practice for most cities is to require aminimum pipe diameter of 6-inches when more than one building is served by a single service line. According to the sewer inspection equipment operator, oast iron portion ofthis service line is 4-inches in diameter. Based on the latest video inspection, we recommend a new 6-inch Barrios line be installed to replace the 4-inch cast iron section ofthe existing service line. The remaining existing service line should be lined to prevent firtore root growth and infiltration Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call Scott Ritter, L.S., or myself at our office. Sine I Be4Enin A. Carhop P.B. Hart -Frederick Consultants P.C. co: Jason Havel, City of Iowa City enc: Video on USB Flash Drive file 510 Snte Sneer - F.O. Boa 560 • Tiffin, IA 52340A560 319-545-7215 • F= 319-545-7220 • cwn Bagineedag • Surveyio6 • Planning HBK Site Plan 020 Exhibit 1 - 020 Appendix 3 PROPOSED SEWER IMPROVEMENTS I Z 702 BAYARD Z W f J , W _ � I I 111 =x EXISTING SANITARY I W MANHOLE 8" INV = 705.94 E EXISTING HYDRANT PROPERTY LINE FROM GIB 631 BAYARD 701 BAYARD PROPERTY PROPOSED I 204 SANITARY MH 612 8 LEXINGTON BAYARD ' INV = 706.66 W 8" INV = 706.76 S — BAYARD EX WATERMAIN (6" CI) w— w— w— w— w— w— w— w w- t' ( PROP. 180 LF 8" SANITARY 0.40% /— PRIVATE SEWER r' / (LOCATION MARKED s INFIELD) 'v o 1 117 @ LUSK I I IQ NaD I � O I I�a U rno 111 D: r o LUSK I0 g a EXISTING HYDRANT a I (TO BE RELOCATED) PROPOSED4' SANITARYSERVICE 1 LINE ...'� PROPOSED SANITARY MH 8" INV = 707.36 N PROPOSED BUILDING 101 LUSK RELO CATED FIRE HYDRANT Rol D G'_ w Q EXISTING PAVEMENT EDGE 110 LUSK ZDIC L RAILROAD LEGEND N —) —) — EXISTING PRIVATE SEWER(LOCATION KNOWN) 0 40 80 — — — — — — — — — — — EXISTING PRIVATE SEWER (LOCATION ASSUMED) FEET — • — • — - — PROPOSED PRIVATE SEWER EXISTING PUBLIC SANITARY MANHOLE /G y PROPOSED PRIVATE SANITARY MANHOLE HBK Site Plan 021 Exhibit I - 021 Appendix 4 FIRE ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS - OPTION 1 jI 702 % I Y04 I 612 BAYARD I Z L2ll ¢ LEXINGTON BAYARD J W Q I -- — J 13 L BAYARD STREET EX SANITARY a EX WATERMAIN (6" CI) MANHOLE W w w w I- w w w W _W --F-\4 ROly�NO cbURT EXISTING HYDRANT PRIVATE SEWER (LOCATION MARKED IN FELD) PROPERTY LINE FROM GIS I i L117 I, s U WI 631 I I BAYARD— �w Q 4 = 155'-5' ul ~ 13 110 I'< zw LUSK 701 w o LUSK I I J BAYARD I > M s I26' a N EXISTING HYDRANT PROPOSED (TO BE RELOCATED) I PAVEMENT EDGE s PROPOSED II EASEMENT (4,272 SF) PROPERTY LINE PRELOCATED PROPOSED FIRE HYDRANT BUILDING 101 LUSK 096' CRAND/C R4/LR04D LEGEND N - W - W - EXISTING WATER MAIN (LOCATION FROM MAPPING) 0 40 SO • . • • - • • - PROPOSED WATER MAIN FEET PROPOSED EDGE OF PAVEMENT PROPOSEDEASEMENT HBK Site Plan 022 Exhibit 1 - 022 Appendix 5 FIRE ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS - OPTION 2 U 1 702 UI Z I Z 204 612 BAYARD W a LEXINGTON BAYARD � LL J wQ 3 L- J I BAYARD STREET EX SANITARY w EX WATERMAIN (8" CI) MANHOLE W— W— W— W— W— W— W— W— W— W EXISTING HYDRANT PROPERTY LINE FROM GIS 701 BAYARD PROPERTY LINE PRIVATE SEWER i (LOCATION MARKED IN FIELD) i I 117 LUSK I 631 i BAYARD 0 155'-5" i Iwo 13a F p LUSK i I R uJ EXISTING HYDRANT ! a (TO BE RELOCATED) rdI •;a•• BUILDING 101 4I4 LUSK �f % CRAND/C RA11RO4D e W Z j Q j110 J LUSK PROPOSED W PAVEMENT EDGE W� I R28' PROPOSED EASEMENT (1,808 SF) RELOCATED FIRE HYDRAN 70' R28' L _ LEGEND N — W — W — EXISTING WATER MAIN (LOCATION FROM MAPPING) 0 40 80 •• — •• — •• — PROPOSED WATER MAIM FEET PROPOSED EDGE OF PAVEMENT 7R•\-�7>,1/77�77 PROPOSED EASEMENT HBK Site Plan 023 Exhibit 1 - 023 41-1 Appendix 6 209 Q 702 a CAST 701 l�pM ♦ x.qu. 210 204 I 612 6 CAST 6 CAST rO-BAY-4RD ST I— U to ROWtA vo CT 110 ALL UTILITIES ARE GRAPHICALLY REPRESENTED AND ARE NOT GEOREFERENCED. THIS MAP IS NOT INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES. NO PRIVATE WATER SERVICES OF ANY SIZE ARE SHOWN. NOTTO SCALE. HBK Site Plan 024 N w+e Exhibit 1 S024 Appendix 6 IOWA CITY WATER DIVISION Hydrant Flow Test Report CATION: 101 LUSK AVE DATE: 22, STED BY: MIKE SANSEN JR TIME: 1:15PM I-NESS: DAVE EXLINE, ERIC GRINGER RPOSE OF TEST: HBK Engineering FLOW HYDRANT Al A2 A3 GPMJ 1070 STATIC B 82 RESIDUAL B 52 :CTED RESULTS: At 20 PSI Residual 1584 GPM Note: If the nozzle coefficient is assumed to be 0.9 REMARKS LOCATION MAP: Show the sizes and distance to the next cross connected line. Show the valves & hydrant branch size. Indicate North. Show flowing hydrants - Label Al and A2. Show the location of Static and Residual - Label B. Click here for drawinq of this flow test area T:\Operations\Reports\l01 Lusk Ave.xlsWater Dept. HBK Site Plan 025 Exhibit I - 025 Appendix 7 RUNOFF INFORMATION U 702 Ui BAYARD Z y, e , I SANITARY 1 ; MANHOLE w—w—w- 204 LEXINGTON BAY) ; 1 I 1 1 I I 612 lBAYARD i 1 EX WATERMAIN (67 CI) EXISTING HYDRANT,,......... PRIVATE SEWER I (LOCATION MARKED It-! IN FIELD),: I PROPERTY LINE 1 FROM GIS I j 117 11 i l LUSK, ; 631 BAYARD 0 I � � I Awl- E j m y 117 701 �r...-- I ��'Ao LUSK BAYARD I > 5 EXISTING HYDF7ANT - I I I E a (TO BE RELQCATED) �i PROPOSED — PROPERTY DRIVEYVAY r LINE I` PROPOSED LUSK I - lT _ teA LEGEND ----j8(}----- EXISTING CONTOUR(JOHNSON COUNTY GIS) RUNOFF INFORMATION BUILDING AREA -7,330 SF LOT AREA =ISM SF RUNOFF COEFFICIENT RAINFALL INTENSITY PAVEMENT AREA=4,010 SF LOT AREA -0.3S2 Aces C(10-YEAR) =0.79 1 (I"eaC-4.531P91r TOTAL IMPERVIOUS = 11.940 SF %IMPERVIOUS-72% C(100-YEAR)-0.59 1(100-yea0. 0.94IN r RATIONAL METHOD (O = CIA) 0 O1 YEAR)-1.57c O (100-YEAR) =2.08 cR HBK Site Plan 026 Exhibit 1 - 026 Appendix 8 OPINION OF COST Item Estimated r Unit Extended o. B tem uanhty Un t nce rice Hydra t Relocation 1 Traffic Control 1 LS $ 500.001 S 600.00 2 Removal of Pavement 17 SY $ 10.00 $ 170.00 3 Watermain, Trenched PVC, 6-Inch 30 LF $ 30.00 $ 900.00 4 Hydrant, Reset 1 LS $ 1'500.00 $ 1,500.00 5 Pavement, PCC, 7-inch 17 SY $ 45.001 $ 765.00 6 Filter Socks, 8-inch 25 LF $ 3.00 $ 75.00 7 Conventional Seeding, Seeding and Fertilizing 17 SY $ 4.00 $ 68.00 Subtotal = $ 3,978.00 Sanitary SewerImprovements 1 Traffic Control 1 LS $ 2.500.00 $ 2.500.00 2 Removal of Pavement 200 SY $ 10.00 $ 2,000.00 3 Removal of Sidewalk 44 SY $ 8.00 $ 352.00 4 Sanity Sewer, Trenched, PVC, 8-inch 330 LF $ 35.00 $ 11,550.00 5 Sanitary Sewer Service Stub PVC, 4-inch 25 LF 1 $ 25.00 $ 625.00 6 Sanitary Sewer Manhole SW-301, 48-Inch 2 EA $ 4,000.00 $ 8.000.00 7 Pavement, PCC, 7-inch 200 SY $ 45.00 $ 9,000.00 8 Sidewalk, PCC, 4-inch 44 SY 1 $ 35.00 $ 1,540.00 9 Filter Socks, 8-inch 150 LF $ 3.00 $ 450.00 10 1 Conventional Seeding, Seeding and Fertilizing 167 SY $ 4.00 $ 668.00 Subtotal= S 36,68100 Fire Ai parstus Access - Option 2 11 Traffic Control 1 LS $ 1,500.00 $ 1,500.00 12 Tree Removal 1 LS $ 300000 $ 3,000.00 13 Tops il, Strip, Stockpile, and Rea read 103 CY $ 15.00 $ 1,550.00 15 Subbase, Modified (IDOT 4123), 6-inch 620 SY $ 8.00 $ 4.960.00 16 Pavement, PCC, 7-inch 495 SY $ 45.00 $ 22,275.00 17 Filter Socks, 8-inch 250 LF 1 $ 3.00 $ 750.00 18 Conventional Seeding. Seeding and Fertilizing 310 SY 1 $ 4.00 $ 1,240.00 19 Easement - 50% of assessed land value per SF $109,170 10.552 acres 1808 SF $ 2.27 $ 4,104.35 Subtotal= I $ 39,379.35 Subtotal= $ 80,042.35 15% Mobilization $ 12,006.00 10% Contingency8,004.00 Total = $ 100,052.35 Miscellaneous 15% Engineering $ 15,008.00 5% Bidding $ 5.003.00 i Subtotal = $ 20,011.00 Estimated Project Cost = $ 120,063.35 8/30/2016 HBK Enginsering HBK Site Plan 027 Exhibit 1 - 027 E-FILED 2016 NOV 09 10:58 AM JOHNSON - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT 1 FIRE A,kaCESS IMPROVEMENTS OPTION 3 a� I ' two i mz I 612 BAYARD � I � •I LEXM NOTON BAYARD i63 BAYAfUJ STfiEET EX SANITARY ` EX WATERkWN W CO MANHOLE 0...- �?--�., ,cam"� —.�, ....�: ..,,.� ....� �j .,'.:.,`Vi--.r gC� % EXISTING HYDRANT ) PRIVATE SEWER 1 (LOCATION WARNED IN FIELD) PROPERTY LINE II p i FROM GIS •y I j 117 . LLAW 881 BAYARD mf I + i© coax BAYARO 12 f EXISTING HYDRANT j (TO BE RELOCATED) d h LINE aaaaaa �� as f saa a • .iaaa aaaa Us. 11n 1 U" PROPOSED PAVEMENT EDGE RELOCATED FIRE HYDRANT LEGEND iQ —w---w--- P)C8TP WATERNNNWAT0m FR0tA PMNM RA� V 40 d0 -.... —...� PROPOSEDVATER" FEET PROPOSED EDGE OF PAVEMENT v' PROPOSPCEASEMENT BOA - 00577 - Ex. D2 E-FILED 2016 NOV 09 10:58 AM JOHNSON - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT FIRE ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS - OPTION 4 702 I BAYARD y,�l a 204 LSOWTDA1 812 BAYARD II SANITARY EX WATERNIAIN (0° CI) MANHOLE - - RO1�� � .. "�1fdD COUT PROPERTY LIME FRONT GIB 701 BAYARD 1 PROPERTY LINE �,� w r � _ PRIVATE SEWER I (LOCATION MARKED - r IN FIELD) I L� 1 :I m Lj BAYARD �. • IK a I � p LUSK I ? EXISTING HYDRANT d 90 BE RELOCATED) L PROPOSED 1, / E'ASEL:ENT (1,808 SF) BUILDIM13 101 u / LURK �8. �z 110 LUSC } I28' PROPOSED _.eel PAVEMENTEDGE Lu ,.I RELOCATED FIRE HYDRANT 70' L LEGEND N -- V — SY• Eg871N0 VMiER MAINILOgTION PROM AeAPRN6) 9 � DO _m....+... —... PROPOSEDNATERMAN FEET — PROPOSEDEDGEWPAVEMEW PROPOSED EASM(ENr \\{` \y BOA - 00578 - Ex. D2 EXHIBIT F HART - FREDERICK CONSULTANTS, P.C. SANITARY SERVICE EVALUATION HART FREDERICK CONSULTANTS, P.C. ENGINEERS & SURVEYORS 1 October, 2015 Prestige Properties 239 E. Court St, Ste 2 Iowa City, IA 52240 Attn: Mike Oliveira Re: Sanitary Sewer Service to 101 Lusk Avenue —Iowa City, Iowa Dear Mr. Oliveira: - We have reviewed the video footage from the inspection of the sanitary sewer service to 101 Lusk Avenue in Iowa City performed on September 23, 2015. Based on the video, we would not recommend using the existing service line in its current condition for the proposed additional single family homes. The tuberculation in the 4-inch diameter cast iron section of the service line will impede flow and possibly cause blockages and backups. The roots protruding through the pipe joints in the VCP section have been removed, but may re -grow in the future. These would again become sources of potential blockage and infiltration. Many of the joints are offset slightly from each other. The offs6ts could be considered minor and do not severely impede flow. The video camera did reach the manhole in this inspection and only two services discovered. The service to 631 Bayard Street was not found. This makes a total of four residential connects on the service line that is believed to be 6-inches in diameter. Typical standard practice for most cities is to require a minimum pipe diameter of 6-inches when more than one building is served by a single service line. According to the sewer inspection equipment operator, cast iron portion of this service line is 4-inches in diameter. Based on the latest video inspection, we recommend a new 6-inch service line be installed to replace the 4-inch cast iron section of the existing service line. The remaining existing service line should be lined to prevent future root growth and infiltration Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call Scott Ritter, L.S., or myself at our office. c I Sine �@ Benjamin A. Carhoff, P.E. Hart -Frederick Consultants P.C. cc: Jason Havel, City of Iowa City enc: Video on USB Flash Drive file 510 State Street • P.O. Box 560 • 7"d in, IA 52340-0560 • 319-545-7215 • Fas 319-545-7220 • www.hatbhededrk corn 1 Engineering • Surveying • Planning MHA University Heights 000309 EXHIBIT G LETTER TO CARLSONS' ATTORNEY 10-3-2016 LAREW LAW OFFICE LarewLawOffice.com Phone: 319.337.7079 Fax: 319.337.7082 504 E. Bloomington St. 210 Cedar St. 252 E. 3rd Street Iowa City, Iowa 52245-2858 Muscatine, Iowa 52761-2504 Des Moines, Iowa 50309-4114 James C. Larew James.Larew@LarewLawOffice.com VIA EMAIL: bfa2anCcr�simmoMperrine. com October 3, 2016 Mr. Brian Fagan, Esq. Simmons Perrine 115 Third Street, SE, Suite 1200 Cedar Rapids, Iowa 52401-1266 Re: 101 Lusk Avenue, Iowa City, Iowa, Matters Dear Brian: Claire M. Diallo Admitted only in NY and NJ I am writing to you under the assumption that, in addition to the proceedings before the Iowa City Board of Adjustment, you are representing F. Reed Carlson and Sandra Carlson with respect to several issues that arise in connection with the interests of two of our clients, Anne Lahey, who owns 111 Lusk Avenue, and Craig Syrop-Anne Sadler, who own 117 Lusk Avenue. If I am incorrect in that assumption, please refer me to the person or attorney to whom I should address the issues described below. First, as to the easement issue, as you know, our clients were surprised to learn that the sanitary sewer used by Pauline Aspel and prior owners at 101 Lusk Avenue tied onto the sanitary sewer line used by their respective properties. They seek clarification as to the Carlsons' intent with respect the sanitary sewer issue. As you aware, our clients earlier served upon the Carlsons formal Notice of their position that the Carlsons do not have any easement interest over either of their respective properties. Having heard nothing in response to those Notices, our clients believe that Iowa statutory and common law is clear that either the Carlsons or our clients could initiate litigation to have any easement issues resolved and our clients are prepared to do so, if necessary. At the same time, if the Carlsons have no intent of connecting the sanitary sewer that formerly served the residence at101 Lusk Avenue before it was demolished to any structure they may in the future build, there would likely be no need to litigate the issue. The matter could be easily and efficiently resolved by the execution and recording of appropriate documents that set forth that understanding. I ask that you consult with your clients and confirm their position, in LAREW LAW OFFICE Re:101 Lusk Avenue, Iowa City, Iowa Page 1 writing, with respect to the easement issue related to both the Lahey and Syrop-Sadler properties by the close of business on October 5, 2016. On a related matter, in our review of the City's files, we understand the Carlsons' demolition permit issued by the City for the Aspel home to have required the involvement of a person licensed to install sewer and water service to terminate services at the City's main. In this instance, because the sewer service was not terminated at the main, our clients want assurance that the person hired to cap the sewer at 101 Lusk Avenue was licensed to perform that work. An improperly -capped sanitary sewer could easily result in health and other problems and our clients —as I'm sure is the case with the Carlsons—want to ensure the sewer capping was performed by a duly licensed person. Please confirm the status of that matter. Finally, our clients believe the continued open -pit water -filled former basement of the Aspel home poses a health and personal injury risk, particularly to children, and, in its present condition, may well constitute a nuisance and fails to conform with applicable Iowa City Code provisions. Our clients seek clarification as to how much longer the Carlson intend to keep the pit in its present condition. Thank you in advance for your anticipated prompt responses to these questions. Best wishes. Cc: Craig Syrop and Anne Sadler Anne Lahey LAREW LAW OFFICE Re: 101 Lusk Avenue, Iowa City, Iowa Page 2 EXHIBIT H EMAIL - DRUIVENGA TO HAVEL RE: REQUEST TO SUBDIVIDE LOT From: Paul Drulvenga <Paul-D:ulvenga@Jowa-city org> Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 201511:24 AM To: Jason Havel Subject: RE: 101 Lusk Ave. Request to subdivide lot. Attachments: Lusk.pdf Perhaps something like this..I know Jeff Maxwell can bore lines. From: Jason Havel Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 201510:06 AM To: Paul Drulvenga Cc. Roger Overton Subject: Re: 101 Lusk Ave. Request to subdivide krt. What would be your preferred option? Thanks, Sent from my iPhone On Feb 25, 2015, at 9:52 AK Paul Druivenga < wrote: Jason - The proposed house farthest to the south would have Its sewer service cross 3 different properties. I'm not a fan ofthis proposal. Future repairs of the private line could get dicey. Generally when I'm asked about similar older sewers "why did the City OK this?" Paul -- From: Jason Havel Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2015 9:19 AM To: Roger Overton; Paul Drulvenga; Chris Parb * Tim Hennes; Julie Tallman; Josh Slattery Subject: FW: 101 Lusk Ave. Request to subdivide lot. AII, Attached is a drawing for splitting a lot on Lusk Avenue. Please review and let me know if you have any questions/concems. Tim/Julie, do you want the response to come from your department or would you like me to respond to Mike with comments? Thanks. Jason From: Mike Oliveira (mailto mollveirii0omWoe o co i Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 201512:27 PM To: Jason Havel Cc: 'Robert Carlson'; 'J, Scott Ritter' Subject 101 Lusk Ave. Request tD subdivide IoL lq EXHIBIT I EMAIL - HAVEL TO HIMSELF RE: LUSK AVE COMMENTS Sue Dulek From: Jason Havel <Jason-HavelClows-city.orp Sent: Wednesday, Mamh 11, 2015 8:52 PM To: Jason Havel Subject: Lusk Ave Attachments: Lusk Avenue Comments.docx d4 General 1. A plat of survey, creating a new Auditor's Plat, will have to be signed by a PE or licensed surveyor, and submitted to the Director of Neighborhood and Development Services for approval. 2. Zoning (RS5) requires 45 feet of street frontage. Lusk Avenue should be extended to provide vehicular access for a minimum of 45 feet along the east lot line of the new lot. Anything less than that would require a variance request. 3. Driveway spacing standards require three feet (3') between the lot line extended and the curb cut on Lusk. 4. Turn -around at the end of Lusk Avenue sufficient for fire department? Sanitary 1. Is there an existing easement around the sanitary sewer where it crosses private property? 2. The City's preference would be to provide a sanitary sewer within the Lusk Avenue ROW and tie the services Into the new line (see attached drawing as a possible option). EXHIBIT J EMAIL - HAVEL TO OLIVEIRA RE: LUSK -SANITARY OPTION Sue Dulek From: Jason Havel <Jason-Havel@bwa-cily.org> Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2015 2:11 PM To: 'Mike Oliveira' Subject: RE: Need a respond please 101 Lusk Ave Attachments: Lusk - sanitary option.pdf, Lusk Ave Lot(s).pdf; Lusk Ave - Water.pdr Mike, We were finally able to get this in front of joint staff yesterday. Our comments are as follows: 1. A plat of survey, creating a new Auditor's Plat, will have to be signed by a PE or licensed surveyor, and submitted to the Director of Neighborhood and Development Services for approval. 2. Zoning (RSS) requires 45 feet of street frontage, and the frontage is required to be along the street. Lusk Avenue should be extended to provide vehicular access for a minimum of45 feet along the east lot line of the new lot. 3. Driveway spacing standards require three feet (3') between the lot line extended and the curb cut on Lusk. 4. Our preference would be to provide new sanitary service out the front of the house(s) to a new line along Lusk Avenue and installed by the developer. The new line could be within the ROW and eventually tie into the manhole at the Lexington/Bayard intersection (see attached). If you would choose to tie into the existing private line, we would need proof of the ability to do so, such as proof of an easement, agreement, etc. 5. The water main would need to be extended (see attached) and a water tap -on fee may be required. 6. The lots must be 60' in width at the front setback line. Related to that, here Is a comment from Jann Ream: Attached is the plat for Lusk with the dimensional adjustments that would have to be made In order for the two new lots to meet the required dimensional requirements. The new lot line would have to move south approximately 7ft (6.59' exactly). This would odd 1,050 sf to the north lotfar a total of 9,050sf and take away 1,050sf from the south lot for a total of 7,595sf. This is a problem since the minimum lot size is 8,DWsf. If the new lot line was angled north from the east boundary to the west boundary, the square footage of the two lots could probably be balanced so they would both have a little over 8,000sf. The only potential problem I can see with that Is maintaining the 60' width at the required front setback line which is 10ft back from the front lot lines. It would definitely be "threading the needle "to make that happen. They have about.5ft (V2 foot) to play with but I think it could be done. The drawing is attached for your Information. I am also awaiting a response regarding another potential issue, but wanted to get you these comments. Let me know if you have any questions or want to discuss. Thanks. Jason From: Mike Oliveira [mailto:molWra@presti9epmp•com] Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 201510:50 AM To: Jason Havel Subject: Need a respond please 101 Lusk Ave Jason you had this for over three weeks — have you made a decision! EXHIBIT K EMAIL - HAVEL TO OLNEIRA RE: QUESTION ABOUT EASEMENTS Sue Dulek From: Jason Havel <Jason-Havel@Iowa-city.org> Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2015 6:53 PM To: 'Mike Oliveira'; Jann Ream; Julie Tallman Subject: RE: New Concept for splitting 101 Lusk Ave per our discussions Mike, A few comments/questions on the revised plan: 1) It appears from the aerial that the existing sanitary sewer runs under the garage adjacent to 631 Bayard Street. Is there language in the easement to address repairs under that structure if needed? That layout is obviously less than ideal, and could be a concern for the users of the sanitary sewer. 2) What are the elevations/grades for the sanitary service from the south house? That line is shown with a number of bends and could be a maintenance issue. Will the southern property be required to have a grinder pump or a force main type setup? An easement should also be added for the service line where it crosses the neighboring property. Maintenance of that line would also be needed in the easement agreement. 3) The private sanitary main should not be shown as extending under the northern house. The house service should connect to the main outside of the building footprint at a manhole or other connection location. 4) The water services must come perpendicular from the main to the property line, which will require extension of the water main for the south property. They cannot run parallel to the property line as shown in the drawing. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, Jason From: Mike Oliveira [mailto:moliveira@prestlgeprop.com] Sent: Friday, April 17, 2015 3:39 PM To: Jann Ream; Julie Tallman; Jason Havel Subject: New Concept for splitting 101 Lusk Ave per our discussions Here are revised split lot plan per out last meeting. Please take a look and we believe it meet all the requirements. I will thank take to the fire department to get a blessing or rejectioni Thank you — enjoy the nice weather. Mike Oliveira Prestige Properties, LLC. d5 To: Jason Havel;'Mike Oliveira' Cc: 'J. Scott Ritter; Robert Carlson' Subject: RE: Request for a meeting for Lusk Ave Lot Division My schedule is completely open those days. Mike — please coordinate with Scott and Bob and suggest a time. I will schedule a meeting here at City Hall. Jann From: Jason Havel Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2015 11:51 AM To: Jann Ream; 'Mike Oliveira' Cc: I Scott Ritter; Robert Carlson' Subject: RE: Request for a meeting for Lusk Ave Lot Division I am available the following times next Monday or Tuesday: Monday: 8 am-10 am, I I am — 5 pm Tuesday: 8 am —1 pm, 3 pm — 5 pm Jason From: Jann Ream Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2015 11:49 AM To: 'Mike Oliveira; Jason Havel Cc: I Scott Ritter; Robert Carlson' Subject: RE: Request for a meeting for Lusk Ave Lot Division A meeting is fine but my schedule this week is very W. Would next Monday or Tuesday work for everyone? From: Mike Oliveira [mailto:moliveira orestig=p.coml Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2015 10:15 AM To: Jason Havel; Jann Ream Cc:'J. Scott Ritter; Robert Carlson' Subject: Request for a meeting for Lusk Ave Lot Division 05 Jason and Jann, Here are your original questions/responses and here are our responses (Scott Ritter and Bob Carlson) and questionshwommendations. We need to have a meeting to see if we can iron out the issues and get this project moving forward. Also we need to know what other land mines we are facing! Thank you in advance for your consideration and cooperation in this matter! Let me know some dates. Mike Oliveira 319-512-7616 x 5 City's Responses: We were finally able to get this in front of joint staff yesterday. Our comments are as follows: 1. A plat of survey, creating a new Auditor's Plat, will have to be signed by a PE or licensed surveyor, and submitted to the Director of Neighborhood and Development Services for approval. 2. Zoning (RS5) requires 45 feet of street frontage, and the frontage is required to be along the street. Lusk Avenue should be extended to provide vehicular access for a minimum of 45 feet along the east lot line of the new lot. 3. Driveway spacing standards require three feet (3') between the lot line extended and the curb cut on Lusk. 4. Our preference would be to provide new sanitary service out the front of the house(s) to a new line along Lusk Avenue and installed by the developer. The new line could be within the ROW and eventually tie into the manhole at the Lexington/Bayard intersection (see attached). If you would choose to tie into the existing private line, we would need proof of the ability to do so, such as proof of an easement, agreement, etc. 5. The water main would need to be extended (see attached) and a water top -on fee may be required. 6. The lots must be 60' in width at the front setback line. Related to that, here is a comment from Jann Resin: Attached is the plat for Lusk with the dimensional adjustments that would have to be made in order for the two new lots to meet the required dimensional requirements. The new lot line would have to move south approximately 7fi (6.59' exactly). This would add 1, 050 sf to the north lot for a total of 9, 050sf and take away 1, 050sffrom the south lot for a total of 7, 595sf. This is a problem since the minimum lot size is 8,000sf. oS If the new lot line was angled north from the east boundary to the west boundary, the square footage of the two lots could probably be balanced so they would both have a little over 8, 000sf. The only potential problem I can see with that is maintaining the 60' width at the required front setback line which is 20fl back from the front lot lines. It would definitely be "threading the needle" to make that happen. They have about .5ft (112 foot) to play with but I think it could be done. The drawing is attached for your information. I am also awaiting a response regarding another potential issue, but wanted to get you these comments. Let me know if you have any questions or want to discuss. Thanks. Here are the responses from our Scott Ritter. We need to setup a meeting to discuss! 1) Not a problem 2) 6) I feel these 2 bullets can be resolved as long as we can use the proposed width of street vacation as our street frontage and area calculations. From the intentions involved are to save the trees in the street area 3) Can we ask for a variance on this? For again we are trying to save the trees. 4) As an estimate this could cost $45642 and then what happens to the other 3 houses who must hook up to same line. I haven't seen the video of the line that was done to know this. The three other property owners will need to be receptive to an easement for this line. I think it would be to their advantage. 5) As an estimate this could cost $10047. My take on this is the hydrant is moved further from the North two properties and across street. Leaving the hydrant where it is, makes it more centrally located. Both 4 & 5 above includes the cost of street replacement. I believe if a meeting can be set up with all, we can resolve and/or get more definite answers to these bullets. J. Scott Ritter, PLS Hart F7ederick Consultants PC 510 State Street, PO Box 560 Tin, M 52340-0560 A 319-545-7215 F.319-545-7220 otS EXHIBIT L EMAIL - OLIVEIRA TO RAVEL RE6 : SEWER LINE EASEMENT a89 Sue Dulek From: Mike Oliveira <mollveira@prestigepmp.com> Sent: Sunday, June 07, 2015 7:57 AM To: Jason Havel Subject: RE: 101 Lusk Ave Sewer Line Easement I will work for Friday morning right now keep that open I will get back to you with an exact time. From: Jason Havel [mailto:Jason-HavelC3a Iowa-city.osg] Sent: Saturday, June 06, 2015 7:00 PM To: 'Mike Oliveira' Cc: 'Michael Kennedy' Subject: RE: 101 Lusk Ave Sewer Line Easement Mike, What days/times would work for you this upcoming week? Friday (le) is pretty open for me, but I may be able to fit it in another day if you were wanting it to be sooner. Thanks. Jason From: Mike Oliveira lmailto:moliveira(@Rmstiseprop coral Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2015 5:04 PM To: Jason Havel Cc:'Michael Kennedy Subject: 101 Lusk Ave Sewer Line Easement Hi Jason, We have engaged our attorney, Mike Kennedy, to try and nail down the easement language that will satisfy your departments concerns while b ancing a concerns wi —t i� It oof property owners MR use service. You and the other property owners are the last hurtle in this project. I believe the other property are going to be a huge challenge. 4 EXHIBIT M EMAIL - OVERTON TO HAVEL RE: QUESTIONS FROM ACKERMAN REGARDING SEWER Seim Dulak D n: Roger Overton <Roger-Overton@iowa-city.org> sa-t: Wednesday, June 29, 2016 9:15 Aivi i o: Jason Havel Cc: Tim Wilkey,, Ron Knoche; Paul Druivenga mat ;ca:: 101 Lusk Ave Jason, Bill Ackerman called me yesterday concerned with the sanitary sewers near his home on Lust: Ave. I had some discussion with him about the sewers being able to handle Yee flow from the new "Itinnick House". My last recollection of this area was that we were going to require the new development south of Bill's house to install a new i3" line to Lexington. I did not realize thst using tha exlsiing combined 4" service was going to be allowed. Bill wanted me to email him details of the condition and flow capacity of sewers in the area :o assuage his and his neighbor's concerns. We don't know or have we investigated anything about the condition of the 4" private service. How would you like to proceed with contacting Bill about his concerns? We have video of the main north of Lexington and it indicates a 4" sag about 14' outside the MH at Bayard/Lexington that runs for about 20' to the North. This defect shouldn't hinder development of the lot. Assistant Superintendent City of Iowa city Wastewater Treatment Division office-319-SS7-6104 Cell-319-321-3353 EXHIBIT N AFFIDAVIT OF ANNE G. SADLER AND CRAIG H. SYROP AFFIDAVIT OF ANNE G. SADLER AND CRAIG H. SYROP COME NOW, Anne G. Sadler and Craig H. Syrop, being first duly sworn, and hereby state as follows: We, Anne G Sadler and Craig H Syrop, are the sole owners of Blitz, LLC. As such, since purchasing it in 2009, we have been and we are the sole owners of real estate whose street address is 117 Lusk Avenue, Iowa City, Iowa, which is located less than 100 feet from the 101 Lusk Avenue property. We are citizens of Iowa City. At the time of our purchase of 117 Lusk Avenue, at a location two lots to the south, at 101 Lusk Avenue, there was a modestly -sized single family dwelling. It was owned and occupied by Pauline Aspel. According to records we have seen more recently, that home had I full bathroom. Within the last year we observed that the Aspel home was demolished. It was not either in whole or in part "destroyed or damaged by fire, explosion, act of God or by a public enemy," but, instead, was removed by voluntary demolition. We have learned more recently that F. Reed Carlson and Sandra Carlson were the owners of that residential structure when it was demolished. When we purchased the property at 117 Lusk Avenue we were not informed, nor, until very recently, did we know, that our residential property had shared a sanitary sewer with the residence at 101 Lusk Avenue. We first received rumors of a shared sewer line only after the City of Iowa City had issued a Building Permit to the Carlsons for a new building at 101 Lusk Avenue. In response to that rumor, we did some investigation, including a review of records produced by the City of Iowa City in response to a public records request. We discovered in those records that City officials and a prior owner of 101 Lusk Avenue, Mike Oliveira, owner of Prestige Properties, LLC,a party who had purchased the property after Pauline Aspel had died —knew AFFIDAVIT of ANNE G. SADLER and CRAIG H. SYROP Page 1 of the shared sewer and had had its condition reviewed by civil engineers and persons having sewer camera equipment. According to those records, the civil engineer who appears to have been retained by Mr. Oliveira, had filed a professional opinion that the shared sewer line in its then -current condition should not be used to take on additional sewage load that would be created by (at that time, by that prior owner) two new residential structures. City officials, according to the public records we have reviewed, noted concerns for the absence of any Easement Agreement between the owners of 101 Lusk Avenue and properties to the north, including our property, and insisted, as a condition precedent to Mr. Oliveira's constructing two relatively small homes, that the owner build new private sewer lines to the City's sewer main or, in the alternative, produce evidence of a written Easement Agreement amongst those who shared the sanitary sewer line. Nobody ever contacted us, however. In learning of the shared sewer line only through our review of public records, we hired a professional sewer maintenance company to conduct a video taping of the sanitary sewer and to track the location of the sewer line. Only then, and not before, did we gain knowledge equal to that of, and already held and used by, the City and owners of 101 Lusk Avenue during the City's Building Permit process. We are appalled at the situation whereby at least some members of the City's staff have been willing to act covertly with the owners of 101 Lusk Avenue and enable the Carlsons to now do what they would not let prior owners of the property do only a few months earlier. That is, to newly construct a building utilizing a shared sewer whose intended use and design —to host large entertainment events --will add a tremendous sanitary sewer burden on a line that, in the written opinion of a licensed civil engineer, cannot bear that burden without causing difficulties for the properties, such as ours, that are downstream from the crowds. We are appalled that at least some City officials who, only a few months earlier, had insisted upon proof of a written Easement Agreement amongst the owners of 101 Lusk Avenue and properties to the north of it (including AFFIDAVIT of ANNE G. SADLER and CRAIG H. SYROP Page 2 ours) before a Building Permit would be approved for two proposed smaller residential structures. Now, a short time later, for the Carlsons' huge entertainment structure, imposed no such comparable requirement and no action was taken by the City to inform us that the issuance of a Building Permit to the Carlsons would place our property at risk. We have read section 14-1A-3 of the City's code that purports it should be implemented in a manner that "promotes the health, safety, order, convenience, prosperity, and general welfare of the citizens of Iowa City". However, we believe the issuance of a RS-5 building permit for new construction at 101 Lusk Avenue occurred without due application of these tenets and instead promoted the use of a shared sewer and un-granted use against, and placed an unlawful burden upon, our private property. Further, we believe that allowing, and indeed encouraging, new construction to utilize a shared private sewer violates the very code requirement for a separate sanitary sewer line required for RS5 designation as set forth by the City under section 16-3131-6I3 of city code. It is clear from City's documents that the shared sewer line and relevant concerns for easements across other's private property were prominent in prior considerations by the City during the processing of applications for building permits by Mr. Oliveira. 1) Notably, we have had our abstract reviewed repeatedly by attorneys, we have had our property surveyed by a licensed surveyor, we have had the premises inspected by Iowa One Call with any located buried services marked by it. None of these investigative actions revealed any evidence of any documented easement. Nor has any consideration ever been delivered to us or to any prior owner of our property for the use of this sanitary sewer by any owners of 101 Lusk Avenue —including the Carlsons. However, by contrast, another easement of record for a shared driveway is both obvious in terms of use and is well documented in our abstract and survey. 2) In addition, at no time since our ownership, have we been contacted by any owners of the property at 101 Lusk Avenue, their representatives or any agent of Iowa City Housing or Public Works or City Attorney or any other representative of the City regarding the existence of a shared, private sewer line or opinions expressed by persons, and placed in City files, that our AFFIDAVIT of ANNE G. SADLER and CRAIG H. SYROP Page 3 property would be placed at risk if added sewage burdens were to be placed upon the existing sanitary sewer line. 3) At no time has our approval or permission to use, to re-establish use or to clarify responsibilities or liabilities for the use for this shared private sewer line ever been sought by any owner of 101 Lusk Avenue, their representative or any agent of Iowa City. 4) Our review of city records documents a clear fore knowledge by at least some members of the City's staff that a separate, lawful sewer line, as directed by RS-5 code, directing egress of sewage contents from 101 Lusk Avenue directly to the City's sewer main, could be established by the owners of 101 Lusk Avenue by accessing available and public right of way on Lusk Avenue. Further, this could be done without the un-granted use of our private property. Therefore, it is our stance that by granting the Carlsons' permit for new construction, the City has misapplied its own Code and thereby benefited asymmetrically these particular Building Permit Applicants and despite the City's own awareness concerning, and identification of, a clear and previously sought alternative. The City's failure to balance and protect our health, safety, convenience, and prosperity —citizens of the community —in clear favor of persons who do not reside in our neighborhood, is deeply troubling and has caused us to consider all possible private actions we can take to defend our property interests in the absence of impartial and effective government conduct. FURTHER WE_SAYETH NOT. H. ':iC0MKqqi,1on JAMES C LM1 EW Na 771 W M C elon 6x FO MY 02,201 Subscribed and sworn to before me by Anne GCARYPUBLIC-IOWA Sadlerand Craig H. Syrop this `day of September, 2016. AFFIDAVIT of ANNE G. SADLER and CRAIG H. SYROP Page 4 EXHIBIT O AFFIDAVIT OF PATRICIA C. KOZA AFFIDAVIT OF PATRICIA C. KOZA COMES NOW, Patricia C. Koza, having been first duly sworn, and hereby states as follows: My name is Patricia C. Koza. I live with my husband John Koza at 209 Lexington Avenue, which is less than one- half block North from the proposed Carlson building at 101 Lusk Avenue. I was born and raised in Manville Heights and have lived most of my adult life there. In my opinion, the proposed Carlson building has been misclassified by the City in the Building Permit process. It is nothing more than some kind of adult entertainment venue, such as a sports bar with bedrooms, masquerading as a residence. Iowa City, being a college town, has more than its share of entertainment venues and bars. The City has enacted comprehensive codes for these types of structures for the protection and safety of those who use them... certainly not for the convenience of those who own them. If it were properly classified as an entertainment venue, this building would be held to high standards of safety to protect the up to 200 persons who can occupy it at one time. The commercial kitchen would have to meet a myriad of health standards. There would be sprinklers to slow the advance of any fires. There AFFIDAVIT of PATRICIA C. KCIZA (� I , Page 1 would be doors opening to the outside with crash bars to assure rapid exit in the event of danger. As it is, this 7,400 square foot building has one single door leading directly to the outside from the main level. A second door exits into the garage but it is only accessible by going through the kitchen and then through the Owner's Suite. There is one egress stairway and door from the lower level and there are no egress windows, yet that level is designed to attract crowds, holding a sports court and a large theatre. By comparison, in our 2400 square foot home, located within a block of the Carlson property, we have three doors on the main level that exit directly to the outside. Because the Carlson proposal has been misclassified as a residence, it is not being held to conform to the safety codes that have been painstakingly drawn by generations of City staff members and enacted into law by responsible, elected officials. The people who are entertained in this space will not enjoy the protections that they deserve from our City. It is the fervent hope of myself, my family and my neighbors that you embrace your duty as members of the Board of Adjustment to revisit the misclassification of this entertainment venue and that you come to the conclusion that there is no building classification for a structure such as this in the RS-5 Zone. AFFIDAVIT of PATRICIA C. KOZA I &, Page 2 Please revoke the Building Permit that was issued in error. FURTHER I SAYETTH NOT. co'<U. C / PATRICIA C. KOZA Subscribed and sworn 2016 Koza this _day of September, auE EW„� tpyVA7149tiMy Commry Op 2018 AFFIDAVIT of PATRICIA C. KOZA Page 3 EXHIBIT P NOTICES OF TERMINATION OF EASEMENT INTERESTS NOTICE OF TERMINATION OF EASEMENT INTERESTS COMES NOW, William G. Ackerman and Karen S. Ackerman, as husband and wife, owners of real property located at 631 Bayard Street, in the city of Iowa City, Johnson County, Iowa, and pursuant to Iowa Code Chapter 564, hereby Provide notice to Frederick Reed Carlson and Sandra Marie Carlson, as their ownership interests may appear, owners of the real property at 101 Lusk Avenue, in the city of Iowa City, Johnson County, Iowa, with Iowa City Assessor Legal Description: MANVILLE ADDITION COM SE COR LOT 1 BLK 14; N 123; W 150; S TO N/L OF CRI & P R/W, SE ALONG CRI & P R/W TO BEG (Parcel Number 1009155004), of the termination of any existing easement, together with any easement thought to exist, which traverses or uses existing real estate, currently owned by the undersigned, and located at 631 Bayard Street in the city of Iowa City Johnson County Iowa, whose legal description is as follows: Beginning at a point 99.9 feet west of the Northeast Corner of Block 14, Manville Addition to Iowa City, Iowa, according to the recorded Plat Records of Johnson County, Iowa, thence West along the North. Line of said Block 14, 50.1 feet thence South parallel with the West Line of said Block 14, 105 feet, thence East parallel with the North Line of said Block 14, 50.1 feet, thence north 105 feet to the place of beginning, subject to easements and restrictions of record if any. and, Iowa City Assessor Legal Description: MANVILLE ADDITION W 50.1' OF E 65' OF N 105' LOT 2 BLK 14 (Parcel Number 1009155003). Signed this the 3d ay of September, 2016. William G. Ackerman Karen S. Ackerman STATE OF UWI� COUNTY OF JOHNSON: On this a•" day of September, 2016, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said county, personally appeared William G. Ackerman and Karen S. Ackerman, husband and wife, to me personally known to be the persons named in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged the execution f t e i rument to be their voluntary act and deed. JAMES C LAREW Notarial Seal - IOWA Notary Public in and for the Stat oflowa Commission No.771499 Print Name:.Af14*S C- LA�61W My Commission Expires February 02, 2018 My commission expires: A. a? -18 NOTICE OF TERMINATION OF EASEMENT INTERESTS COME NOW, Anne M. Lahey, an unmarried person, and sole owner of real property located at 111 Lusk Avenue, in the city of Iowa City, Johnson County, Iowa, and pursuant to Iowa Code Chapter 564, hereby provides notice to Frederick Reed Carlson and Sandra Marie Carlson, as their ownership interests may appear, owners of the real property at 101 Lusk Avenue, in the city of Iowa City, Johnson County, Iowa, with Iowa City Assessor Legal Description: MANVILLE ADDITION COM SE COR LOT 1 BLK 14; N 1231; W 1501; S TO N/L OF CRI & P R/W; SE ALONG CRI & P R/W TO BEG (Parcel Number 1009155004), of the termination of any existing easement, together with any easement thought to exist, which traverses or uses existing real estate, currently owned by the undersigned, and located at 111 Lusk Avenue in the city of Iowa City. Johnson County. Iowa, whose legal description is as follows: Beginning at a point 52% feet south of the northeast corner of Lot One (1) in Block Fourteen (14) in Manville Addition, according to the plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 1, Page 149, plat records of Johnson County, Iowa, thence west 99.9 feet, thence south 52% feet, thence east 99.9 feet, thence north 52% feet to the place of beginning, subject to a right of way over the north 4 feet thereof for the use of that part of said lots 1 and 2 lying north of the above described premises. Also, an easement for the purpose of a right of way for the use of the above described premises over the following: Beginning 52% feet south of the Northeast corner of said Lot 1, Block 14, Manville Addition, thence north 4 feet, thence west 99.9 feet, thence south 4 feet, thence east 99.9 feet to the place of beginning. and, which is also described by the Iowa City Assessor as follows: MANVILLE ADDITION S 52 W OF N 105' LOT 1 & S 52 W OF N 105 OF E 16' LOT 2 BLK 14 (Parcel Number 1009155002). Signed this th� day of September, 2016. M. Lahey STATE OF IOWjf COUNTY OF JOHNSON: On this .7 ' day of September, 2016, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said County, personally appeared Anne M. Lahey, unmarried, to me personally known to be the person named in d who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged the execution of the i rument to be their voI V� d de d. 'PIMDAMES C LAREW NotaHill Seal -I Notary Public in and for the State of I wa �^'^ CioPnRllsalon No. 771 Print Name: �✓JI'M6r3 C. CRs'Z�fri my Co MIS on Expiroir oerY 02, 2016 My commission expires: NOTICE OF TERMINATION OF EASEMENT INTERESTS COME NOW, Karen L. Penick, as Attorney -in -Fact for Bertha R. Armstrong, sole owner of real property located at 701 Bayard Street, in the city of Iowa City, Johnson County, Iowa, and pursuant to Iowa Code Chapter 564, hereby provides notice to Frederick Reed Carlson and Sandra Marie Carlson, as their ownership interests may appear, owners of the real property at 101 Lusk Avenue, in the city of Iowa City, Johnson County, Iowa, with Iowa City Assessor Legal Description: MANVILLE ADDITION COM SE COR LOT 1 BLK 14; N 123; W 1501; S TO NIL OF CRI & P R/W, SE ALONG CRI & P R/W TO BEG (Parcel Number 1009155004), of the termination of any existing easement, together with any easement thought to exist, which traverses and uses existing real estate, currently owned by the undersigned, and located at 701 Bayard Street in the city of Iowa City. Johnson County, Iowa, and which is also described by the Iowa City Assessor as follows: MANVILLE ADDITION W 35' LOT 2 & E 55' LOT 3 BLK 14 (Parcel Number 1009155005). 22 rej Signed this the J day of September, 2016. `71'A �o as Attorney -in -Fact for Bertha R. Armstrong STATE + OFSq# COUNTY OF JOHNSON: On this JJ day of September, 2016, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said county, personally appeared Karen L. Penick, as Attorney -in -Fact for Bertha R. Armstrong, to me pere ally known to be the person named in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged the executio trument to be their voluntary act and deed. ' JAMES C LAREW otary Public .pnd for the State of Iowa Notarial Seal • IOWA Print Name:y's++r ++ < <-►�f*✓ COONWI�sion No. 771499 My commission expires: A' Z —1 g My Cemmi®elon Expl"reTFWMM 02, 2018 NOTICE OF TERMINATION OF EASEMENT INTERESTS COMES NOW, Craig H. Svrop and Anne G. Sadler, husband and wife, and Anne G. Sadler, as Manager of Blitz, LLC, as their respective ownership interests in real property located at 117 Lusk Avenue, in the city of Iowa City, Johnson County, Iowa, may appear, and pursuant to Iowa Code Chapter 564, hereby provide notice to Frederick Reed Carlson and Sandra Marie Carlson, as their ownership interests may appear, owners of the real property at 101 Lusk Avenue, in the city of Iowa City, Johnson County, Iowa, with Iowa City Assessor Legal Description: MANVILLE ADDITION COM SE COR LOT 1 BLK 14; N 123; W 150; S TO N/L OF CRI & P R/W; SE ALONG CRI & P R/W TO BEG (Parcel Number 1009155004), of the termination of any existing easement, together with any easement thought to exist, which traverses or uses existing real estate, currently owned by the undersigned, and located at 117 Lusk Avenue in the city of Iowa City, Johnson County. Iowa, whose legal description is as follows: Beginning at the northeast corner of Lot 1 in Block 14 in Manville Addition, according to the plat thereof recorded in Book 1, Page 149 Plat Records of Johnson County, Iowa; thence west 99.9 feet; thence south 52% feet; thence east 99.9 feet; thence north 52% feet to the place of beginning, subject to a right -of --way over the south 4 feet thereof for the use of that part of said Lots 1 and 2,lying south of the above described premises. Also, an easement for the purpose of a right-of-way for the use of the above described premises over the following: Beginning 52% feet south of the northeast corner of said Lot 1, Block 14, Manville Addition; thence south 4 feet; thence west 99.9 feet; thence north 4 feet; thence east 99.9 feet to the place of beginning. and, which is also described by the Iowa City Assessor as follows: MANVILLE ADDITION N 52 W LOT 1 & E 15' OF N 52 W LOT 2 BLK 14 (Parcel Number 1009155001). 0*0 this the 3 day of September, 2016. G. Sadler�Maniger, Blitz, STATE O;IPA, COUNTY OF JOHNSON: On this M day of September, 2016, before me, a Notary Public in and for said county, personally appeared Craig H. Symp and Anne G. Sadler, to me personally known to be the persons named in and who executed the f re ing ' trument, and acknowledged the execution of the instrument to be their voluntary act and deed. °"T'=Seal�- EW IOWA Notary Public i�n d--for� th�e State of Iowa 71499 Print Name: J� C• C/re-Ew • v C -m02. 2018 My commission expires: et - p2 -/ STATE OF I0 COUNTY OF JOHNSON: On this 4 . day of September, 2016, before me, a Notary Public, in and for said county, personally appeared Anne G. Sadler, to me personally known, who being by me duly sworn did say that that person is Manager of said Blitz, LLC, and that said instrument was signed an behalf of the said Blitz, LLC, by authority of its operating agreement and the said Anne G. Sadler acknowledged the execution of said instrument to be the voluntary act and deed of said Blitz, LLC, by it voluntarily executed. ,y I�'�ublic inAnd for the State of Iowa f JAMIE C LAREW Print Name: �f. Fo C• Notarial Saw - inWA .11 My commission expires: EXHIBIT Q EMAILS REGARDING FIRE TURNAROUND From: Jason Havel <Jason -Havel r@iowa-city.org> Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2015 1:58 PM To: John Grier; Brian Greer Subject: Turnaround on Lusk Ave Attachments: Lusk Ave Lot(s).pdf Good afternoon, A developer is looking to possibly divide an existing lot on Lusk Avenue. As part of the process, we would require a turnaround at the end of the street. Is the proposed turnaround (see attached) sufficient for the Fire Department. Thanks. Jason Havel, P.E. City Engineer City of Iowa City 410 E. Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 Phone: (319) 356-5410 Fax: (319) 356-5007 CITY OF IOWA CITY usescocmrorureatuu Appellants' Exhibit 7 - 009 Appellants' Exhibit 7 - 010 Sue Dulek From: Brian Greer <Brian-Greer@iowa-city.org> Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2015 3:11 PM To: Jason Havel; John Grier Subject: RE: Turnaround on Lusk Ave Attachments: Fire Apparatus Access Roads.pdf Jason, I have attached the 2012 International Fire Code (IFC) appendix for fire apparatus access roads. With the space you have to work with there, it appears that it would be impossible to provide a conforming turnaround to meet the requirements of the code. In relationship to this proposed turnaround, our fire engines are 38+ feet long, and the ladder truck is 47+ feet long. The proposed turnaround definitely would not accommodate the ladder truck and quite possibly the fire engines. Are there any other options you are looking at in regards to this proposed turnaround/development? Let me know if you have any. Thanks. Stay safe, Brian Aiaer Jr. Qym- Au .MawW Iowa City Fire Department 410 E. Washington Street Iowa City, la. 52240 319-356-5257 brian-areer(caiowacitv.oro From: Jason Havel Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2015 1:58 PM To: John Grier; Brian Greer Subject: Turnaround on Lusk Ave Good afternoon, A developer is looking to possibly divide an existing lot on Lusk Avenue. As part of the process, we would require a turnaround at the end of the street. Is the proposed turnaround (see attached) sufficient for the Fire Department. Thanks. Jason Havel, P.E. City Engineer City of Iowa City 410 E. Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 Phone: (319) 356-5410 Fax: (319) 356-5007 Appellants' Exhibit 7 - 011 12/05/2016 LAREW LAW OFFICE LarewLawoffice.com Phone: 319.337.7079 Fax: 319337.7092 504 E. Bloomington St 210 Cedar St. 252 E. 3nd street Iowa City, Iowa 52245-2858 Muscatine, Iowa 52761-2504 Des Moines, Iowa 503094114 James C. Larew Claire M. Oiallo James.Lamw@LamwLawOffice.com Admitted only in NY and NJ APPELLANTS' OPPOSITION TO CITY STAFF'S LEGAL ARGUMENT THAT THE BOARD OF APPEALS SHOULD DENY THE APPEAL WITHOUT AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING The Iowa City Board of Appeals ("Board") should reject the City staff s request to the Board not to hear evidence with respect to Appellants' request that the Board review what Appellants believe have been unlawful interpretations of certain provisions of the City Plumbing Code and the International Fire Code as those provisions have been applied to the Carlsons' proposed construction of very large entertainment venue, designed as a replica of Kinnick Stadium, at 101 Lusk Avenue. Before providing their reasoning to support their opposition to the City's staff s rather extraordinary request not to allow an evidentiary hearing to take place, Plaintiffs provide a chronology of events, and attach several documents to provide context to their reasoning. CHRONOLOGY 1917 A sinpJe family home is constructed at 101 Lusk Avenue. 1927 A shared sanitary sewer line is installed to connect the three residences owned by the same person, James Burns, including 101 Lusk Avenue. [The City states that one of these properties was 101 Lusk Avenue; the permit issued by the City LAREW LAW OFFICE Page J. does not list that property by address.] No written easement agreement is executed or recorded. 1936 Zoning Ordinance for Manville Heiahts is adopted by the City of Iowa City, defining the area where 101 Lusk Avenue is located as Zone "A," a "Residence District." 1983 Zoning Ordinance for the City of Iowa City designates the area where 101 Lusk Avenue is located as RS-5, low density single family residential. 1960-2014 (approx) Dwelling at 101 Lusk Avenue is owned by Pauline V. Aspel and her late husband, she resides off- premises for the last ears of her life. November 5, 2014 Robert Clark and Barbara L. Smith Trust purchases but the owners do not reside at, 101 Lusk Avenue from Mrs. Aspel for $175,000. December 30, 2014 City employee Ron Knoche in an email to Mike Oliveira, Prestige Properties, who intends to purchase and build on 101 Lusk Avenue, is told that "Lusk is 25 [sic] feet wide," and that Mr. Oliveira "will need to hire an engineering company to develop the plans to extend the street. [Mr. Oliveira] will need to provide a turn -around at the end of the street. Based on the aerial there may be a significant amount of grading necessary to be able to build on the road." (Exhibit T, Affidavit of Christopher R. Rossi). LAREW LAW OFFICE page 2 February 25, 2015 City staff is asked to consider a proposal from a planned purchaser of 101 Lusk Avenue Mike Oliveira. Prestige Properties who plans to divide the land into two lots and who plans to take private sewer lines over adjacent properties to the north —including one owned by Anne Lahey 111 Lusk Avenue) and Bill and Karen Ackerman (631 Bayard Street). City employee Paul Druivenga, copying his email to multiple City employees, states that he does not favor the proposal that then when he is asked about similar situations he is asked, "why did the City OK this.?" March 9, 2015 Mike Oliveira. Prestige Properties, purchases, but does not reside at. 101 Lusk Avenue from Robert Clark and Barbara L. Smith Trust for $183 000 and proposes the construction of two single family dwellings on the 101 Lusk Avenue parcel. As a condition of his moving forward, the City imposes obligations for the private sanitary sewer lines connecting each separate dwelling to the City's sewer main and the fire code. For the sanitary sewer, and without any notice or communication with affected neighboring property owners, Mr. Oliveira is required either to construct separate private sanitary sewer lines easterly, to Lusk Avenue, then northerly to connect to the City's sanitary sewer main, or, he must demonstrate that an Basement Agreement has been negotiated with property owners to the north (Anne Lahey and Craig Syrop & Anne Sadler) to use a shared sewer line with those properties, which terms must demonstrate how liabilities for problems related to the shared private. Mr. Oliveira indicates that his attorney will contact the property owners and LAREW LAW OFFICE pap 3 negotiate an Easement Agreement, but this is never done. As to the Fire Code, the City requires that the mandatory provisions related to turnarounds must be followed and offers to Mr. Oliveira a series of design options that are set forth in Chapter D, Appendix, to the International Fire Code. March 25, 2015 City employee Jason Havel, in an email to City Fire Marshal Brian Greer, indicates that in responding to Mr. Oliveira's proposed construction, the City "would require a turnaround at the end of the street." In response, the Fire Marshal forwards a copy of the 2012 International Fire Code (IFC) appendix for fire apparatus access roads and indicates that it would be "impossible to provide a conforming turnaround to meet the requirements of the code." The Fire Marshal observes that, given the length and size of the City's fire trucks, the "proposed turnaround definitely would not accommodate the ladder truck and quite possibly the fire engines." (Exhibit T, Affidavit of Christopher R. Rossi). May 5, 2015 City employee Jason Havel, in an email to Mr. Oliveira and shared with other City employees. requests information about an easement agreement with property owners to the north of 101 Lusk Avenue and says that the situation "could be a concern for the users of the sanitary sewer." Mr. Havel states that an Easement Agreement will be required and that it must include provisions for maintenance of the shared sanitary sewer line. (Exhibit T, Affidavit of Christopher R. Rossi). LAREW LAW OFFICE Page 4 May 6, 2015 City Employee Jann Ream reports to Mr. Oliveira that his plat for subdividing 101 Lusk Avenue into two lots will not be ap roved by Building Official Doug Boothroy until provisions have been made for an emergency vehicle turnaround adjacent to the property line and until the water and sewer issues have been resolved. (Exhibit T, Affidavit of Christopher R. Rossi). May 29, 2015 Fire Marshal Joel Greer ap roves a proposed turnaround desian for Mr. Oliveira's project. (Exhibit T, Affidavit of Christopher R. Rossi). June 3, 2015 Mr. Oliveira, in an email to the City employee Jason Havel, indicates that Mr. Oliveira will be retaining a local attorney to "nail down easement language that will satisfy" the City. (Exhibit T, Affidavit of Christopher R. Rossi). June 29, 2015 Roger Overton issues an email to other City employees indicating that he'd been called by Bill Ackerman regarding the "sanitary sewers near his home on Lusk Avenue." Mr. Overton shares with his email recipients that he did not "realize" that "using the existing combined 4" service was going to be allowed." Mr. Overton described concerns about providing information to Mr. Ackerman. Finally, on the same day, Mr. Overton, for the City (and copied to other City employees) states that the City "doesn't have any information about the condition of the joint private sewer that you share with your neighbors." (Exhibit T, Affidavit of Christopher R. Rossi). LAREW LAW OFFICE Page 5 Sept. 16, 2015 Carlsons file a lawsuit against the Ci y oof University Heights to contest the City Council's denial of permission to build a Kinnick Replica tailgating entertainment venue in that City. October 1, 2015 Benjamin A. Carhoff, P.E., a consultant hired to review the sanitary sewer connecting 101 Lusk Avenue to other nearby properties, registers an opinion shared with the Cith of Iowa City, that the existing shared sanitary sewer is not large enough and is not in a condition to take on additional sewerage that Mr. Oliveira's project would require. He has discovered that the existing sanitary sewer has a 4" diameter that that the "[t]ypical standard practice for most cities is to require a minimum pipe diameter of 6 inches when more than one building is served by a single service line." (Exhibit T, Affidavit of Christopher R. Rossi). November 4, 2015 City employee Jason Havel in an email to Mr. Oliveira, indicates that the Ci y's "expectation" is that "splitting the existing lot would require the existing water main on Lusk Avenue to be extended and new sanitary sewer installed in the City ROW to provide., public water/sewer services to the new lots." Further, "lalny plat submitted for splitting the lot would need to reflect those improvements, and remove references to the private connections." (Exhibit T, Affidavit of Christopher R. Rossi). December 2, 2015 Mr. Oliveira sells 101 Lusk Avenue to the Carlsons for $235.000. LAREW LAW OFFICE Page 6 February 26, 2016 The Carlson dismiss their lawsuit against the City of University Heights. March 9, 2016 The Carlson are granted a demolition permit by the City of Iowa City to demolish the Aspel dwelling. A condition of the permit is that the sanitary sewer line be disconnected at the City's sewer main by a person approved by the City to perform that work. April 6, 2016 The Carlsons submit an application for a Building Permit and a Site Plan for the proposed building at 101 Lusk Avenue. April 19 2016 The City places a hold on the Carlsons' application until they sign an affidavit attesting to their intended use of the property. In language provided by the City, the Carlsons attest that they will abide by the zoning ordinances of the City. May 25, 2016 The City reviews and Vproves the Carlsons' Site Plan and issues a Building Permit to them. June 14, 2016 The City "suspends" the Building Permit for the Carlson' project. Apparently, the City has discovered, three weeks after approving the same, that the Site Plan and building plans demonstrate an intent by the Carlsons to construct the building's driveway on the southerly end of the property, emptying into an unpaved surface. June 20, 2016 Fifty residents of the Manville Heights neighborhood meet on a vacant lot near 101 Lusk Avenue to discuss rumors related to the City's approval of a planned replica of Kinnick Stadium, LAREW LAW OFFICE Page 7 planned to host tailgate parties. Knowing so few facts, residents decide to attend the next City Council meeting to register their concerns. June 21, 2016 Some City staff persons, aware that there are concerns in the neighborhood about the City's 4pproval of the proposed building, suggest that a meeting be convened to address question. The idea is dismissed as a "lose/lose" proposition. (Exhibit T, Affidavit of Christopher R. Rossi). June 21, 2016 Residents of the Manville Heights neig borhood attend the City Council meeting and, during the public comment period, raise a series, of issues, with a focus on fire safety issues. City employees respond that fire code issues, such as street width and turnarounds do not apply because the proposed building is not a "development" and, therefore, no fire code provisions related to turnarounds apply. The City Council states that the matter shall be placed on the next meeting's agenda. June 24, 2016 Citizens are issued a one -page Memorandum issued by City staff person John YMp, Development Services Coordinator (copied to City Attorneys Sara Greenwood Hektoen, Eleanor M. Dilkes• Doug Boothroy, Terry Goerdt: Jahn Ream,• Julie Tallman: Tim Hennes) directs that Weals must be made to the Board of Adjustment. Outlining the "appeal process" and directing them to the City's website under which forms to file appeals to the Board of Adjustment are located, Mr. Yapp specifically states that any appeal of the "issuance of a building permit" must go to the LAREW LAW OFFICE page 8 Board of Adjustment. He directs that any appeal may go to "administrative processes" related to "the decision how to classify a use, the approval of a site plan and the issuance of a building permit." [Exhibit W, attached]. No mention is made of the Board of Appeals or how citizens, other than via the Board of Adjustment, may contest administrative proceedings related to the issuance of a Building Permit. June 28, 2016 The "suspension of the permit is lifted as requested by Doug Boothroy " because the " (rlevised site plan submitted" is now "showing the driveway on the north side of the propeerty " June 29, 2016 Appellants file an Application to Appeal to the Board of Adjustment. In the Appeal documents, they specifically include issues related to the site plan, those parts of the building code that are definitional to a single family dwelling, and the fire code. June 29, 2016 The City issues a Stop Work Order for 101 Lusk Avenue construction due to the Board of Adjustment A&yeal. July 5, 2016 Manville Heights residents attend the City Council meeting. Although the Council had earlier indicated that the issues would be placed on the Agenda, they were removed because Appellants had filed their appeal to the Board of Adjustment; City Council members are instructed not to respond to or discuss the issue at the meeting. Neighbors, at another place on the LAREW LAW OFFICE pap 9 Agenda, again express their concerns about safety issues. July 8, 2016 Appellants issue a public records request under Chapter 22 of the Iowa Code to the CiV of Iowa Cam. August 3, 2016 The City makes its initial response to Appellants' Chapter 22 public records request. Such records indicate —and, Appellants, for the first time, learn about —that, in response to Mr. Oliveira's efforts to build dwellings at 101 Lusk Avenue, including the existence and condition of a shared sanitary sewer line, the City had insisted that newly - constructed sanitary sewer lines be run easterly to Lusk Avenue or that Mr. Oliveira provide a written Easement Agreement with adjacent owners to the north, and that Mr. Oliveira provide for the construction of paved turnarounds for emergency vehicles, as required by the International Fire Code. Sept. 7, 2016(approx) Appellants receive Mort from retained expert witnesses from HBK Engineering. They learn for the first time that Lusk Avenue's street length (155 feet, 5 inches) invokes the mandatory provisions of the International Fire Code and that such provisions --as asserted by the City, repeatedly —are not implicated solely based on the creation of a subdivision. Appellants learn, for the first time, that the "fire flow" produced by nearby hydrants, as mandated by the International Fire Code, are not sufficient for a structure of the size and materials -composition as the Carlson' proposed building. Appellants learn, for the first LAREW LAW OFFICE Page 10 time, that the required locations of fire hydrants, which must now be moved to accommodate the Carlsons' new placement for the driveway on the north side of 101 Lusk Avenue, would appear not to comply with mandatory provisions of the International Fire Code. Sept. 14, 2016 First hearing date of Board of Adjustment. In papers filed by the City and as argued by its witnesses, the City argues that the Board of Adjustment, and the Board of Adjustment's attorney instructions the Board Members, that the Board has no authority to decide any issues related to the Site Plan because a Site Plan was not "mandatory" for the project. The City argues, further, that the Board of Adjustment has no authority over the Fire Code or Plumbing Code matters and that those matters must be presented to the Board of Appeals. In response to those arguments, the Chairman of the Board of Adjustment, Larry D Baker, and Building Official Doug Boothroy, enter into a colloquy in which Chairman Baker asks Mr. Boothroy whether the Appellants still have recourse to the Board of Appeals and Mr. Boothroy assures Mr. Baker that they still do. [Exhibit R, Transcript of Meeting of Board of Adjustment, September 14, 2016, pp. 130-131, attached]. Sept. 21, 2016 Second hearing date of Board of Adiustment. In response to a request for clarification, Chairman Larry Baker asks legal counsel, Attorney Mark Parmenter, to confirm that matters related to the sanitary sewer and the emergency vehicle turnaround are ones that the Board of Adjustment LAREW LAW OFFICE Page 11 cannot address, and Mr. Parmenter confirms that decisions related to those issues are ones that the Board of Adjustment may not modify in any way. [Exhibit S, Transcript of Meeting of Board of Adjustment, September 21, 2016, p. 183, attached]. Sept. 30, 2016 Board of Adjustment meets to announce decision. The only motion offered is whether Appellants' the Building Official erred when he classified the proposed structure at 101 Lusk Avenue as a single family residential structure. The Board Members vote 2-2, with one Member having been requested by the City to recuse herself because of public statements she had made that were critical of the structure. On the tie vote, the Building Official's classification decision is upheld. October 18, 2016 Board of Adi stment issues and files a Written Decision. The only issue described and decided involves the Building Official's classification decision. [Exhibit X, Written Decision, filed October 18, 20161 October 19, 2016 City issues a Lift Stop Work Order for work at 101 Lusk Avenue. Under the terms of the City's action, the "suspension" on the building permit is lifted, but is subject to a series of additional conditions placed upon the Carlsons. Nov. 16, 2016 Appellants file Request to Appeal to Board of Appeals. LAREW LAW OFFICE Page 12 RESPONSES TO CITY STAFFS ARGUMENTS FOR DENIAL OF AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING BEFORE THE BOARD OF APPEALS: 1. The City staffs position that "there is no decision to appeal," is in error. The most recent to lift the stay (of the suspension of the Building Permit and Site Plan) was made with additional conditions. Clearly, on its face, the action was discretionary. The language of the Ordinance creating the Board of Appeals is intended to include a wide range of actions and is intended to provide aggrieved persons who are concerned about the public safety and who question the City staff s judgment on related to mandatory provisions of the City's plumbing and fire code, to have an opportunity to be heard. City Code Section 17-12-2A provides that the Board of Appeals has jurisdiction to hear an appeal of "any decision" which includes "any decision, determination, direction, notice, finding or order of the Building Official". The definition of "notice" is notification or written announcement. That is exactly what the City did when they lifted the Stop Work Order. 2. The City's decision to lift the stay of an Order that had suspended the issuance of a Building Permit and approval of a Site Plan is not correct as a matter of law if, as Appellants contend, no provision has been made for the installation of a private sanitary sewer in conformity with the Plumbing Code and when certain mandatory provisions of the International Fire Code have not been addressed; to wit: the obligation to install a paved emergency vehicle turnaround at the end of Lusk Avenue and the obligation to provide sufficient quantities of water from nearby hydrants adequate to meet International Fire Code requirements. 3. The Appellants have not filed their appeal too late. The City, arguably, has no legal obligation to provide information about filing appeals in response to what they believe to have been the LAREW LAW OFFICE Page 13 unlawful approval of a Site Plan and the unlawful issuance of a Building Permit, including the associated interpretations of the City's Code of Ordinances. But, once having offered such advice, the City may not, on the one hand, misdirect citizens on their course of appeal and then, later, seek refuge in an argument that the original was placed before the wrong appeal body and, therefore, the proper appeal was filed too late. The City's Code section creating the Board of Appeals, prevents such self-serving arguments from a City staff whose members may not want to have its decisions independently reviewed by offering expansive language as to the types of actions that may be reviewed. In this instance, Appellants have timely appealed the City's lifting of a Stop Work Order directed at an earlier suspension placed upon its issuance of a Building Permit. 4. In the Board of Adjustment's Written Decision, it limited its determination to one issue, only: whether the Building Official property classified what Appellants believe is an impermissible entertainment venue as a single family residence. After a 2-2 vote on that one issue, only, the matter is before the Iowa District Court upon Appellants' filing an Application for Writ of Certiorari — which Writ has been granted. The City's claim that matters before the Board of Appeal are estopped by the doctrine of collateral estoppel is remarkable. Before the Board of Adjustment, the City argued that matters related to the Plumbing Code (private sewer issues) and to the International Fire Code must be heard by the Board of Appeals. The Board of Adjustment, as a result, made no determinations on those issues. 5. The City staff s other purported concerns about jurisdiction are unwarranted. To the extent that initial filings with the Board of Appeals have been unclear, it is hoped that subsequent filings have been clarifying. Citizens of the City of Iowa City would be best served if City staff members who believe that decisions they have LAREW LAW OFFICE Page 14 made are correct as a matter of law and serve the public's interest in health and safety, should welcome, and not place barriers in front of, citizens who seek an independent review of those decisions by impartial citizens who agree to volunteer to serve on the Iowa City Board of Appeals. James C. Larew LAREW LAW OFFICE Page 15 EXHIBIT R TRANSCRIPT OF MEETING OF BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, SEPTEMBER 14, 2016 pp. 130431 E-FILED 2016 NOV 0911:04 AM JOHNSON - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT BmrL of A* W =t 9-14.16 nPi(,i , A..i- MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SEPTEMBER 14, 2016 6:16 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 Oulek, Brian Greer, Jason Havel, Tim Hennes, Sarah Walz, John Yapp Others present: Mark Parmenter, James Larew, Brian Bcelk, Dennis Befele.r, 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 3616 Lochwood Drive NE Cedar Rapids, IA 52402 319-286.1717 866-412-4766 Page t to t BOA - 00673 - Ex. E7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 10 11 12 1:3 14 15 16 17 1s 19 20 21 22 23 24 1 2 3 4 5 e 7 8 9 30 31 12 13 14 35 16 17 1s 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 E-FILED 2016 NOV 0911:04 AM JOHNSON - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT eeae aAquYneN 9-14-10 130 1 neighborhood — actually, Ian kindofsurprised maybe that it hawft happened already, avers without this haute Ip— in play. CHAIRMAN BAKER: Okay. A couple more questions, and thank you for your paderlm On,0aW21 there's a raAwence to an appeal — MR. BOOTHROY: My 21? CHAIRMAN BAKER: Yeah, your —of your report There's a rebrance to the — having one month to appeal a bulking code laws to the Board of Appeals. MR. SOOTHROY: Where are we? You're starting to wear me out lorry. MR. WEITZEL: Iteoo d—se0gnd paragraph of ale CWs staff response regarding fire safety, MR. BOOTHROY: Yeah, theirs a pretty standard sign, red for appeals. I think you have something similar. CHAIRMAN BAKER: AN right My queallm Is has tut time period already passed? Or Is It only applicable after the building pemtt Is — Is reapproved? MR, BOOTHROY: VNI, I would -1 would go with the latest approval of the permit but — CHAIRMAN BAKER: So if trey have concerns they an 131 MR 130OTHROY: Right Nqw, the boad.of — Not to— not to mace this too confusing. but the Bard of Appeals ant grant Vadertoss and can't grant — they have very limited autredy under the building code, so thetrouthorky, Is lass brad then yours. CHAIRMAN BAKER. So what is it that the neighborhood cold —neighbors could appeal tf'the Beard of Appeals? MR. BOOTHROY: They could appeal Out the structure doeerht—dam%moo the — the specific standards of the International Residential Code, that the truss system Is not -properly leaned — CHAIRMAN BAKER: These are Issues that we as to Bard of Adiustrnerd cannot address. MR. BOOTHROY: I don't — No. CHAIRMAN BAKER: Okay. MR BOOTHROY: But they amid — they could —trey can tarok at the —those kinds of Issues. If t haat a plumbing code fears, they're not putting in low=flow, toilets and they're supposed to, those kinds of things could be appealed to the — you know, twee kinds of technical details. Its mar of a each — h's a lire safety code, It's not a zoning turtle, which Is riot life sMeay, and — and so you cannot waive Itie safety requirements. In the zoning code; of course, you know, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 21 12 13 14 15 i6 V is l9 21 22 23 24 132 We a dglerentmatter. CHAIRMAN BAKER: Okay, let me &M of wrap tda up bare because — because ifsgetting late. MR. BOOTHROY: I think I thought I was going to be Atoms by eigkbthirty. CHAIRMAN BAKER Yeah I thought nine o'clock easy butthen I — MR. BOOTHROY: Youve bean asking me w many question CHAIRMAN BAKER: Wall, Ifor" you were the first speaker MR BOOTHROY: I am? 1 thought I was last. CHAIRMAN BAKER: On the Issue of what you an and cahoot do based upon the zoning code, this same pmfea, this 7699— 7,090 square foot — MR. BOOTHROY: Plug. CHAIRMAN BAKER: — house, same design, some bedrooms, basketball court everything could be put Snytdrere In Iowa City that has a 15,0W aquae — any residential lot — single-family — MR. BOOTHROY- "at itomWfit on. CHAIRMAN BAKER: That Itwould flt on Okay. And if the lot were bigger, you could have the some design and a bigger sale. lot d idn teraxed a 133 bolding coverage requirement CHAIRMAN BAKER: Like 45 percent, right? MR SOOTHROY: Right CHAIRMAN BAKER. Okay. MR. BOOTHROY: So thus is some and but you could go ver". CHAIRMAN BAKER: Right I have a 12,001),sque rs400t lot, I could put a.5,000.aquers4iDoi version ofthis house an my lot an Radueeter t I wentsd to. MR. BOOTHROY: Yes. CHAIRMAN BAKER: Wray. MR. BOOTHROY: I wasn4 sure Ifthat was rhetorkal or wheMer that was — CHAIRMAN BAKER: No. John wouldp't be happy. MR BOOTHROY.- Yeah. CHAIRMAN BAKER: So there's nothing you can do in most cease to — Io change the primary use definition. If tan bedrooms, throe ba sketrail courts, a courtyard with a performing stage an It theree nothing in your mind Viet you can do to redefine tie primary use from residential to something else. Make resider id a secondary use. At whatpokrt In the current zoning code— And Imakedthis akitlebit ealerbut l wan to does warn this. At what pokt In the mom Pegs 130 to 133 BOA - 00706 - Ex. E1 EXHIBIr�' S TRANSCRIPT OF MEETING OF BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, SEPTEMBER 21, 2016 p. 183 E-FILED 2016 NOV 09 11:04 AM JOHNSON - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT eoeMOACQUOnent 9-21-16 ORIGINAL CONTINUED MEETING OF THE BOAR© OF ADJUSTMENT S'EPTQMBER 21, 2016 6:30 P.M. to 11:30 p.m. EMMA HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL I.OWA CITY, IOWA Members present: Larry Baker, Gene Chrischilles, Connie Goeb, Becky Soglin, Tim Weitzel Members absent: Staff Present: Doug Boothroy, Susan Dulek, Tim Hehnes,. Roger Jensen, Sarah Walz, John Yapp Others Present: Mark Parmenter, James Laraw, Frank Weirioh, Dina Janzen, Patricia Koza, Catherine Erickson, Chris Rossi, Joanne Madsen, Anne Lahey, Karin Southard, Dennis Befeler, Brian Fagan, Reed Carlson, Sandy Carlson, Gary Klinsfelte`r 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, TA $2402 319-286-1717 866-412-4768 Page 1 to l BOA - 00740 - Ex. E2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 10 11 12 13 14 35 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 22 13 14 35 16 17 38 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 E-FILED 2016 NOV 0911:04 AM JOHNSON - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT BasuNAciuessla 0.0.16 492 turnaround would be appropriate. MR. BOOTHROY: And I think there was also some sewer issues with regard to gelling intothesewer, graft flow from the rat that was downhill. CHAIRMAN BAITER And the sewer Mae would be resolved through a — a subdMdon as wall because or perceh'ed Problems tfth the current arrangement, but the iecrossed use wordh dictate — MR. BOCI HROY: And the access of the new lot and the new house to the sower. Otherwise. they would hew — you know, theywould have had to pump R which world have been another option. CHAIRMAN BAi(Hi All right Thant you. Anybody also? Any **Wms? MS. SOOLIN: No, thank you. CHAIRMAN BAKER: Any other questions from the board to anyhodtR Now, Mark. Would you please give us a Very suodect sort of guldblNu as to what our role Is, what we can Waft a decision about, and in perlb aar address this question: One of our options Is to, you know, mjea, accept, or modify the decision, but Mole on mobir3ad from mHsidefng pertain items from our dedaom doesn'tthat, tlwreforo, ekroot alknnate the abl6.ly to modify the decision? 183 MR. PARMENTER: WWI, yoWm right, Mr. Char. You have Me option to modify but R depends on what you belkwe Is in error and what you thank reeds to be modMed. EveryWng you do, whether you fkhd error or not or you modify, you must dowithin the coah Woof the Code. CFW RMAN SAKIil : Right Butwe'ro tld uphon i Met regardless of what we think is an am, tan the board doean'r have the purview to make a decision based Won filings being wftrrpt from to sonkq coo. So, for OXOMPle, were W the turnaround is not something that we an make our decision on so we can't use that as Something to modify. VWYe told tar the sooner roue is not WmAthi g tat we an make a decision on: therefore, we an't base any sat of suggested modern on It So am Of the things Mot rule out to ruling on Mom also rule out the ability to offer arty sort of modlliciallwh. MR. PARMENTER: Well, I would agree with you But the Bdngs.#W am ruled out you omdd not apply as a mod iatlo n. CHAIRMAN BAKER: So Men you can tell us w hatwe an modify. MR. PARMENTER:- But I — MR.CHRIBCHILLES: But wasnt— but wasn't — hm 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 is 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 fA 31 12 13 14 15 16 37 1s 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 184 sorry to Interrupt, but waentthat Port dour -Our orbina powers as they, were VWVN — we had the — althe — all lha powers of Mr. Badhroy, and since he had the initial Poarerorthe decision regarding the classification of It as single-family reskdenos, ahmddn't we aleo have — and — and by that queKication, it— It moolilulatec — Ow Larry says, 8 manipulate* certain things But we can nds on and Mot we can't ruls on. Don't we have the abut to — te— br say Ka misdawtbd and therefore open up. otherpaalbROM of modification? MR. PARMENTER. Wall, you dos" In the role as the building official In"acon. Your —year coda require that you do that, If you believe there are mad =Wm Bret you can do under the code that am 119oarable, MO n You so a board True the Power to do am I can't l ell you as legal counsel what modifications you can make, Thar'* a deeiaioa this board must mace collectively. CHAIRMAN BAKER; But you inn ball us what motlMradons wo— what we cannot male hsaun ws dont haw the right to use those fsodom in out decision, period. MR. PARMENTER: Right And -amlpartofyour - -Part of your col* Is to weigh all of the evlderres # a's 186 bten Introduced both by lodmgny and by documentation from all Of Me Pates. Ycu'tegoing to hew to determine, band an tat, where mkevam. Yoft. a quad judder— haw queeNudidsl Myatt on. You're going to have to determine what you bellm the law allows you to do. I'm going to sort of give you a genera guideline ham in Just a minute on —on what you condo. I can oaHaint answer quesdera to — to tat later, but it would be Inappropriate for me to tell you you can't dothis oryou con dotmt My goal hem is to enaum Matilda pawn Is fair for all parties barause.of the and of the day,. you'rethe—anrnualt the bier of fad. You're 04rule —trejudgnand apPly the law abet you below le RMAkahis, and r w11 ndat you With that and I think my— my pmsometion will be of assistance. CHAIRMAN BAKER: Go aead, picas. MR. PARMENTER: Thank you Thank you, Mr. Char. 1000113005 of the board. My role ere legal courasre this board le to enhufa that you undsrwritl the role of the Board of Arilu shnent Ord understand what you an and cannot do in that role as didafod by lows hew and the IaaeCity Code Of Ordinances. My gal in to ensure this appeal Is fair —the appeal Is fah— is a fair Pegs 182 to 185 BOA - 00786 - Ex. E2 EXHIBIT T AFFIDAVIT OF CHRISTOPHER ROSSI AND EXHIBITS AFFIDAVIT OF CHRISTOPHER R. ROSSI COMES NOW, Christopher R. Rossi, being first duly sworn, and hereby states as follows: My name is Christopher R. Rossi. I live at 4 Rowland Court with my wife and two elementary school children. I live within three hundred feet of 101 Lusk Avenue. Like many other residents of the area, I harbor concerns about multiple safety, public notice, and health issues involved in the administration of relevant permits, and about some decisions made and driven by at least some City staff members and administrators. My concerns are based on my own observations, my discussions with neighbors, my understanding of witness testimony at public meetings and my own review of public records produced in response to a Chapter 22 open records request. I share with my neighbors a sense that the City has made very serious misjudgments regarding the application of City Code provisions to the proposal made by the Carlsons to build a huge entertainment venue, one designed to accommodate at least 200 guests, on a small residential lot at the end of one of the narrowest, smallest dead-end streets in the City. I join my neighbors' belief that these. misjudgments, unless corrected, pose serious health and safety risks for the future occupants and users of the building at 101 Lusk Avenue, the neighbors of that building, and persons residing in other residential neighborhoods whose welfare will be adversely affected by the precedents that this situation will establish if the misjudgments are not corrected. The focused concerns of the proceeding before the Iowa City Board of Appeals arise from the City's intent to allow the construction of this building to include: (1) its forced use of a fragile and shared private sewer line, apparently installed in 1927, before any zoning codes existing for Manville Heights, despite engineering opinions to the contrary, without an Easement Agreement, and over the strenuous objections of the adjacent land owners whose back yards would serve to transport the sewerage of this Kmmck Replica party venue to the City's sanitary sewer main; and (2) the absence of the minimum, required safety protections set forth in the International Fire Code as applied to paved streets longer than 150 feet, which include the requirement that paved emergency vehicle turnarounds be installed at the end of street. My neighbors share my concern that none of us were initially given notice of these developments until after the City had approved the Site Plan and Building Permit. Since then, we have been frustrated by the City's response to our voiced concerns. We have felt stymied through the City's misstatements of law, mis-directions as to how and to whom to present our concerns, and its attempt to shut down the advocacy of those who oppose this proposed building. The public record allows for a review of City staff actions without subjective embellishment. Here is what we found: Public records reveal that, when some City staff members, recognizing the controversial nature of the Carlson' proposed building, suggested opening a dialog with neighbors, other City staff members whose view prevailed, shut down that option, expressing the belief that it would be a "lose/lose" proposition to pursue dialog. The public record also reveals disturbing inconistencies and error in City staff actions involving 2 recent and separate owners attempting to build on 101 Lusk Ave. These inconsistencies pertain to the ' Email from Marcia Bollinger to John Yapp, June 21, 2016. neighborhood safety interests and interests of the neighboring property owners. City staff would have required infrastructure improvements on the same Lusk Avenue property (101 Lusk Avenue) regarding a proposed project made by local developer Mike Oliveira, Prestige Properties, immediately before the Carlsons bought the property and proposed the construction of the Kinnick Replica. These requirements related specifically to sewer and easement issues, as well as fire and safety issues affecting the neighborhood. At no time did City staff inform the neighbors that City staff was directly conversing with the 101 Lusk Avenue property owner about the neighbors' private property interests. Public records reveal, further, that Mr. Oliveira proposed building two smaller homes on the 101 Lusk Avenue lot. The City's response including the enforcement of mandated provisions of the City Code related to the sanitary sewer system and the fire code. Those same mandatory Code provisions are the ones that I and my neighbors seek to have enforced with respect to the Carlson' proposal. The City's refusal to do so forms the basis of their appeal to the Board of Appeals. The public records reveal that the very same concerns that citizens have repeatedly voiced since learning of the Carlsons' proposed entertainment venue, the concerns that we now bring to the Board of Appeals, were deemed to be fundamental, critical and material to the City's review of Mr. Oliveira's proposed design for the property as noted: "Doug [Boothroy] will not sign off on the plat until [sewer, water, and turn- around issues] have been resolved.2 Staff Notes Regarding Plumbing and Sewer: 2 Email from Jann Ream to Mike Oliveira, J. Scott Ritter, cc. Jason Havel, Tim Hennes, Julie Tallman, May 6, 2015, 3:37pm.: [To Mike Oliveira and Scott Ritter]; Documentation: Iowa City FOI documents, p. 303. a. A city staffer noted the "bigger question" ... "how will water and sanitary sewer service be extended to the proposed lots?? b. A city inspector noted the proposal "runs through different properties." He concluded: "I am not a fan of this proposal. Future repairs of the private line could get dicey." He rhetorically wonders — as is the case with similar old sewers in the city: "Why did the City Ok this?"' c. Mr. Oliveira, the owner immediately before the Carlsons, hired a consultant, a licensed civil engineer, who deemed the private sanitary sewer tying the existing home to the sanitary sewer line shared with two northerly properties, unfit to carry the additional sewage load that Mr. Oliveira's proposal involved: The consultant's conclusion (copied to the City) reads as follows: "We would not recommend using the existing service line in its current condition for ... single family homes. The ...4" diameter cast iron section ... will impede flow and possibly cause blockages and backups. The roots protruding through the pipes... may re -grow; many of the joints are offset from each other ... Typical standard practice for most cities is to require a minimum pipe diameter of 6- inches when more than one building is served by a single service line:" The conclusion goes on to note that typical standard practice for most cities does not conform with this practice.a d. A private property owner proximate to the Carlson's northerly lot line, Bill Ackerman, whom the City believed shared the 1927 private sanitary sewer line with 101 Lusk Avenue, was excluded from conversations the City staff was having about issues that z Email from Ron Knoche to Mile Oliveira, cc. Jason Havel, Jann Ream, Dec. 30, 2014, 5:20pm: "I think the bigger question is how will water and sanitary sewer service be extended to these lotsT'; Documentation: Iowa City FOI documents p.383-4. 3 Email from Paul Druivenga to Jason Havel, cc. Roger Overton, Feb. 25, 2015, 9:52am; Documentation: Iowa City FOI documents 365-367. 4 Letter from Benjamin Carhoff, Hart -Frederick Consultants to Prestige Properties, October 1, 2015 with copy to Jason Havel, City of Iowa City. 4 directly involved his property. He approached City staff on June 29, 2016 about the condition and placement of the sewers. City staff informed him: "The City doesn't have any information about the condition of the joint private sewer that you share with your neighbors.s5 But that same City staffer, on the same day, referencing the same neighbor's request for information, wrote to his colleague: "My last recollection ...was that we were going to require the new development south of [the neighbor's house — Bill Ackerman] to install a new 8" line ... I did not realize that using the existing combined 4" service was going to be allowed... . How would you like me to proceed with contacting [the neighbor] about his concerns?6 When Mr. Oliveira, the owner of 101 Lusk Avenue immediately preceding the Carlsons, was attempting to build two smaller homes on the land, City staff clearly indicated a need to inform the neighbors about Mr. Oliveira's proposal: a. A City staffer noted the neighbors' interests, asking: "Is there an existing easement around the sanitary sewer where it crosses private property?s8 b. He notes later that "the existing sanitary sewer runs under [adjacent property]."9 He wonders about easement problems. "Is there language in the easement to address repairs under that structure if needed?10 c. He notes: "the layout is obviously less than ideal and could be a concern for the users of the sanitary system.sl I s Email from Roger Overton to [Ackerman], June 29, 2016, 12:07pm. 6 Email from Roger Overton to Jason Havel et al, June 29, 2016, 9:15. ' Email from Jason Havel to Jason Havel, March 11, 2015, 8:52pm. ' Email from Jason Havel to Mike Oliveira, Jamt Ream, Julie Tallman: Tuesday, May 05, 2015, 6:53pm. 10 Email from Jason Havel to Mike Oliveira, Jann Ream, Julie Tallman: Tuesday, May 05, 2015, 6:53pm. " Id. Documentation: Iowa City FOI documents, p. 304 d. He wonders about sewerage pumping issues.12 e. He writes: "An easement should also be added for the service line where it crosses the neighboring properly."13 f. He writes a maintenance agreement of that line [involving Mr. Oliveira and adjacent neighbors to the north] "would also be needed in the easement agreement."14 g. The previous owner, Mr. Oliveira, realized "the three other property owners will need to be receptive to an easement...11.15 h. According to a summary of the "joint [City] staff' directed to Mr. Oliveira in response to his proposal with respect to private sewer lines issues was unambiguous: "Our preference would be to provide new sanitary service out to Lusk Avenue [ROW... eventually connecting to the manhole at Lexington/Bayard]. "If you would choose to tie into the existing private line, we would need proof of the ability to do so, such as proof of an easement, agreement, etc.s16 i. City staff confirmed most recently that "we requested the [previous owner] install [a] new sewer.s17 j. Elsewhere City staff again expressed concerns about securing an existing easement around the sanitary sewer where it crosses private property, highlighting the following: "The proposed houses do not have separate and independent building sanitary sewer services as required in 16-3D-6D. It appears that the sanitary u Id. " Id. 14 Id. " Email from Mike Oliveira to Jason Havel; Jann Ream; cc. J. Scott Ritter, Robert Carlson, March 31, 2105; Documentation: Iowa City FOI documents, p. 313-15. " Email from Jason Havel to Mike Oliveira, Wed. March 25, 2015, 2:11 pm. Documentation: Iowa City FOI documents p. 324. "Email from Jason Havel to Roger Overton, cc. Wilkey, Knoche, Druivenga, July 5, 2016, 11:42am. server ... is a private service line ... and both of the proposed homes will use this sewer service."18 k. City staff told the previous owner, Mr. Oliveira, that his attempt to split the lot and create single family residences "would need to .. . remove references to private [sewer] connections.s19 1. Indeed, in response to the City's directive, Mr. Oliveira reported that he had secured an attorney and wrote to the City that he would "try to nail down the easement language that will satisfy your departments" and the multiple property owners. He told the City: "I believe the other property [owners, sic] ae going to be a huge challenge.'ao Despite all of this documentation of an inadequate private sewer line connection to the City's sanitary sewer main, as applied to Mr. Oliveira, but never disclosed to or discussed with the affected property owners (Anne Lahey and Craig Syrop & Anne Sadler), City staff, shortly approved a Building Permit for the Carlsons' mini-Kinnick entertainment venue, under the assumption that the Carlsons' building would share a heavily weathered 1927 sanitary sewer for which there was no easement, and concerning which those adjacent property owners had knowledge. Reeardina Fire and Safety Fire and safety issues are of great concern. Along with others, I personally presented my concerns before City Council, personally, specifically raising the question as to how fire and emergency ingress ' Email from Jason Havel to Jason Havel, March 11, 2015, 8:52pm. Documentation: Iowa City FOI documents p. 359. " Email from Jason Havel to Mike Oliveira, November 4, 2015; Documentation: Iowa City FOI documents, p. 272. " Email from Mike Oliveira to Jason Havel; cc Michael Kennedy, June 3, 2015. Documentation: Iowa City FOI documents, p. 289. and egress vehicles, and firefighting services, could operate or be secured on Lusk Avenue with the proposed Carlson structure. City staff proclaimed, remarkably, that the International Fire Code's requirements for emergency vehicle turnarounds applied to Mr. Oliveira's project, but not to the Carlsons' project. With respect to Mr. Oliveira's proposed construction of two relatively modest single family dwellings on the very same land that he would later sell to the Carlsons, City staff ordered Oliveira to provide a turnaround in front of 101 Lusk Avenue as a condition precedent to his moving forward: a. "Lusk is currently 25 [sic —it is really 20 feet wide] feet wide. You will need to provide a turn around."2' b. Doug Boothroy said he "will not sign off on the plat" until the issue of the turnaround has been resolved.22 Iowa City Fire Marshal Brian Greer, pointing to the same, shared fire and public safety concern, required W. Oliveira to redesign his first turnaround configuration to comply with the mandatory requirements of the International Fire Code: c. The Fire Marshal informed City Staff: "it appears that it would be impossible to provide a conforming turnaround to meet the requirements of the code ... the proposed turnaround definitely would not accommodate the ladder truck and possibly the fire engines."23 d. Despite concluding "it would be impossible to provide a conforming turnaround to meet the requirements of the code" the public record reveals the Fire Chief later reviewed "the access and ' Email from Ron Knoche to Mile Oliveira, Dec. 30, 2014. 22 Email from Jann Ream to Mike Oliveira, J. Scott Ritter, cc. Jason Havel, Tim Hermes, Julie Tallman, May 6, 2015, 3;37pm. 21 Email from Brian T. Greer, Fire Marshal, to Jason Havel, John Grier: March 25, 2015, 3:11pm; Documentation: Iowa City FOI documents, p. 333-4. turnaround proposed" and concluded that "Nye believe it will enable our apparatus to turn around if necessary.s24 City staff seemingly engaged to the satisfaction of the Fire Chief a proposal involving a safety turnaround, but none of it engaged adjacent and proximate neighbors, except, perhaps the property owner to the East, Mr. Kleinfelter, who used to work for the City. The public record indicates he mentioned a "turn out" proposal that goes east to his property as one of his two concerns.zs Conclusion I, joining with my neighbors, fully understand why the private sanitary sewer, fire and safety issues (including the required construction of a paved emergency vehicle turnaround at the dead end of Lusk Avenue) were addressed by the City staffs mandate to Mr. Oliveira, in his response to build two small residential dwellings at 101 Lusk Avenue, that he comply with applicable Plumbing and International Fire Code provisions. What neither I nor my neighbors understand, however, is how, with respect to the Carlsons' proposed Gargantuan project the same City Code provisions are ignored. I share the sentiment of hundreds of residents of Manville Heights who express confusion and unsettling concern over what elements of plumbing, fire, and safety are better protected in the neighborhood by allowing City staff to selectively interpret and enforce. mandatory code provisions while also allowing City staff to serve as gatekeepers over information that excludes or potentially misleads the neighbors. We believe that the Board of Appeal was created to protect the public interest by providing oversight to errant City staff decisions. In instances such as this one, we are hopeful that Board Members will act in the public interest by over -ruling the Building Official's decision to u Email from Brian T. Greer, Fire Marshal to Mike Oliveria, May 29, 2015, 2:35; Documentation: Iowa City FOI documents, p. 294. 25 Email from Gary Kleinfelter to Doug Boothroy and Ron Knoche, Aug. 14, 2015, 6:17pm. approve the Carlsons' proposed building without any provision for a private sanitary and to over -rule the Fire Chiefs decision not to enforce mandatory International Fire Code provisions applicable to paved city streets longer than 150 feet. 10 FURTHER I SAYETH NOT. CHRISTOPHER R. ROSSI Subscribed and sworn to before me by 2016. the rA day of December, Y PUBLIC —STATE OF IOWA E�JAMES C LAFIEW. Notarial Seat • IOWA Commission No. 771499 My Commission Expires February 02, 9018 Sue 0, 1- From: Marcia Bollinger <Maroia-Bolinger@iowac!ty.org> sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2016 9:05 AM To: John Yapp Subject: RE: Lusk property question OK. Thanks. From: John Yapp Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2016 9:00 AM To: Marcia Bollinger Subject: RE: Lusk property question Yes — I'm not sure what they want at this point, but I'll be talking to legal and/or Geoff about it From: Marcia Bollinger — ------ Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2016 8:45 AM To: John Yapp Subject: RE: Lusk property question I see that the council asked that this be put on their agenda. Can you keep me updated on when that is scheduled and if there will be any additional information provided to the council as part of that discussion? Thanks! From: John Yapp Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2016 3:54 PM To: Marcia Bollinger Subject: RE: Lusk property question They can feel free to contact the owners directly — we typically only facilitate neighborhood meetings when there is a legislative action required (rezoning, subdivision, etc.) From: Mama Bollinger Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2016 3:47 PM To: John Yapp Subject: FW: Lusk property question I'll leave this up to you but I wouldn't suggest it. it's a lose/lose. From: and rosenquist [mailtn:mdmsenqu!st@hotma!l.com] Sent~ Tuesday, June 21, 2016 3:45 PM To: Marcia Bollinger Cc: John Yapp Subject: Re: Lusk property question It looks like a modern castle. Could the city set up a meeting between new owners and the surrounding residents for a meet and greet and question and answer session? i Thanks, Marilyn From: Marcia Bollinger <Marcia-Bollinger@iowa-city.org> Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2016 3:14 PM To:'md rosenquist' Cc: John Yapp Subject: RE: Lusk property question Hi Marilyn.... The attached was included in yesterday's "Late Handout" packet that goes to the City Council the day before their meeting. Possibly it provides the information that you need. You can certainly contact John Yapp if you have questions or need additional information. From: and rosenquist[mailto:mdrosenquist@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2016 11.30 AM To: Marcia Bollinger Subject: Lusk property question Hi Marcia, I am getting questions about Lust Ave. Is an area of Lusk Ave been zoned commercial? thanks, Marilyn Sue DulSue Dul®ek From: Mike Oliveira <moliveira@prestigeprop.com> Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 2015 5:27 PM To: Jann Ream Cc: U. Scott Ritter' Subject: RE: Lusk HiJann, It a pain waking with no sidewalks so I clearly understand the need for sidewalks. The know firsthand because when I walk to the park and go down north Gilbert Street north of Brown street those new houses don't have sidewalks and it a pain in the butt having to walk in the street. Thanks for moving this forward. Scott and I working with Jason on the other issues and the Fire Department on the Turn Around size. Mike From: Jame Ream[mailto:Jann-Remm@iowa-city.org) Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2015 3:37 PM To: 'Mike Oliveira; T Scott Ritter' (sritter@hart-frederick.com) Cc: Jason Havel; Tim Hennes; Julie Tallman Subject: Lusk Mike and Scott — I finally had a chance to go over your latest plat proposal with Doug. In tams of zoning for lot size, configuration and frontage, Doug feels this plat is compliant and therefore, approvable for a lot split. However, he does see the sewer, water and tum-around size issues that have been discussed previously and that Jason brought up in his email concerning this configuration. Doug will not sign off on the plat until these issues have been resolved. Also, Doug wanted to make you aware that a sidewalk will be required to the end of the new tum-around that is adjacent to the proposed lot in order to continue the existing sidewalk to the newly created lot. Jame Date:12/30/2014 5:34 PM (GMT-06:00) To: Ron Knoche <Ron-Knoche@iowa-city.org> Cc: Jason Havel <Jason-Havel@iowa-city.org>, Jann Ream <Jann-Ream@iowa-city.org> Subject: RE: 101 Lusk Ave Yes we are looking to Split the lots. From: Ron Knoche [mailto:Ron-Knoche@iowa-city.org] Sent: Tuesday, December 30, 2014 5:20 PM To: 'Mike Oliveira' Cc: Jason Havel; Jann Ream Subject: RE: 101 Lusk Ave Mike: Jason Havel will be City Engineer. Lusk is currently 25 feet wide. You will need to hire an engineering company to develop the plans to extend the street. You will need to provide a turn around at the end of the street. Based on the aerial there may be a significant amount of grading necessary to be able to build the road. Based on Jann's email to you I estimate you will need to extend the street approximately 80 feet to meet the requirement of 60 foot lots and the south lot having 45 foot of street frontage. I think the bigger question is how will water and sanitary sewer service be extended to these lots. Are you just looking at splitting the lot in half? If that is the case I will have Water and Wastewater review it quick. Thanks, ,,, Sue Dulsk From: Chris Partook <Chris4hdo9k oty org> sent: Monday, January 26, 2015 2:34 PM To: Jason Subject: RE: 101 Lusk Ave Jason, Without having any kind of sketch or drawing to go by, water main on Lusk Ave would need to reach from Bayard St down to the southern boundary of the Lust Ave ROW and have a hydrant assembly set there. The hydrant that now sits along Lusk Ave would need to be removed. I just received a request for water main Information on this street. Please let me know if you need anything else. Chris Partzek, El Water Engineer City of Iowa City Water Division 410 E Washington St Iowa City, IA 52240 319-356-5056 chris-oarizek0lowa-citv.ore Fran: Jason Havel Sent: filday, January 23, 2015 4:27 PM To: Chris Parbek Srrbjeet: RN: 101 Lusk Ave Could you get me any water comments regarding this site when you get a chance? Thanks From: Ron Knoche Sent: Sunday, January 04, 201512:18 PM To: Dave Sias; Ed Moreno; Jason Havel CC: Josh Slattery; Raper Overton; Kevin Sk:tts Subject: INW: 101 Lusk Ave Mike Oliveira is looking at splitting 101 Imsk Ave. They will have to extend Lusk Ave to get the appropriate street fi=tage. It looks like this area maybe tricky for utilities. Please gel your comments to engineering and they will get passed to Mike. Ron sem son or Us. c kbmsmflpf s -- - Original message From: Milne Oliveira <moliveire@pnes<igeprop com> Sue Dulek From: Paul Druivenga <Paul-Druivenga@iowa-city.org> Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 201511:24 AM To: Jason Havel Subject: RE: 101 Lusk Ave. Request to subdivide lot. Attachments: Lusk.pdf Perhaps something like this. I know Jeff Maxwell can bore lines. From: Jason Havel - Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2015 10:06 AM To: Paul Druivenga Cc: Roger Overton Subject: Re: 101 Lusk Ave. Request to subdivide lot. What would be your preferred option? Thanks. Sent from my iPhone On Feb 25, 2015, at 9:52 AM, Paul Druivenga <Paul-Druiveng�adiowa-city.org> wrote: Jason - The proposed house farthest to the south would have its sewer service cross 3 different properties. I'm not a fan of this proposal. Future repairs of the private line could get dicey. Generally when I'm asked about similar older sewers "why did the City OK this?". Paul _ From: Jason Havel Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2015 9:19 AM To: Roger Overton; Paul Druivenga; Chris Parizek; Tim Hennes; Julie Tallman; Josh Slattery Subject: FW: 101 Lusk Ave. Request to subdivide lot. All, Attached is a drawing for splitting a lot on Lusk Avenue. Please review and let me know if you have any questions/concerns. Tim/Julie, do you want the response to come from your department or would you like me to respond to Mike with comments? Thanks. Jason From: Mike Oliveira[malito:moliveira(rDnrestiaeoroo.coml Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2015 12:27 PM To: Jason Havel Cc: 'Robert Carlson'; 'J. Scott Ritter' Subject: 101 Lusk Ave. Request to subdivide lot. M Jason, Per your request, we have completed the drawing for your team's review. Splitting these lots will add to the tax base, we believe the new homes will have a value over $650,000 each. i"bank you for your consideration and please get back to us as soon as possible. Mike Oliveira 319400-1354 PI rr � = 70529 ft r a = �oss1 m BAYARD STREET OF I- -a a 9 T IQ .......... ......................................... N 118'36W ��.EsL I-2-0 A,----r------ �! I I VOA I I H� I�b the Northeast corner lohnson County, lows. In Ptat Hook i. pop a thence West Olt Block 141 thence South 14 to the North line L lowa City Rakway 4 p the North tine of or of Lot 1 in sold weHlnnlrip, I - +T ro I "- I ROWLX HART FREDERICK CONSULTANTS, P.C. ENGINEERS & SURVEYORS 1 October, 2015 Prestige Properties 239•E. Court St, Ste 2 Iowa City,1A 52240 Attn: lvfike Oliveira Re: Sanitary Sewer Service to 101 Lusk Avenue — Iowa City, Iowa Dear Mr. Oliveira: We have reviewed the video footage from the inspection of the sanitary sewer service to 101 Lusk Avenue in Iowa City performed oa September 23, 2015. Based on the video, (� we would not recommend using the mds ft service line in its current condition for the 1 proposed additional single family homes. The tuberculation in the 4-inch diameter cast iron section of the service line will impede flow and possibly cause blockages and backups. The roots protruding through the pipe joints in the VCP section have been removed, but may regrow in the future. These would again become sources of potential blockage and infiltration. Many of the join are offset slightly from each other. The offsets could be considered minor and do not severely impede flow. The video camera did reach the manhole in this inspection and only two services discovered. The service to 631 Bayard Street was not found. This makes a total of four residential wuneots on the service line that is believed to be 6-inches in diameter. Typical standard practice for most cities is to require a minimum pipe diameter of 6-inches when more than one building is served by a single service line. According to the sewer inspection equipment operator, out iron portion of this service lire is 4-inches in diameter. Basal on the latest video inspection, we recommend a new 6-inch service line be installed to replace the 4-inch cast iron section of the Misting service line. The remaining existing service line should be lined to prevent firture root growth and infiltration. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call Scott Ritter, L.S., or myself at our office. Sin Iy,� 0 BeujkWnA. Carhoff, P.S. Hart -Frederick Consultants P.C. cc: Jason Havel, City of Iowa City am: Video on USB Flash Drive file 510 StMO Sneer • P.O. P o 560 • Ti$m, IA 52340.0560 • 319-545-7215 • Fro 319-545-7220 • wwwjwrt-fi=kd&mm Engmee®g • Surveying . Funning G- Sue Du,�k From: Ron Knoche <Ron-Knocheglowa-city.org> Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 20161:51 PM To: John Yapp;Tim Hennes Subject: FW: City Sanitary sewer conditions. FYI Ronald R. Knoche, PE Public Works Director City of Iowa City 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa Email: ron-knoche@Iowa-city.ora Phone: (319) 356-5138 Cell: (319) 430-3625 Fax: (319) 356-5007 From: Roger Overton Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2016 1:42 PM To: 'ba_1owadty@yahoo.com' Cc: Tim Wilkey; Ron Knoche; Jason Havel Subject: RN: City Sanitary sewer conditions. From: Roger Overton Seft Wednesday, June 29, 2016 12:07 PM To: 'bada_lowadty@yahoo.com' Cc: Tim Wilkey; Ron Knoche; Jason Havel Subject: City Sanitary sewer conditions. Dear Mr. Ackerman, The City Wastewater Division has inspected it's 8" sanitary sewer mains in the Lusk Ave and Bayard St area and they appear to be in good working condition and capable of accommodating additional flow from the proposed single family house that will be built at 101 Lusk Ave. T'i;e City doesn't have any information about the condition of the joint private sewer that you share with your neighbors. parmax VVWkt0TL Assistant Superintendent City of Iowa City WastewaterTreatment Division Office- 319-897-6104 Cell-319-321-3353 Sue Dulek From. Roger Overton <Roger-Overton@iowa-ccity.org> Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2016 9:15 AM To: Jason Havel Cc: Tim Wilkey; Ron Knoche; Paul Druivenga Subject: 101 Lusk Ave Jason, II FBillerman called me yesterday concerned with the sanitary sewers near his home on Lusk Ave. I had some on with him about the sewers being able to handle the flow from the new "Kinnick House". My last recollection rea was that we were going to require the new development south of Sill's house to install a new B" line to on. I did not realize that using the existing combined 4" service was going to be allowed. Bill wanted me to email ails of the condition and flow capacity of sewers in the area to assuage his and his neighbor's concerns. We don't know or have we Investigated anything about the condition of the 4" private service. How would you like to proceed with contacting Bill about his concerns? We have video of the main north of Lexington and it indicates a 4" sag about 14' outsiide the MH at Bayard/Lexington that runs for about 20' to the North. This defect shouldn't hinder development of the lot. XWVGra. rivaktavc Assistant Superintendent city of bwa City Wastewater Treatment Division Office- 319-987-6104 Ce1w319-321-3353 Sus Dui � From: Jason Havel <Jason-Havelilowa-ft-org> Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2015 8:52 PM To: Jason Havel Subject: Lusk Ave Attaohmmft: Lusk Avenue Comments.docx General 1. A plat of survey, creating a new Auditors Plat, will have to be signed by a PE or licensed surveyor, and submitted to the Director of Neighborhood and Development Services for approval. 2. Zoning (RS5) requires 45 feet of street frontage. Lusk Avenue should be extended to provide vehicular access for a minimum of 45 feet along the east lot line of the new lot. Anvthine less than that would require a variance request. 3. Driveway spacing standards require three feet (T) between the lot line extended and the curb cut on Lusk. 4. Turn -around at the end of Lusk Avenue sufficient for fire department? Sanitary 1. Is there an existing easement around the sanitary sewer where it crosses private property? 2. The City's preference would be to provide a sanitary sewer within the Lusk Avenue ROW and tie t the services into the new line (see attached drawing as a possible option). Sue Dulek From: Jason Havel -Jason-Havel@iowa-city.org> Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2015 6:53 PM To: 'Mike Oliveira'; Jann Ream; Julie Tallman Subject: RE: New Concept for splitting 101 Lusk Ave per our discussions Mike, kA few comments/questions on the revised plan: 1) It appears from the aerial that the existing sanitary sewer runs under the garage adjacent to 631 Bayard Street. Is there language in the easement to address repairs under that structure if needed? That layout is n i I 0 f �+ ) obviously less than ideal, and could be a concern for the users of the sanitary sewer. 2 What are the elevations/grades for the sanitary service from the south house? That line is shown with a number of bends and could be a maintenance issue. Will the southern property be required to have a grinder is ,0 pump or a force main type setup? An easement should also be added for the service line where it crosses the t I neighboring property. Maintenance of that line would also be needed in the easement agreement. 3) The private sanitary main should not be shown as extending under the northern house. The house service should connect to the main outside of the building footprint at a manhole or other connection location. 4) The water services must come perpendicular from the main to the property line, which will require extension of the water main for the south property. They cannot run parallel to the property line as shown in the drawing. Let me know if you have any questions. i nanKs, Jason From: Mike Oliveira[maiito:moliveira@prestigeprop.comj Sent: Friday, April 17, 2015 3:39 PM To: Jann Ream; Julie Tallman; Jason Havel Subject: New Concept for splitting 101 Lusk Ave per our discussions Here are revised split lot plan per our last meeting. Please take a look and we believe it meet all the requirements. I will thank take to the fire department to get a blessing or rejection! Thank you — enjoy the nice weather. Mike Oliveira Prestige Properties, LLC. Jason and Jann, Here are your original questions/responses and here are our responses (Scott Ritter and Bob Carlson) and questions/recommendations. We need to have a meeting to see if we can iron out the issues and get this project moving forward. Also we need to know what other land mines we are facing! Thank you in advance for your consideration and cooperation in this matter! Let me know some dates. Mike Oliveira 319-512-7616 x 5 City's Responses: We were finally able to get this in front of joint staff yesterday. Our comments are as follows: 1. A plat of survey, creating a new Auditor's Plat, will have to be signed by a PE or licensed surveyor, and submitted to the Director of Neighborhood and Development Services for approval. 2. Zoning (RS5) requires 45 feet of street frontage, and the frontage is required to be along the street. Lusk Avenue should be extended to provide vehicular access for a minimum of 45 feet along the east lot line of the new lot. 3. Driveway spacing standards require three feet (3') between the lot line extended and the curb cut on Lusk. { 4. Our preference would be to provide new sanitary service out the front of the house(s) to a new line ! b along Lusk Avenue and installed by the developer. The new line could be within the ROW and eventually tie into the manhole at the Lexingt<m/Rayard intersection (see attached). If you would choose to tie into the existing private line, we would need proof of the ability to do so, such as proof of an easement, agreement, etc. 5. The water main would need to be extended (see attached) and a water tap -on fee may be required. 6. The lots must be 60' in width at the front setback line. Related to that, here is a comment from Jann Ream: Attached is the plat for Lusk with the dimensional adjustments that would have to be made in order for the two new lots to meet the required dimensional requirements. The new lot line would have to move south approximately 7, Jt (6.59' exactly). This would add 1, 050 sf to the north lot for a total of 9,050sfand take away 1,050sf from the south lot for a total of 7,595sf. This is a problem since the minimum lot size is 8, 000sf. If the new lot line was angled north from the east boundary to the west boundary, the square footage of the two lots could probably be balanced so they would both have a little over 8,000sf. The only potential problem I can see with that is maintaining the 60' width at the required front setback line which is 20ft back from the front lot lines. It would definitely be "threading the needle" to make that happen. They have about .5ft (112 foot) to play with but I think it could be done. The drawing is attached for your information. I am also awaiting a response regarding another potential issue, but wanted to get you these comments. Let me know if you have any questions or want to discuss. Thanks. Here are the responses from our Scott Ritter. We need to setup a meeting to discuss! 1) Not aproblem 2) 6)1 feel these 2 bullets can be resolved as long as we can use the proposed width of street vacation as our street frontage and area calculations. From the intentions involved are to save the trees in the street area 3) Can we ask for a variance on this? For again we are trying to save the trees. 4) As an estimate this could cost $45642 and then what happens to the other 3 houses who must hook up to fsame line. I haven't seen the video of the line that was done to know this. The three other property owners will need to be receptive to an easement for this line. I think it would be to their advantage. 5) As an estimate this could cost $10047. My take on this is the hydrant is moved further from the North two properties and across street. Leaving the hydrant where it is, makes it more centrally located. Both 4 & 5 above includes the cost of street replacement. I believe if a meeting can be set up with all, we can resolve and/or get more definite answers to these bullets. J. Scott Ritter, PLS Hart -Frederick Consultants PC 510 State Street, PO Box 560 T%f "in, U 52340-0560 P.319-545-7215 F.319-545-7220 Sue Dui _- From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Roger, Jason Havel <Jason-Havel@iowa-city.org> Tuesday, July 05, 201611:42 AM Roger Overton Tim Wilkey; Ron Knoche; Paul Druivenga RE: 101 Lusk Ave The stance we've taken is we would allow use of the existing shared private service if it is for a single family dwelling. A previous owner was interested in splitting the lot and building two homes, and we requested they install new sewer for that improvement. Let me know if you have any additional questions, thanks. Jason From: Roger Overton Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2016 9:15 AM To: Jason Havel Cc: Tim Wilkey, Ron Knoche, Paul DruMmW Subject: 101 Lusk Ave Jason, Bill Ackerman called me yesterday concerned with the sanitary sewers near his home on Lusk Ave. I had some discussion with him about the sewers being able to handle the flow from the new "Kinnick House". My last recollection of this area was that we were going to require the new development south of Bill's house to install a new r line to Lexington. I did not realize that using the existing combined 4" service was going to be allowed. Bill wanted me to email him details of the condition and flow capacity of sewers in the area to assuage his and his neighbor's concerns. We don't know or have we investigated anything about the condition of the 4" private service. How would you like to proceed with contacting Bill about his concerns? We have video of the main north of Lexington and It indicates a 4" sag about 14' outside the MH at Bayard/Lexington that runs for about 20' to the North. This defect shouldn't hinder development of the lot. nwra a D.•ontox Assistant superintendent MY of Iowa cny WastewaterTreatment DMission Office-3i9-Ea7-6104 Gelk319-321-3353 Sue Dulek From: Sent: To: Subject: Jason, Josh Slattery <Josh-Slattery@iowa-city.org> Thursday, February 26, 2015 2:49 PIN Jason Havel; Roger Overton; Paul Druivenga; Chris Parizek; Tim Hennes; Julie Tallman RE: 101 Lusk Ave. Request to subdivide lot. 1. The proposed houses do not have separate and independent building sanitary sewer services as required in 16- I 3D-6D. It appears that the sanitary sewer that is shown extending from a manhole at the intersection of Bayard St and Lexington Ave down to underneath the northern proposed house is a private service line. It is indicated that way in the legend on the drawing and our maps and plats do not show any sewer in this location. 117 Lusk Ave, Ill Lusk Ave, and both of the proposed homes will use this sewer service. 2. The water service for the south home runs 2 to 3 feet within the ROW and may be hard to maintain without encroaching on the neighboring property to the north. 3. Will the vacated ROW become part of the south lot so that it meets the frontage requirements? 4. If this ROW is vacated then the property across the street will not be able to split and do the same thing (if this matters). If you have any question regarding these comments, please let me know. Josh From: Jason Havel Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2015 9:19 AM To: Roger Overton; Paul Druivenga; Chris Parizek; Tim Hennes; Julie Tallman; Josh Slattery Subject: FIN: 101 Lusk Ave. Request to subdivide lot. All, Attached is a drawing for splitting a lot on Lusk Avenue. Please review and let me know if you have any questions/concerns. Tim/Julie, do you want the response to come from your department or would you like me to respond to Mike with comments? Thanks. Jason From: Mike Oliveira[mallto:moliveira@prestigeprop.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2015 12:27 PM To: Jason Havel Cc: 'Robert Carbon'; 7. Scott Ritter" Subject: 101 tusk Ave. Request to subdivide lot. Hi Jason, Sue ®ulek From: Mike Oliveira <moliveira@prestigeprop.00m> Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 2015 2:07 PM To: Jann Ream Subject: RE: 101 Lusk Ave - Request to Split the lots Ok Great that is what I needed to know. Appreciate your nromnt rcennnQP From: Jann Ream [mailto:Jana-Ream@iowa-city.org] Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 20151:14 PM To: 'Mike Oliveira' <moliveita@prestigeprop.com> Cc: Jason Havel Qason-Havel@iowa-city.org> Subject: RE: 101 Lusk Ave - Request to Split the lots Mike — I got your voice mail and, yes, you are ok moving forward based on Jason's email. We will need a plat of survey submitted similar to the latest one you submitted but showing the sewer and water coming in from the Lusk right of way and eliminating the sewer and water lines coming across the adjacent private properties. Jann From: Jason Havel Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 201511:37 AM To: 'Mike Oliveira' Cc: Jann Ream Subject: RE: 101 Lusk Ave - Request to Split the lots Mike, Our expectation is that splitting the existing lot would require the existing water main on Lusk Avenue to be� �n I exteadcd and new sanitary sewer installed in the City ROW to provide public water/sewer services to the new ++� lots. I believe this is consistent with what we had discussed during our meeting, as well as previous correspondence. Any plats submitted for splitting the lot would need to reflect those improvements, and remove references to the private connections. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks. Jason From: Mike Oliveira [mailto:moliveira arestieernop.coml Seat: Friday, October 30, 2015 2:47 PM To: Jason Havel Cc: Jams Ream Subject. 101 Lusk Ave - Request to Split the lots Hi Jason, Thanks for meeting with Scott and I. As a follow up to our meeting - Will please confirm with Jana so we can complete our sewer/water requirements to spit the lots. You're the last person in the process. Thank you again for your attention to this matter. Thank you. Mike Oliveira Goneiat Manager Prestige Properties, LLC. 329 E. Court St. Suite 2, Iowa City IA 52240 Office 319-512-7616 x 5 Fax:888-799-9743 Sue Du® From: Mike Oliveira <moliveira@prestigeprop.com> Sent: Sunday, June 07. 2015 7:57 AM To: Jason Havel Subject: RE: 101 Lusk Ave Sewer Line Easement I will work for Friday morning right now keep that open I will get back to you with an exact time. From: Jason Havel [mailto:Jason-Havel@iowa-city.org] Sent: Saturday, June 06, 2015 7:00 PM To: 'Mike Oliveira' Cc: 7vlichael Kennedy Subject: RE: 101 Lusk Ave Sewer Line Easement Mike, What days/times would work for you this upcoming week? Friday (12`h) is pretty open for me, but I may be able to fit it in another day if you were wanting it to be sooner. Thanks. Jason From: Mike Oliveira fmailto:moliveirala�,prestiaeomp.coml Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2015 5:04 PM To: Jason Havel Cc: 'Michael Kennedy' Subject: 101 Lusk Ave Sewer Line Easement Hi Jason, ^ We have engaged our attorney, Mike Kennedy, to try and nail down the easement language that will satisfy your departments concerns while balancing the concerns with the multi of property owners that use the service. You and the other property owners are the last hurtle in this project. I believe the other property are going to be a huge challenge. Let me know when we can setup a meeting. Thank you m advance for your cooperation. Mike Oliveira Prestige Properties, LLC. 329 R Court St. Suite 2, Iowa City IA 52240 Office 319-512-7616 x 5 Fax:888-799-9743 Date:12/30/2014 5:34 PM (GMT-06:00) To: Ron Knoche <Ron-Knoche@iowa-city.org> Cc: Jason Havel <Jason-Havel@iowa-city.org>, Jann Ream Diann-Ream@iowa-city.org> Subject: RE: 101 Lusk Ave Yes we are looking to Split the lots. From: Ron Knoche [mailto:Ron-Knoche@iowa-city.org] Sent: Tuesday, December 30, 2014 5:20 PM To: 'Mitre Oliveira' Cc: Jason Havel; Jann Ream Subject: RE: 101 Lusk Ave Mike: Jason Havel will be City Engineer. Lusk is currently 25 feet wide. You will need to hire an engineering company to develop the plans to extend the street You will need to provide a turn around at the end of the streeL Based on the aerial there may be a significant amount of grading necessary to be able to build the mad. Based on Jann's email to you I estimate you will need to extend the street approximately 80 feet to meet the requirement of 60 foot lots and the south lot having 45 foot of street frontage. I think the bigger question is how will water and sanitary sewer service be extended to these lots. Are you just looking at splitting the lot in half? If that is the case I will have Water and Wastewater review it quick. Thanks, Ron Ronald R. Knoche, PE City Engineer Website: www.icgov.org From: Mike Oliveirafmailto:moliveira&reatieearon.coml Sent: Tuesday, December 30, 2014 3:41 PM To: Ron Knoche Subjed:101 Lusk Ave Hi Ron — I understand Jason Hobel is taking your place as of January 1". We need a proposal to extend 101 Lusk Ave so we can subdivide the lot. Let me now what the next steps are. Mike Oliveira General Manager Prestige Properties, LLC. 329 E. Court St. Suite 2, Iowa City IA 52240 Office 319-512-7616 x 5 Fax: BM799-9743 Sue Duiek From: Mike Oliveira <moliveira@prestigeprop.com> Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2015 5:27 PM To: Jann Ream Cc: 'J. Scott Ritter' Subject: Lusk Hi Jann, It a pain waking with no sidewalks so I clearly understand the need for sidewalks. The know firsthand because when I walk to the park and go down north Gilbert Street north of Brown street those new houses don't have sidewalks and it a pain in the butt having to walk in the street. Thanks for moving this forward. Scott and I working with Jason on the other issues and the Fire Department on the Turn Around size. Mike From: Jann Ream [mailto:Jann-ReamQa iowa-city.org] Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2015 3:37 PM To: 'Mike Oliveira; 'J. Scott Ritter' (sritter®hart-frederick.com) Cc: Jason Havel; Tim Hennes; Julie Tallman Subject: Lusk I Mike and Scott — I finally had a chance to go over your latest plat proposal with Doug. In terns of zoning for lot size, configuration and frontage, Doug feels this plat is compliant and therefore, approvable for a lot split. ^^ However, he does see the sewer, water and tum-around size issues that have been discussed previously and cad that Jason brought up in his email concerning this configuration. Doug will not sign off on the plat until these issues have been resolved Also, Doug wanted to make you aware that a sidewalk will be required to the end of the new turn -around that is adjacent to the proposed lot in order to continue the existing sidewalk to the newly created lot. Jann Sue Dulek From: Brian Greer <Brian-Greer@Iowa-city.org> Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2015 3:11 PM To: Jason Havel; John Grier Subject: RE: Turnaround on Lusk Ave Attachments: Fire Apparatus Access Roads.pdf Jason, I have attached the 2012 International Fire Code (IFC) appendix for fire apparatus access roads. With the space you have to work with there, it appears that it would be impossible to provide a conforming turnaround to meet the requirements of the code. In relationship to this proposed turnaround, our fire engines are 38+feet long, and the ladder truck is 47+feet long. The proposed turnaround definitely would not accommodate the ladder truck and quite possibly the fire engines. Are there any other options you are looking at in regards to this proposed turnaround/development? Let me know if you have any. Thanks. Stay safe, Brian Awn Jr. veex- .riiw Aaxafiad Iowa City Fire Department 410 E. Washington Street Iowa City, la. 52240 319-355-5257 brian-oreerNowa-city.oro From: Jason Havel Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2015 1:58 PM To: John Grier, Brian Greer Subject: Turnaround on Lusk Ave Good afternoon, ' A developer is looking to possibly divide an existing lot on Lusk Avenue. As part of the process, we would require Ja n'7 turnaround at the end of the street. Is the proposed turnaround (see attached) sufficient for the Fire Department. Thanks. y Jason Havel, P.E. City Engineer City of Iowa City 410 E. Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 Phone: (319) 356-5420 Fax* (319)356-5007 APPENDIX D FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROADS 2%vprorislons caatomed in this appe dir am ad ama8fory naives epee(Ro m* rdlom ced & the adopriag ord timmu . SECTION D101 GENERAL D191.1 Scope. Tiro apparatus access roads shell be in accor- dance, with this appendix and all other applicable mluiro- manta of the international Fire Cods. SECTION D102 REQUIRED ACCESS D192.1 Acres; and lading. Facilities, buildings or portions of build ap hereafter constructed shall be accessible to Sur deparumant Was= by way of an approsrd Am apparatus access road with an mpbdt, concrete or other approved ddv- hrg surface capable of svppartog the mtposed lad of fire apparatus weighing at last 75,= pounds (34 050 W. SECTION D103 MINIMUM SPECIFICATIONS D1931 Access road width with a hydnmL Where a Am hydmot is located on a Sue apparatus socess road, the mim- n mn road width abag be 26 fast (7925 mm), ardusive of shaaltim (raeftmeD103.1). W 28' R TYP. 2tv ItILF00T DUIMEIER CUL.DE.SAC Far SE r foot.3[)" ono. W 26 R� TYP Ter D193.2 Grade. Fm apparatus aovem roads" sot areeed 10 percent in vide. Rzoepton: Grades steeper than 10 percent as approved by the fare chid. D1933 Trussing ra4m The m comma turmog ndim shell be dalroxiaed by thefrn code ggicial. D193A Dead ends Dead -and fire eppuema access scads in exam of 150 fast (45 72D mm) doll be provided with width sod turnaround pmva iaos in accordance with Table D103.4. TABLE 11100A REQWF B M FOR DEAD41ND FIRE APPARATB9 ACCM ROADS LEMM #00o wm1H one nurNARMa PEC M 0.150 20 Now squired 170-EootHammedhead 60-fmotscr 15116W 20 or 96-foot diameter ad4o-m in accortrocewith F mD103.1 170-footHammahad, 60-foot "Y" 501750 26 at 96-foot diamata ud4W c m accerdeace with Figure D103.1 Over790 :spuds] approve] negated Foralr I tout-3043,, 26' R 7YP. Stir bb�7rp}�jy 120-FOOT HAMMERHEAD ZW 2B' 20r—T MIMMUM CLEARANCE AROUNDAFIRE HYDRANT Or R� TYR E 20r—T 20' AOCEPTABLEALTERNATIVE TO 120-FOOT HAMMERHEAD FIQURE MOLL DEAD•END PORE APPARATIM ACCEN ROAD TURNAROUND 201E m"MATIONAL mm OODBa _ 661 From: Mike Oliveira <moliveira@prestigeprop.com> sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 3:16 PM To: Brian Greer Cc: Jann Ream Subject: RE: 101 Lusk Ave Thank you very much for your quick turnaround have a nice weekend. Mike From: Brian Greer [mailto:Brian-Greer®iowa-city.org] Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 2:35 PM To: 'Mike Oliveira' Cc: Jann Ream Subject: RE: 101 Lusk Ave Mike, We discussed the access and turnaround proposed and we believe it will enable our apparatus to turn around if necessary. I don't believe there were any other issues related to the fire department for this project. Let me know if you have any questions or concerns. Stay safe, RN MI, Brian T. Greer- Fire Marshal Iowa City Fire Department 410 E. Washington Street Iowa City, ia. 52240 319-356-5257 Sue Dulek From: Gary Klinefelter <gary@klinefelter.us> Sent: Friday, August 14, 2015 6:17 PM To: Doug Boothroy, Ron Knoche Cc: Cindy Parsons Subject: 101 Lusk Ave. lot split Gentlemen, I have some questions regarding the proposal to split the lot at 101 Lusk Ave. I have two main concerns. I have received by email a scanned plat that was submitted to the City for this lot split. Concern #1. The extension of Lusk Ave., which appears to show 30'-9" south of where the pavement ends, is within about 10' of a massive oak tree. This tree sits higher than where the pavement ends. I assume that the paving would continue the slope to the south If this is the case this would necessitate excavation that would disrupt tree roots. The approach turning to the west at about a 45 degree angle would also encroach on the tree roots. This paving looks to be too close to the tree to not result in damage damage to this tree. Could the paving extension be 25' or 20' to lessen the impact on this tree? Concern #2. There is currently no storm water management of the surface water that travels on Lusk Ave. (some of it coming off of Bayard St. as well). The pavement just ends, and heavy rains just wash out the area south of the street moving toward the CRANDIC right-of-way. I do not see anything on the plat that addresses storm water control. In addition there is a turn out that goes east to our property at 110 Lusk Ave. I cannot glean from the plat which way the storm water is directed from this proposed street extension. There has been significant erosion over time from the current lack of storm water control. It appears that this extension of the street could make things worse if storm water drainage is not adequately addressed. I believe these are valid concerns that need to be addressed prior the the granting of this proposal to split the lot at 101 Lusk Ave. Thank you for your attention to this matter. I look forward to hearing back from you. Sincerely, Gary A. Klinefelter 319-631-1236 Parsons Properties gmy@Jdinefelter.us EXHIBIT U AFFIDAVIT OF BRADLEY ERICKSON Affidavit — Bradley Erickson My name is Brad Erickson and I live at 11 Rowland Ct. with my wife, Catherine, and our two small children. I am writing today to express my concern with issuance of the building permit for the lot on 101 Lusk Avenue, which can be seen from our front yard. I have many concerns about the way in which the City handled the issuance of the Building Permit for 101 Lusk Avenue for the building proposed by the Carlsons. First, my greatest concern has to do with the Fire Code violations that will occur if the proposed party venue is constructed without the installation of required turnarounds, and that such violations will directly affect the safety of the citizens living in the area. The International Fire -Code states the following: 503.Z5 Dead ends. Dead-end fire apparatus access roads in excess of 150 feet in length shall be provided with an approved area for turning around fire apparatus. As we understand the City's position, despite the mandatory language ("shall be provided"), its Building Officials and Fire Chief have chosen not to enforce the requirements of the Fire Code for Lusk Avenue because the City always and routinely fails to enforce the provisions with respect to in -fill construction on dead-end paved roads —maven though no such exception that we know of exists in the International Fire Code, as adopted into the City Code. We don't know how employees of the City can choose selectively to ignore a mandatory provision of the International Fire Code as adopted by our elected City officials. These unelected Iowa City employees seem to be basing their present disregard for the law on that fact that they've had prior disregard for the law. Such logic is circular, self-fulfilling and contrary to the public interest. Furthermore, in the issuance of the Building Permit for the Carlsons' proposed building, City building officials continually said that despite the "unusual features" of the home, they could not consider the structure as anything other than a residential property, as to do so was the "letter of the law." It seems that, in comparing one enforcement action to the other, the City officials are choosing to only obey laws that are convenient for them (and in this case, the property owner). We ask that if the City follows the law in one area, it shall also consider the "letter of the law" in all areas, especially fire safety laws— laws that are meant to protect patrons and guests in the party venue and the neighborhood surrounding the home. Second, Mr Boothroy stated that not requiring the construction of an emergency vehicle turnaround at the dead end of Lusk Avenue —as the International Fire Code requires for streets longer than 150 feet —would make it no different than the street just to the east of Lusk Avenue, that is, Rowland Court, which he correctly stated, also does not have a turnaround (this, despite the fact that it is much longer in length than Lusk Avenue). I would like to express here that the lack of a formal turnaround on Rowland Court is the exact reason why one needs to be put in place on Lusk Avenue. Neighbors readily admit that Rowland Court is disadvantaged by its current layout. While we have (luckily) never had a fire in any our homes, two examples of why fire truck access to homes on Rowland Court might be challenging include the following: 1) moving trucks making their way down our street cannot turn -around and must back out of the street often with much difficulty. For example, two years ago, one such truck caused damage to an oak tree on 4 Rowland Ct (Chris and Monica Rossi) and to our lawn on 11 Rowland Court 2) yard waste collection trucks will stop at the mouth of the road (before Bayard turns to Rowland Court) and have their workers walk down the street to gather Rowland Court yard waste — all to avoid the need to back out of the street with their large vehicle. While it would be impossible, today, to fix access problems on Rowland Court caused by the absence of an emergency vehicle turnaround, this does not need to be the case on Lusk Avenue and according to the "letter of the law," it should not be the case. Third, a complementary concern about the lack of a turnaround on Rowland Court is that the driveways associated with the 7 homes on the street have effectively become turnarounds for the public. This is an inconvenience for homeowners living on the street, but admittedly, it is an inconvenience that we have come to accept given that there is no reasonable solution to the problem. However, this inconvenience becomes a genuine safety concern on at least 8 days a year - days when football games are being played at Kinnick Stadium. Fans looking for parking spots in the neighborhood drive down Rowland Court, find no parking (of which there is very little) and use our driveways - driveways in which our kids are playing basketball, baseball and other games with their friends - to turn around. Often these fans appear lost and unaware of their surroundings (e.g. kids playing in the neighborhood). On multiple occasions these fans have turned around in our yards, damaging trees, grass and personal property. Just this year, a fan looking for parking on Rowland Court, and finding the driveways full of cars, made an awkward 8 point turn in the middle of the road, in front of our kids, and with tires in our grass. A second similar incident led to a damaged bush in the Chris and Monica Rossi yard and a broken vehicle tailgate light. Why does the lack of turnaround on our street matter in this particular situation? It matters because the Carlsons' proposed building is designed to host groups of up to 200 persons and, as intended, it will foreseeably and dramatically increase car and foot traffic in the neighborhood. The City, in a classification decision which we strongly oppose, has chosen to issue a residential Building Permit for a self - described "tailgate/party venue" and, by doing so, the City is obligated to consider full consequences of that decision, including how it will affect congestion and safety. Without appropriate turnarounds and road infrastructure, the neighborhood will not be able to accommodate the vehicular congestion that would accompany this entertainment venue. I can assure you that this will become a public safety hazard for the many children and pedestrians in the neighborhood — in addition to the public safety problem created when emergency vehicles called to 101 Lusk Avenue are unable safely and efficiently to turnaround. Finally, I ask the Board to consider what would happen if a fire occurred on Lusk Avenue during one of these congested times? Experts with far more knowledge about fire safety issues have mandated in the International Fire Code that, for dead-end streets longer than 150 feet, turnarounds must be installed. And, City Council members, elected to protect the public interest, have legislated the adoption of those mandatory turnaround provisions, without change. It should be noted, as well, that the same experts and the same elected officials have mandated certain minimum water capacities be provided by fire hydrants when a building of the size, and of the composition, as the proposed Carlson building is constructed. Our understanding of the facts is that, according to the tests undertaken by the City's own employees, the minimum "fire flow" cannot be achieved by the hydrants closest to 101 Lusk Avenue. The safest infrastructure includes an adequate turnaround, sufficient water pressure/volume and a wide enough street to accommodate emergency vehicles - all things that currently do not exist. The City, to date, has not only disregarded existing Fire Code without the approval of the City Council — the elected officials that have made the International Fire Code the "letter of the law" for new construction in the City — but they have missed an opportunity to protect the City's own citizens, most notably its children, by blatantly disregarding the law. Just because Rowland Court doesn't have a turnaround, this does not mean the law shall not apply to new construction on Lusk Avenue. Two wrongs certainly do not make a right — and in this particular neighborhood, it will make the situation significantly worse if a turnaround is not mandated by the city. The International Fire Code exists for a reason — and the City council has adopted it for Iowa City for a reason — and the Board of Appeals must consider it for a reason — and that reason is because the International Fire Code protects citizens. I plead with the Board to consider the above arguments as grounds to revoke the permit issued to the homeowners at 101 Lusk Avenue and to use this opportunity to protect the public interest by exercising the power it has to correct serious errors of judgment with respect to these issues. FURTHER I SAYETH NOT. BRADLEY ERICKSON e-A o1-1 j< Subscr' ed and sworn to before me by Bradley�crrr this 7nay of December, 2016. a JAMESCLAREW N RY PUBLIC Notarial Seal - IOWACommission No. 771499mission Expires February 92, 2018 EXHIBIT V AFFIDAVIT OF BILL ACKERMAN AFFIDAVIT OF BILL ACKERMAN My name is Bill Ackerman. My wife, Karen, and I, own and reside at 814 Newton Road. I have lived there all of my life and the house has been in my family since 1911. Twenty-eight years ago, in 1988, my wife Karen and I purchased a property located at 631 Bayard Street; We have upgraded the property and we have had it continuously rented for 28 years. We've invested a lot of money to maintain its appearance, and make sure it complied with City Code. We have been able to find very responsible tenants, most of whom walk to work nearby at the University of Iowa or Veterans Hospital and appreciate the quietness of the neighborhood. The south lot line of our property at 631 Bayard Street is shared with a portion of the northerly property line for 101 Lusk Avenue. When we purchased the property in 1988, we became property -owning neighbors to Pauline V. Aspel, who had lived at her residence at 101 Lusk Avenue, and who would live there for nearly half a century before she entered a nursing home, in 2012, before her death in January 2015. Before becoming her neighbor in 1988, 1 had known Mrs. Aspel for many years and was very familiar with her property. Mrs. Aspel had a nice older home, perhaps the oldest in Manville Heights. I was told it was built in 1904, although some records I have seen describe a later date of construction. Her home was a little over 1,000 square feet. The house had one bathroom, including one toilet. It also had a nice wrap -around porch. There were large oak trees in the back lot — Lot 1—and also along the southerly lot line, which is shared with the CRANDIC Railroad right-of-way. More recently, I was disappointed to see it demolished and not restored. Mrs. Aspel's home was not lost due to a fire or a natural disaster. In late May, 2016, a person who does not live in the neighborhood asked me if I knew what was planned for construction at 101 Lusk Avenue. I knew nothing about it. I was told that a very large entertainment structure, one to look like Kinnick Stadium, had been approved by the City. I couldn't believe what I was hearing —and didn't understand how such a large structure could be approved without any notice to any neighbors who shared lot lines with 101 Lusk Avenue. I started to ask around. I talked to City officials and others, but, the information given to me was vague and even misleading. Sometime in June, it became known to me that the sewer lines that formerly served 101 Lusk were connected to some if not all of the adjoining properties. When talking to City staff it was suggested that the shared sewer line went over our property, but I could really never get a clear answer on sewer line information in response to my questions. I was very concerned about what I was hearing and not hearing, and after talking to a couple of neighbors, no one had heard anything about this. I scrambled and hand -delivered flyers to homes in the neighborhood, calling a meeting for Monday June 20th. I didn't know if anyone would show up. But, more then 50 people showed up on a vacant lot at the Northeast corner of Lexington Avenue and Bayard Street and we shared what we knew and got to know each other better. We didn't understand what our rights were and we were concerned that such a large project could be approved without any of us having any knowledge about it. I went back to the City and asked more questions. I have never been involved in an administrative dispute with the City of Iowa City regarding the issuance of a Building Permit or matters related to Site Plans or to the enforcement of the Plumbing Code or the Fire Code. On June 24, 2016,1 received Memorandum from John Yapp at the City. In it, he instructed me that the only way to appeal the City's approval of the Carlson project was to appeal to the Board of Adjustment. I was specifically informed by him that matters related to Site Plan review, classification of the property and the issuance of the Building Permit were administrative matters that must be appealed to the Board of Adjustment. I was not informed about the Board of Appeals — in fact, I did not know that such a Board existed. I was referred to the location on the City's website that governed appeals to the Board of Adjustment. Neither Mr. Yapp nor any other person ever referred to the Board of Appeals or ways to appeal plumbing code or Fire Code matters to that Board. I thought the only way to contest the City's action was to the Board of Adjustment. For the first time, after we were involved in the Board of Adjustment proceeding did I learn of the City's position that, contrary to Mr. Yapp's written Memorandum to me, we could not contest the Site Plan and that any matters related to enforcement of the Plumbing Code related to sanitary sewers or the enforcement related to the Fire Code must go to the Board of Appeals. As a lay person I was relieved when I heard Mr. Boothroy tell Chairman Larry Baker at the hearing before the Board of Adjustment that matters related to sanitary sewers and the Fire Code could still be brought by citizens to the Board of Appeals for review. I believe that the City has made serious errors of judgment that will adversely affect the public's health and safety if the errors are not corrected and I am appreciative of the fact that citizens agree to serve on the Board of Appeals to consider the types of issues that we are bringing to the Board regarding 101 Lusk Avenue. FURTHER I SAYET NOT. BILLACKERIVIAN Subscribed and sworn to before me,by Bli LAckerman. PUBLIC DAME$ C LAREW NC arrar al. rowa COmMISSrOn N0 771499 M9 Commrarlon Expires February 09, 2018 EXHIBIT W CITY OF IOWA CITY MEMORANDUM - JOHN YAPP TO BILL ACKERMAN RE: 101 LUSK AVE r CITY OF IOWA CITY �^IIMit"s . _ MEMORANDUM Date: June 24, 2016 To: Bill Ackerman, 631 Bayard St From: John Yapp, Development Services Coordinator%y Y- Re: 101 Lusk Ave We had discussed the option of an appeal process it you and/or other residents wish to appeal the Issuance of a building permit for the 101 Lusk Ave property. This memo is to outline the appeal process in more detail. As you are aware, the decision regarding how to classify a use, the approval of a eke plan, and Issuance of a building permit are administrativve processes that do not involve the City Council. The Iowa City Code of Ordinances, however, gives aggrieved persons the right to appeal those decisions to the Board of Adjustment (BCV\). The BOA is wholly independent from the City Council, and further appeals from a BOA decision are taken to district court. I've attached the application for an appeal — a link to an on-line application is here: httoJlwww.iows- oity.om/weblink/0/doc/1512711/Electronic asox The process for aggrieved parties to appeal the approval of a building permit is fully set forth in Iowa City Code Section 14-8C-3, which Ihre attached to this memo for your reference. The Board of Adjustment holds hearings on such appeals, at which time Staff and the public can speak The BOA than has the authority to "aftm, or upon finding error, reverse or modlly, wholly or partly, the order, requlremaK derision or determination appealed ►rom and may melee such order, requirement, decision or detemUnation as ought to be made..." (See Section 14- 8C-3B(4)). Staff has determined that the property is an existing lot and the proposed structure is a single family dwelling. Staff anticipates a building permit will be issued next week. If an appeal is filed, all proceedings in furtherance of the building permit are stayed (permit is suspended). See the attached City Code Section 14-8C-3C. I hope you find this Information helpful. I rote that the deadline for the August 10 Board of Adjustment meeting is July 15 — an appal application received before July 15 would be scheduled for the August 10 Board of Adjustment meeting. 1P/6W6 yam:'""r:T^ - I From: James C Larew <Iamwlaw@aol.00m> 7b: John-Yapp <John-YappQlows-dty org>; James.Larew tlames.Larew@LarewLawOMoe.00m>; kedn.soulhard <kadn.southard@gmall.00m>; kbefeler <kbefeler@gmail.cwm> Subject: Re: Appeals process Date: Fri, Jun 24. 2016 2S7 pm Thanks. Jaynes C. Larew Larew Law Office Jairics1saew Office: 319.337.7079 Cell: 319.54I A240 Fax: 319.337.7082 504 E. Bloomington Street, Iowa City, IA. 52245 252 E. 3td Street, Des Moines, IA. 50309 210 Cedar Street, Muscatine, IA 52761 Important: I his communication and any files attached to it may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempr firm disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the named :ecipientladdressee of this conmunication, please notify the sender and delete and destroy all forms of this communication (electronic or paper). —Original Mess From: John Yapp To: 'James.Larm Sent: Fri, Jun 24, 2016 2:16 pm Subject: Fw: Appeals process Hello — I've been asked to forward this information to you. The link to the on-line application is below. John Yapp From: John Yapp Sent: Friday, June 24, 201611:42 AM To: 'Bill Ackerman'; ilmilmd&araWl.com Cc. Sara Greenwood Hekloen; Eleanor M. Dilkes; Doug Bo&throy; Terry Goerd; Jam Ream; Julie Tallman; Tim Hennes Subject: Appeals process Bill and Jim —see attached for information on the appeals process. Here is a link to the on-line appeals form: httpn//www.lowa-city.org/weblink/O/doc/1512711/­Electmnic.asox Thanks, John Yapp From: PCDCopler@Iowa-city.org rmailto:PCDCooierdObowa-ci1vo Sent: Friday, June 24, 201612:46 PM To: John Yapp Subject: Message from KMBT C654 hftW mall.adtankm6mdl-dNerruLftnlMoomp 1n APPLICATION TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT DATE: APPEAL PROPERTY ADDRESS: APPEAL PROPERTY PARCEL NO. APPEAL PROPERTY ZONE: APPEAL PROPERTY LOT SIZE: APPLICANT: Name: Address: Phone: CONTACT PERSON: Name: Address: Phone: PROPERTY OWNER: Name: Address: Phone: The Board of Adjustment Is empowered to hear and decide appeals where it is alleged there is an error In any order, requirement, decision, or determination made by the City Manager or designee in the enforcement of the Zoning Code or of any ordinance adopted pursuant thereto. Please see 14" In the Zoning Code for detailed information on the appeal procedure. Planning staff are available to assist applicants with questions about the appeal process or regulations and standards in the code. exceed 30 calendar days attar the action appealed from. An appeal from a decision by the Building Inspector to Issue a permit shall not be deemed to have been fled within a reasonable time If such appeal is filed more than ten (10) business days after construction work pursuant to such permit is observable from adjacent properties of the public right of way or ten (10) days after an alleged violation of the zoning code is similarly observable. [Applicants may appeal an approval or denial or a Certificate of Appropriateness from the Historic Preservation Commission within a conservation district by filing a letter with the City Clerk within ton(10) business days after a resolution is filed by the Commission.) -2- Decision being appealed: The applicant alleges that an error has been made by the following administrative official (list title) on (date) In enforcing the Zoning Ordinance In relation to the property listed above. Please Indicate the section of the Zoning Ordinance cited in the official's decision: Purpose of the Appeal: The applicant wishes to challenge the above decision based on the Interpretation of the following section(s) of the Iowa City Zoning Ordinance. (This section of the code may or may not be different from the section cited in the decision being challenged.) Summary: In the space provided below or on a separate sheet, summarize the basis for your appeal referring to the code sections listed above and providing sound reason(s) for overturning the decision. (Provide evidence demonstrating that the decision was based on an Improper or erroneous Interpretation of the Zoning Code. Remedy desired: iaio . AdWsbnent F're�quPot, Asked What is the Board of Adjustment? The Board of Adjustment is panel made up of Iowa City citizens appointed by the City Council. The board reviews and grants special exceptions and variances and also considers appeals when there is a disagreement about an administrative zoning decision made by the City. Members of the board act like judges, making decisions about individual properties and uses that may have difficulty meeting a specific zoning regulation or to resolve disputes about administrative zoning decisions. The actions and decisions of the Board of Adjustment are binding upon all parties unless overturned upon appeal to District Court. What is a special exception? There are two types of special exceptions. 1. Within the zoning code a number of land uses are set apart as special exceptions that may be permitted in certain zones. Rather than permitting these uses outright, each is reviewed on a case -by -case basis to ensure that they do not negatively affect surrounding properties. For exampie, daycare centers are permitted in residential zones by special exception. The same is true of churches and private schools. All may be appropriate uses in residential zones, if certain criteria such as parking, screening, and other requirements are met. 2. Adjustments to specific zoning requirements in cases where there are unique circumstances. Again, the opportunity to adjust these requirements and the criteria for allowing such adjustments are described in the Zoning Code. For example, a homeowner may apply for a reduction in a building setback in order to accommodate an addition or other improvement to their property. The Zoning Code lists explicitly each use and standard for which a special exception may be considered. In other words, you can't request a special exception for everything —only those things called out as special exceptions in the Code. The Code also provides criteria specific to each request. Applicants must provide evidence that they satisfy each of these criteria, and the Board must consider these criteria when making a determination as to whether to grant a special exception. What is a variance? A variance grants a legal right to an owner to develop property in a manner that deviates from a specific provision of the Zoning Code and for which a special exception is not expressly allowed. In seeking relief from the restrictions in the Zoning Code, the property owner applying for the variance must show that the strict application of the Zoning Code would cause and unnecessary hardship such that the property in question is unusable or that a literal interpretation of the ordinance would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the zoning district. In addition the circumstances that create this hardship must be unique to the property in question and must not be of the property owner's own making. What is an appeal? The Board considers and rules on appeals from any citizen who believes there is an error in any decision, determination, or interpretation made by the City or its designee in the administration of the Zoning Code. As with their other decisions, the Board's ruling is binding on all parties unless overturned on appeal to the District Court. How does the review process work? An application requesting a special exception, variance, or an appeal is a request. The Board makes a decision on whether to grant a specific request only after City staff have provided a review of an application and the public has had an opportunity to make its concerns known. The Board not only has the right to approve or deny requests, but may also choose to approve request subject to certain conditions. In making decisions, the Board may only consider comments and evidence relevant to the specific standards provided in the code, City Development Staff provide reports to the Board for each application on the agenda. The Staff Report provides background information on the application, informs the Board of all the criteria in the Code that a particular application must satisfy, and interprets whether and how an application has satisfied these criteria. How can I participate in the process? Because most applications will be reviewed and decided upon at a single public hearing, it is important for interested parties to respond in a timely and informed manner. Those who wish to speak for or against an application are given an opportunity to be heard by the Board at the hearing, but may also submit written comments prior to the meeting. Written comments must be delivered to the Department of Neighborhood a Development Services at City Hall no later than 5 days before the hearing in order to be included with the Staff Report. All correspondence submitted after that time will be delivered to the Board at the time of the hearing. The Board considers the application, the recommendation of staff (in the staff report) and any additional information, correspondence, or testimony provided at the hearing. Board of Adjustment hearings are usually held on the second Wednesday of each month at 5:15 p.m. in Emma J. Harvat Hall in City Hall. The Staff Report can be very useful to anyone who is unfamiliar with the BOA process or with the Zoning Code and will provide an understanding of the criteria that the Board must consider in rendering its decision. Staff Reports may be obtained from the Department of Neighborhood a Development Services. E-mail sarah-walz@iowa- city.org to request a copy of a report. If you have questions about an application or if you simply want more information about issues related to the Board of Adjustment, please feel free to contact Sarah Watz at 356-5239 or e-mail Sarah-walz@iowa-city.org. To submit comments to the Board of Adjustment write to the Board of Adjustment c/o the Department of Neighborhood a Development Services, 410 E. Washington St., Iowa City IA 52240 or e-mail boa@iowa-city.org. CITY OF IOWA CITY Bard of Adjustment 2016 Application Deadlines APPLICATION DEADLINE (12:00 p.m.) MEETING DATE December 10, 2015.»..............................................................................January 13, 2016 January 14, 2016........................... .............. _...................... ................... February 10, 2016 February 1 I, 2016........................................................................................ March 9, 2016 March 11, 2016............................................................................................. April 13, 2016 April 15, 2016................................................................................................May 11, 2016 May 13, 2016.................................................................................................... June 8, 2016 June 10, 2016......... „»..... ».............................................................................July 13, 2016 July 15, 2016........... ....................... ............ ..._.......... ........... _..................... August 10, 2016 August 12, 2016.......................................... »........ ............................. September 14, 2016 September 16, 2016.............................................................................. October 12, 2016 October 14, 2016............................................................ .............. _..... November 9, 2016 November 10, 2016.........................................................................December 14, 2016 December 9, 2016....................................................................................January 11, 2017 APPLICATION FEES* Special Exception, Variance, or Appeal $425 Combination BOA Actions $495 °There loss will be updated in Fehnery 2017 to relect changes In the rate of inflation. Meeting time and location Board of Adluse nt meetings are scheduled at 5:15 p.m. on the second Wednesday of each month in Emma Harris Hall, City Hill, 410 East Washington Street. Attendees are advised to check the meeting agenda at www i 1mw1rr&&a or co maq the Department of Development Services at 319-3S6-5230 for possible change In a meeting agenda. For more information Contact Sarah Walz at 319-M&5239 or aarah-wgFalilnwa.city org. Submit Application by Noon to: City Clerk's Office, City Hall, 410 E. Washington Street 12/07/2016 609 S. Gilbert 2240 319.336.7667 SOLUTILITYUTIONS a. hb Iowa .Gillet Street 319.33.76hbkenginearing.com INFRASTRUCTURE ENGINEERING Project Number: AIS-0760 IlqA` ION REPORT 101 LuakAvenue, Iowa City, 52245 Manville Addition, Lot 1, Block 14 Prepared for: Neighbors of Manville Heights Association August 30, 2016 UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE SOLUTIONS .k.� b 1{�' ENGINEERING Project Number: AIS-0881 Introduction and Summary of Findings....................................................................................... 2 SanitarySewer............................................................................................................................ 3 Fire Department Access and Coverage...................................................................................... 3 SROPlan...................................................................................................................................... 4 StormSewer and Stomrwater Management............................................................................... 4 SiteHistory ............................................................................................................. .........5 SkeTopography.......................................................................................................................... 5 Easements and Encroachments.................................................................................................. 5 Floodplain.................................................................................................................................... 5 Geotechnicalconditions.............................................................................................................. 5 SensitiveArea.............................................................................................................................. 5 Zoning.......................................................................................................................................... 5 Figure 1: Site Topography........................................................................................a Figure 2: International Fire Code - Selected Sections ................................................7 Figure 3: Project Site — 2014.................................................................................. 11 Figure 4: Project Site — 2012.................................................................................. 11 Figure 5: Project Site — 2011.................................................................................. 12 Figure 6: Project Site — 2008.................................................................................. 12 Figure 7: Project Site — 1990a................................................................................ 13 Figure S: Project Site — 1970s................................................................................ 13 Figure 9: Project Site — 1960s................................................................................ 14 Figure 10: Project Site - 1950s............................................................................... 14 Figure 11: Project Site - 1930s............................................................................... 15 Figure12: Zoning Map........................................................................................... i6 Appench..................................................................................................................................... 17 Appendix 1: MMS Consultants Site Plan Appendix 2: Hatt -Frederick PC Letter Appendix 3: Proposed Sewer Improvements Appendix 4: Fire Amass Improvements— Option 1 Appendix 5: Fire Access Improvements — Option 2 Appendix 8: City of Iowa City Fire Flow Information Appendix 7: Runoff Information Appendix 8: Opinion of Cost Unury INFPASTRULTURE LSD srnurlows I ENGINEERING Project Number: AIS-0760 Introduction end Summary of Findings HBK Engineering prepared this report to evaluate the proposed site plan submitted to the City of Iowa City for the property located at 101 Lusk Avenue. The 0.38 more site Is located at the south end of Lusk Avenue in the Manville Heights neighborhood in Iowa City. HBK Engineering evaluated the proposed site plan as It relates to zoning regulations and public utilities. The proposed site plan submitted to the City of Iowa City is depicted in the Appendix. The following summarizes HBK Engineering's findings: The site has a non -conforming sanitary sewer service as it relates to current code and ' standards ®—_�_�-- • Service is shared with 2 other properties (111 Lusk Avenue S 117 Lusk Avenue) • Service crosses multiple properties • There is no documentation of an easement or other agreement for the shared sewer • There are no cleanouts provided on the existing sanitary sewer line 9 There Is Inadequate fire flow available for the proposed building J • 2,250 gallons per minute (gpm) re ow is rsqulre -.or the proposed b Ilding!• (assuming Type V-B construction) • 1,584 gpm fire flow Is projected by the City of Iowa City to be available at the property via the existing water main on Lusk Avenue There Is Inadequate access for fire apparatus • Access roe us Avenue) Is 7-8 vinde and par ng s a owe on one side Fire code requires unobstructed access road that is at least 20 feet wide and marked with "No Parking — Fire Lane" signs • Lus Avengpi 5 loop and dead ends with no means for turn around • ire co t"raquires',approve urn around for access roe s onger an get There are concerns with the site plan • Proposed driveway conflicts with existing fire hydrant • How will the site be graded? • How will storm water be managed to prevent erosion? • How will adjacent properties be protected from damage during construction? Serum I SO mNNa lbk IBNCINBERING Project Number: AIB-0750 Blh Location and Description The project aka Is approximately 0.38 acres and IS located on Me west alds of Lusk Avenue approximately 190-teetaouth of the Intersection W Lusk Avenue and Bayard Street in the Manville Heights neighborhood In Iowa City. The Lusk Avenue pavement terminate* In a dead and In from of the subject property without a cul-de-sac or other means of vehicle turnaround. Sanitary Sawar The Site Is currently served by a private Sewer line that rune across the adjacent Property to the north. This line In shared by the subject property (101 Lusk Avenue), 111 Lusk Avenue, and 117 Luak Avenue. There Is no record of an ease, ant for this sewer. The service varies In size from a Inches at the downstream, a Inches at Intermediate points, and 4 Inches when it reaches the Subject property. The a Inch Poulton of the pipe Is believed to have sections both cut Iron and clay pipe. The 4 Inch portion 10 cast Iron. The Private Sewer WAS televised by Action Sewer on August B, 2010. The televising started at the manhole In Bayard Street and proceeded upstream for approximately 81 feet at which point the crew was unable to advance the equipment further. HBK was able to document the location of the line In the field during this work This same Sewer line was Ohio televised on September 23, 2015 by the previous owner of 101 Lusk Avenue. At that time, they were able to enter the Service line from the residential home located at 101 Lusk Avenue and traverse the entire length of the service line. The previous owner hired Hart -Frederick Consultants, PC (HFC) to review the date collected. HFC concluded that the ezlsting 4. Inch portion of the service line should be replaced with a new 6-Inch fine and the misting 5-mch portion of the Service line should be lined to prevent future Intrusion of tree room. RelAying and lining the private service would require the approval from the other property owners Served by the private sewer. Refer to the Appendix for a copy of the HFC letter. City staff has reviewed the downstream public Sanitary sewer located In Bayard Street and has determined that theme Sewers are'&Pablo of handling the sanitary discharges from the Proposed building. The Uniform Plumbing Code 2015 (USC 2015 311,0) stabs that "The drainage system for each new building ...aholl be separate and Independent from that of any other building, and. where available, every building shall have an Independent connection with a public or pdvam sewer, Installation of a separate and Independent sewer Would require the construction W approximately 330 feet of public B Inch sanitary sewer and two manholes In Bayard Street and Luak Avenue. Rotor to the Proposed Sawar Improvement exhibit and associated cost estimate In the Appendix. Fire Department Account end Coverage The property Is Served by the Iowa City water department. The water main Is located near the.unterlMe of Luak. Avenueandthe water service connect to this main. There Is a fire hydrant located In the Lusk Avenue right-of-way near the northeast corner of the subject property and another located at the Intersection of Bayard Street and L*xington Avenue. Each of those hydrants IS within 400 feet W the proposed bulltling. Refer to the Fire Access uhlblts In the Appendix. Items at, Sexed cy the 2016 International Fire Code (201a IFC). Refer ARAS1g11CIURS SPCPnams J ENGINEEA 507.5.1 — onske hydraMa shall be provided If any point of building Is 400 feet hnm + ii-irant located on an accasa road • 13105.1•I=:�+n,n.a se flow la 2,260 gpm for a 2-hour duration • C102.1 • hell srta ere required for the proposed building • CIO , lo:: ,.0em hydrant spacing shall be 400 feet • D103.1 - low", r, ,vidth of fire apparatus amass road Is 26 feet wham road is ad)s init.a cal. ilrumnt • 13103.4 —fire apparatus access made in "con of 160 tee }l,..n .revlds aPProvad tumaround. Minimum unobstructed road width la :u;c•+•t. I he eulming permit application can not lawny me was or consinumoni maremfe, me ccnetructlon type Is assumed to be Type V-B as did [nod In the International Building Code, 2015 edition. According to the plans submitted to the city, the proposed building has a Intel floor area of 7,470 square feet. This results In a required fire, Sow of 2,250 Open as depicted in Table B105.1 of the 20151FC. The City of Iowa City performed flow testing on August 22, 2016. This test Indicated that the avallable fire flow at 101 Lusk Avenue is 1,564 glint (Refer to the Appendix for a copy of the flow date). This does not meet the node requirements for available fire flow. The existing pavement on Lusk Avenue Is 20-feet vide and extends 155'-5` south of Bayard Sheet Parking Is allowed on one aide of the street The misting pavement terminates prior to reaching the south property line. The street does not meet the access requirements. There Is insufficient room for parking while allowing a 20' unobstructed lane. The street also Inks an approved turn around. The public rlght-of-way on Lusk Avenue Is 60-feet wide. This Is Insufficient width for the required turn around options. Refer to the Fire Access exhibits In the Appendix for evaluation of the improvements required to meet the access requirements. A cost estimate wee prepared for Fire Aocass Option 2. This cost estimate Is Included in the appendix. Site Plan The Site Plan that wee prepared by MMS Consultants on March 15, 2010 was reviewed for completeness and concerns Impacting the neighborhood. Refer to the Appendix for a copy of the site plan. H13K Engineering has Identified the following Soma of concern: 1. The proposed driveway appears to conflict with the existing hydrant located near the northeast property corner, 2. ItIsunclearSowthe-afts willbegraded and how this will impact adjacent properties. There Is approximately six fast of elevation change along the "at wall of the building and four fast of elevation change along the east well of the building. In addition, there Is minimal Separation between the driveway and the north property line. The site plan does not indicate how these elevation changes will be accounted for and what. If any, Impacts this may have on adjacent property owners. atom Scorer and Stormwerer Management The site is not currently or planned to be served by storm sewer. Runoff from the age flows overland generally from the west to the east to Lusk Avenue where it then flaws south along the pavement. Upon reaching the end of the pavement the runoff cantinues to the south into the ravine located along the CRANDIC railroad. Once in the railroad right-M-way, the runo5 flows east and ultimately discharges to the Iowa River. UTILITY SOLUTIONS :ENCINEF,RINC Project Number: A16.0760 There Is evidence of erosion at the point where the runoff leaves the pavement at the south and of Lusk Avenue. The Iowa City code has no poet -construction stormwater requirements for a single. family residence that Is not part of a larger, common plan of development. The alto Is lees than 1 acre; therefore, them are not any Iowa DNR requirements related to stormwater management or construction she ronoff. The projected runoff from the developad an. Is calculated to be 1.87afa and 2.09 cm for the 10-year and 100-year rainfall events, respectively. Rotor to the Runoff Information exhibit in the Appendix. alto History The 1.700 square foot single family residence that had formerly occupied the property was demolished. City assessor records Indicate that this house was contracted In 1017. There are presently no structures on the site. Review of the City Anesscra' data Indlmte�thst the houses on the adjacent properties were constructed at the beginning of the 20i century and available aerial photography from the Johnson County Property Information Vlew (him®•Rals lebnaon_ ron,m.�. •-,.ln 0 Indicates that there has been INOe change to theme properties since the 19308 (first period aerial photography Is available). The area surrounding the site has not seen major changes other than the construction of the VA Hospital In the 19503 and subsequent expansions to the VA fecllltles. Refer w Flgums 4 — 12. Site Topography This she slopes from the northwest corner towards the southeast comer with approximately 13-feet of fall acmes the site. The aim generally drains from the northwest to the southeast. Refer to Figure 1. Easements and Enoroeohmento A desktop review of the subject property did not find any easements on the property. A boundary survey has not been completed; however, there are no obvious encroachments from adjacent properties. Floodpialn Consultation of FEMA flood plain mapping Indicates that the site Is not within ar adjacent to a floodplain. The alto Is contained on FEMA Panel 19103C0196E. GeomohMoal Conditions Geotachnical exploration has not been performed on the property; however, review of the Sall Survey of Johnson County Iowa Indicates that the solls are generally classified as Fayette SIX Loam which Is generally well drained and found on gently eloping sites. When surface vegetation Is removed erosion Is a hazard. Sensitive Anse The site does not contain features subject to the Iowa City Sensitive Areas Ordinance. Zoning The property Is currently zoned Pat (Law Density Single Family Residential). Referto Figure 12. The applicable zoning requirements for Rao zoning are: 1) Building helghL The maximum building heft Shall be 36feet 2) Fromyardaetback a. Afrontyard0fl6feeth,reqused b. No mom than 60% of the front setback may be coveted with Impervious surface 8) Slde yam setback a. Aside yard mS Teeth, requhetlforthe Mabm abdem b. Two feet must be added for sea additional story beyond the mat two stories UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE SOLUTIONS 111....���� ENGINEERING Figure 2: International Fire Code - Selected Sections SEC71ON 3105 FIRE -FLOW FISQUIREMENTS FOR BUILDINGS 9W a.1 Una- and vivo-rannny 01NOUIT95, GROUP K4 and R4 buildings and taWrinouses. The minimum Ore -flow and flow duration requirements for one- and two-family dwellings, Group R-3 and R-4 buildings and townhouses shag be as specified in Tables 5105.1(1) and 5105.1(2). TABLE B105.1(i}RF,9� R}RC:FIRE-FLOW FOR ONE -AND TWO-FAMILY DWELLINGS, GROUP R-3 AND R4 BUILDINGS AND 1'bWNNOUS69 FIRE•FLOW CALCULATIONAREA AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER SYSTEM MINIMUM FIRE - FLOW FLOW DURATION (aqua.. Mail (Design Smndmdl (ga0ane mina. 3,601 and gram. No eulomatla sKinklae.lmn VMueNTable peadonln Table 105.1(2)ate. 2minalinialf4fia, Me I As of1.]of Iha InteMWW Reaidmtlal Cade &ea0on 403.3,llw EnhmaBulal F&e CaM or See eon P2904 )f ],601&M greater 4;. NTabla oflhe lnlema8'anm Ruid&ngm Cad& B105.1(2) 1 For SI:1 square fool= 0.0929 m°,1 gallon per mNu. =].]65 Lhn. TABLE B105.1(2) REFERENCE TABLE FOR TABLES 13105.1(1) AND B105.2 FIRE -FLOW CALCULATION AREA s uere (..Q FORE -FLOW (9ellgna parmMu.11 FLOW DURATION thou.) T IA And IB•TY ellA and IIIA•ry a IV end V-A•T0048 and IIIB TYPn V.B• e22T00 b12,700 03,2W OS,900 03.600 1.500 2170130,200 12)Ot-11,000 6201-10,90C 5,901•T,800 ],601J,800 1I50 900 21.801.24.200 12.901-17,40g 9MI-12900 AZDI-7,700 2,250 2 00 33,M139.7011 21,3m- W 15,401d8A00 9,401-11,300 2.7 00 39,101J710O =11,7014.41.9 25.501.30,100 18,40131,1100 11.dm .13.400 3,000 7W /7,10fiJ.900 30.t01-36FOP 31.801-25.900 1 401-15690 3,2603 700 54,90133,4W 5,201J0.800 2530129300 51-18,000 3,600.700 83.40142A00 4g e01d6,400 29j0135Is ieA0110,6p0 3.750 ,9 ]T,40132,100 46,4u14i2.500 33,50I37,900 20,601-23,300 41W0 Fm 31:1 square Ipm=0.0929 mc, l 9211m psr axnule=3.785 Urn. I pound pm square inch = 6.89E Oa. e. Types of conaVucem are based on the IMamae&ng8u4dmp Catla. b. Maaaumdal 20p r&sideV.pmmum. UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE. i * p� 304Ui10NA LV'1� I ENGINEERING Project Number: A18.0760 SECTION C102 NUMBER OF FIRE HYDRANTS C102,1 Minimum number OfAm hydrants lot a bultding. The number of fire hydrants amilable te a building shall be not leas than the mlmmmn Specified In Table C102d. TABLE C102.1 REQUIRED NUMBER AND SPACING OF FIRE HYDRANTS nREFLOIY RWUIREMENt novel MImmum MMNER OF MYDRANT9 AYF3lA06 ACIIW OEPMEE;q YDNAMN SpI M WMDISTPNCEFROMANYMp .STREE CnR D bod"OE To A RYORANT• la i.l Fw1eY 1 5 3.Wy1, 340 3. !b6 Sg 3 3 AM 226 D 210 S m0 1 6 Spp 6 3m 1 mo a 2M BS ) MO 160 i.SpOprma.1me n Fwmeld 200 1pp Poral. ; WI• ]N"mm, t MM pwniinw=].YM Lan •ReaNelY l00 fembreaN+M 1pexewroee. pA fwrwmwehaa0 biw! antl M1e+ea uMk �1 Nr"mwv Mlnlalfe0 WMIUMhpAlue Abu"rep M1pOM1rop Or WlenanOMl•leexelepgWMe wild •bMailtlMMnpMmanelxrp•he Apia, daY.IRtlranl MeoNplAN aereg0 E90HeIM euANN slim! <'Mlepnewwtl0rmpwerseMervW IIM VaxlvAxllrykanxwe role!eeetlbpMeniw pfxru[xrparpnJer Rn paYarya. Na Frybma IM1NIb pai1M pxxYMa Axmert-!etl I,�ryal W pmMe llr YAppprluOA Aaeyh. e. ReWphy6A IeellarbaeyM W!W arrmee. e. 0AYeme des" greepaWV wrmivWarrrwsebnewer. a A�SOpercvmpe[ueee03.311 ap AepelmipNttAanuF,b, npepWq.a WaupM1wl MinnapprevaewkmlCa ap4abarxemn a NeuvwN aWwtiw9p3.]11WmammmaxpyP,r. stele. rep i[pne2 ere 0ewiP9ei m 9%33A R m BOlil.l Wtlem�fNer sv.`(w'xl 0.0 le. aso, Me k�.AvW �'een,'Cade ere In SECTION C103 FIRE HYDRANT SPACING C103.1 Nydram spacing. Fire apparatus access mods and public 506W providing requlred access to Wilding, In accordance with Section 603 more 2nramaSonaf Fire Code shell be provded Win one or mom fire hydrants, ea determined by Section C102.1, Whore mme khan one Are hydrant Is requlred, the distance bahveen requlred Are hydrants shall be In Accordance with SOCOons C103.2 and C103,3. 0103.2 Average spacing. The average spacing balw9en Am hydrants shell be In a040rdlUIC with Table CIC2,1. Exception: The average spacing Shall be permitted to be increased by 10 percent where existing Are hydrants provide all or a Abandon ofma required number of Are hydrants. C103.3 Maximum spacing. The maximum spacing bahxean Am hytlfants Iran be In accordance with Table C102.1. SECTION C104 CONSIDERATION OF EXISTING FIRE HYDRANTS C104,1 Exteting tire hydrants. Existing Am hydmms ON public stmab en allowed W be consldstad as available to moo the requlnmers of Sactlom C102 and C1103, Existing Are hydrants on adjacent properties are allowed to Ae c,miltlered as svanable to mast the requlnmeme of Sacdone C102 and C103 provided that a Are appentub acts" road extends beheom" propedles and met an easement 18 established 10 prevent obskmcgon of Such mass. UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE SOLUTIONS ENGINEERING Project Number: A16-0760 SECTION D101 GENERAL D101.1 Scope. Fire apparatus access roads shall be In accordance with this appendix and all other applicable requirements of the International Fire Code. SECTION 0102 REQUIRED ACCESS 0102.1 Access and loading, Facilities, buildings or portions of buildings hereafter constructed shall be accessible to fire department apparatus by way of an approved fire apparatus access road with an asphah, concrete or other approved driving surface capable of supporting the Imposed load of Ore apparatus welghing at least 75,0(10 pounds (34 050 kg). SECTION 0103 MINIMUM SPECIFICATIONS D103.1 Access road width with a hydreM. Where afire hydrant Is located on a fire apparatus access road, the minimum road wldtt'ph,Rit.'oo 26 feat (7925 mm), exclusive of Shoulders (see Figure D103.1). pE \� RE9 taR 3 p• w'ouEereR w.roorr nmm�utuwewcc CI11.0EaPC MrWORIVE aY � 2B'R •� 1—ra vea arcs rm' _ M16CERTNIEKIERNFME lEYIVgA1FRlIFfD T01E0'RgMMaiHGCa Far el:I fm-3R 8 mm.. FIGURE D103.1 DEAD-END FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROAD TURNAROUND UTILITY INFPASTPUTIONS �L' 90LUIONS ��lk 'ENGINEERING Project Number: AIS-0760 D103.2 Grade, Fire apparatus access roads Shall not exceed 10 percent In grads. Exasptlon: Oradea Steeper than 10 percent as eppMmd by the Ore chief. D10SA Dead ends. Dead-end Ore apparatus access made In excess of 150 feet (45 720 m:, T provided with width and turnaround pmvlslom in accordance with Table D103.4. TABLE 0103.4 REQUIREMENTS FOR DEAD-END FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROADS EHI GTH DTN TURNAROUNDS REgUIPE0 nxt WI n e .d • �i 12piRq HRmmaduatl. eadeq Y'w88{oolgamebr<WdaaK in ewmtlamwilM1 Fl we 0103.1 �--- n t3Dkq Hammerheatl eefw.l'N %-fernd' ebr Wde� Ma a"M1 Ulm Nre�+% SOKW aemvL ree�ured Por sl:1 Wt, We mm PARKING —FIRE FIRE LANE signs complying MwithM) Figured Tom. red 10 shall have hi minimum a backs oe d 12 Inches Po ed on or 18 both Side (oft mm) high and have red lrequiftleS an a white reflective .1 or O 03. Signs shall be posted on one or both ckas of the Ere apparatus road as required by Section D103.6A or D703.6.2. awn TYPE•A� anxawaw• mGTKEV xsdae ruwaa T ��a �aDwr mrDaa .� FIGURE D103A FIRE LANE SIGNS D103.6.1 Roods 20 to 26 fast In width. Fire tone signs as specified In Section D103.6 shall be posted on both aides of Ore apparatus access Mods that are 20 to 26 feet wide (6096 to 7925 mm). 0103.6.2 Roads mare than 26 Wet In width. Fire lane signs as specl0ed In Section D103A shall be posted on one aide of fire apparatus access roads more than 26 Wet wide (7925 mm) and less than 32 feet wide (9754 mm). City's power point presentation Iowa City Board of Appeals December T 2016 101 Lusk Ave, Iowa City N ty s 101 Lusk Avenue 0 OM75 0.035 9A7 Miles Prepared By. MaM Wolf Date Prepared:lt y 2016 Ao JAN e r�.y `fit ^ e I—..RTI. 7�lq ' 4 e-' N W*P s 0 0A05 0.01 0.02 Miles City of Iowa City 10 1 Lusk Avenue i S ■ .mil. w ■ ■ ■ ■r `■.r r.■r�.■r.••r..r■ n Prepared By: Marti Wolf Date Prepared: June 2016 Introduction • Building Permit Application Received: April 6, 2016 • Permit was Issued: May 25, 2016 • Board of Adjustment Appeal Received: June 29, 2016 • Stop Work Order Issued: June 29, 2016 • Board of Adjustment Decision: October 19, 2016 • Lift Stop Work Order: October 19, 2016 • Board of Appeal Request: November 16, 2016 Board of Appeals • Authority: The board of appeals may by majority vote reverse a decision by the building official or the fire chief based on the building code or fire code only if it finds that: (Ord. 02- 4038, 8-20-2002; amd. Ord. 15-4631, 7-15-2015) 1. There are practical difficulties involved in carrying out the provisions of this code. "Practical difficulties" means that: a) the strict letter of this code is impractical; b) the modification is in conformance with the intent and purpose of this code; and c) such modification does not lessen any fire protection requirements or any degree of structural integrity; or 2. Any material, alternate design or method of construction not specifically prescribed by this code is appropriate. Any material, alternate design or method of construction is appropriate if: a) the proposed design is satisfactory and complies with the provision of this code; and b) the material, method or work offered is, for the purpose intended, at least the equivalent of that prescribed in this code in suitability, strength, effectiveness, fire resistance, durability, safety and sanitation; or 3. If the building official has incorrectly interpreted a provision of the code; or 4. If the provisions of the code do not fully apply. (City Code Section 17-12-2C) • Board of Appeals By-laws Article V Section 1 Duties: The Board of Appeals shall hear and decide appeals of orders, decisions or determinations made by the City staff relative to the applications and interpretations of the Iowa City Building, Electrical, Plumbing, Dangerous Buildings, Fire and Housing Codes as authorized by City ordinance. Code Issues Before Board of Appeals • Building Sewer Compliance (UPC) • Fire Access Road (IFC) • Fire -Flow (IFC) • Fire Apparatus Turnaround (IFC) Plumbing Code Compliance Site has an Existing Permitted 4" Building Sewer Service 4" Building Sewer Service Connects to an Existing Permitted 6" Private Sewer Main Permitted 6" Private Sewer Main Connects to 8" City Sewer Main Condition and Capacity of the Existing Sewer System will Accommodate the Flow of the New Home Sewer Connection Options for Owner • Use Existing Permitted Private Sewer • Two Options to Extend Public Sewer Main to 101 Lusk Ave. — Bayard Lexington Intersection — Rowland Court (No Certificate of Occupancy without compliant sewer) 0 Permit to Make Sewer Connecdon Sawa Oity, rows;- 1,0-atio- of ir6pertr .. -- ----- v . ......... OWne, . .... .. 04" at Building .. . ...... :.—.ITO. Of Fixturve:—Wnter Closeta ..... Urbial&­_ Wash Ikkth TubiL—,— sinks.__ Wash Tuba., ... —Alop Iroppere __Cdjay DrajnEL. Other Location of Main Sewer__-, Site of Main Point of 0OUROM031 with Wain. Oemter of Manhoja at Ttemedgn &2,6 -ew�-:CA 3 houses on west side of Lusk— permit #2756 =3/17/27 Sewers go into private Joint 6" line that goes into MH on Bayard & Lexington 45 C sy .A?w.w X_9 lf'r" Existing City Sewer Mains and Man Holes W Approximate 117 Lusk Location of Existing 6" 111 Lusk Private Sewer Main 1 Lusk Ave 4' Private Service Cr je Review/Inspection Process • Project Reviewed to Verify Water and Sewer is Available • Detailed Drawings of Sewer Service is Not Required for Structures Regulated by the IRC • Sewer Installation Inspection Involves Drawing the Sewer Installation to Confirm Size and Location. List of Iowa City of Private Sewers (Source: IC Waste Water Division) #5728045.pdf 10 and 40 First Ave039.pdf 25 N VanBuurenO29.pdf 28 and 36 Olive Ct02O.pdf ] 115 and 121 N Governor027.pdf 209 Blackspring Circle006.pdf ] 217 Magowan037.pdf 224 Orchard Ct015.pdf 320 Fairview and 1412 E Cour048.pdf ] 410 E Market St033.pdf ] 417 Garden02l.pdf 422 Brown009.pdf ] 422 Brown010.pdf 423 and 429 Ronald017.pdf ] 470 Rockyshore004,pdf 510 and 514 N 1stAve032.pdf 624 S Gilbert1018.pdf 637 foster Road007.pdf 701 oakno11003.pdf 820 Park Rd024.pdf 838 to 916 Sandusky038.pdf 905 Benton023.pdf ] 913 and 933 Qavenport028.pdf %914 N Dodge St019.pdf % 1022and1024 GilbertCourt005.pdf ] 1116 Gilbert Ct026.pdf 1333 Cedar St036.pdf ] 1445 Boyrum031.pdf ] 1571 and 1570 Mall Dr011.pdf 1571 and 1570 Mall DrOl2.pdf ] 1630 Lower Muscatine Rd03O.pdf 1841 and 1917 S Gilber014.pdf ] 1903 F St042.pdf ] 2511 Rochester025.pdf 2590 Bluffwood Lane016.pdf 2611 E Court008.pdf ] Creekside Park04O.pdf Hawkeye Weld043.pdf ] Haywood Drive035.pdf ] IMU041.pdf Johnson CoAdmin Bld9044.pdf Riverside Dr N BurlingtonO22.pdf Fire Code Compliance • Lusk Ave: 20' Wide Public Street • Fire Hydrants: 2 are available to supply minimum fire -flow • Fire Apparatus Turnaround: Not required under IFC Section 104.8. Deputy Fire Chief determined that requiring an apparatus turnaround is impractical. (Refer to Jensen memo dated 12-1-16) International Fire Code Chapter 1: Scope and Administration Section 104: General Authority and Responsibilities [A] 104.8 Modifications. Where there are practical difficulties involved in carrying out the provisions of this code, the fire code official shall have the authority to grant modifications for individual cases, provided the fire code official shall first find that special individual reason makes the strict letter of this code impractical and the modification is in compliance with the intent and purpose of this code and that such modification does not lessen health, life and fire safety requirements. The details of action granting modifications shall be recorded and entered in the files of the department of fire prevention. (International Fire Code Section 104.8) T 17 Lusk Ave Is 20 Wide Lusk Ave 20' Pavement Width n X J 50' Right -of - Way 110 Existing 16' Access Road with New SFD MELR0.5EAVE Melrose Ave +r �I 60I 605 601 _21 I �V ?O? 503 ; @1 �I 315 3� U ILLL0111I I01 �9 L°�r'I ❑ � 21� I2,8 W' J f 223 �24 i„ • ]�9 22fi 326 321 ❑ /� 233 300 303 m ] o ]10 �, o m d 311 306 r�'/ 3, 35, 300 N3 f300 Q �� I aJi6 6 �L4 V 48 I4 a25 'u 520 400 626 331 326 51fi Ell 4 BROOK PARK OR p 5 0 Issued 64' 5Ju m8 3 con r. ❑ U a 5 6 z 412 ("y''�0p(p oil rl e ive an ur �• n r� g 13 Recently Approved Development (Prairie Hill Co -Housing) with 20' Access A[I K�-e Mn1 9 4[ _ 0- — — ILh Ak a wfi .Fp - I f� y 33 Dwelling Units on 2 Wide Street •�t � i by •4 `' I � rw s; 14.8592 no 1 ... ••• _ .[ MA1111RIRL rowxrmcaer[wxa •'Y � 4 I hbk �A p 'A7 u- n:W--a 11'A - �@[x:{ (["exf. li.q '^ 1r'? Il_:' iC usY .. xr rA11Nr%9d5 2 Fire Hydrants Are Available to Supply Minimum Required Fire -Flow Fire Hydrant 2 , I (Additional Fire -Flow Capdcity) RI Pumping capacity maximum of 1,500 gpm Appo 6 ➢IY �wra.vbcr 101 Lusk Ave H9K Sic PI.n024 0Y1141� Fire Hydrant 1 (1,564 gpm) SECTION B105 FIRE -FLOW REQUIREMENTS FOR BUILDINGS TABLE B105.1(2) REFERENCE TABLE FOR TABLES B105.1(1) AND B105.2 FIRE -FLOW CALCULATION AREA (square feet) FIRE -FLOW (gallons per minute)e FLOW DURATION (hours) Type lA and IB' Type IIA and IIIA' Type IV and V-A' Type IIB and 1116' Type V-B' 0-22,700 0-12,700 0-8,200 0-5.900 0-3,600 1,600 22,701-30,200 12,701-17,000 8,201-10,900 5,901-7,900 3,601-4,800 1,750 30,201-38,700 17,001-21,800 10,901-12,900 7,901-9,800 4,201-6,200 2,000 38.701-48,300 21,801-24,200 12,901-17,400 9,801-12,600 6,201-7,700 2,250 2 48.301-59,000 24,201-33,200 17,401-21,300 12,601-15,400 7,701-9,400 2,500 59,001-70,900 1 33,201-39,700 21,301-26,500 15.401-18,400 9,401-11,300 2,750 70,901-83,700 39,701-47,100 25,501-30,100 18,401-21,800 11,301-13,400 3,000 83,701-97,700 47.101-54,900 30,101-35.200 21,801-25,900 13.401-15,600 3,250 97,701-112.700 54,901-63,400 35,201-40,600 25,901-29,300 15,601-18,000 3,500 3 112,701-128,700 63,401-72,400 40,601-46,400 29,301-33,500 18,001-20,600 3,750 SECTION C102 NUMBER OF FIRE HYDRANTS C102.1 Minimum number of fire hydrants for a building. The number of fire hydrants available to a building shall be not less than the minimum specified in Table C102.1. TABLE C102.1 REQUIRED NUMBER AND SPACING OF FIRE HYDRANTS FIRE -FLOW REQUIREMENT [gp MINIMUM NUMBER OF HYDRANTS AVERAGE SPACING BETWEEN HYDRANTS'' °'` r ° (feet) MAXIMUM DISTANCE FROM ANY POINT ON STREET OR ROAD FRONTAGE TO A HYDRANT d.t ° 1,750 or less 1 500 250 2,000-2,250 2 450 225 2,500 3 450 225 3,000 3 400 225 3,500-4,009 4 35D 210 4,500-5,000 5 300 180 5,500 6 30D 190 6,000 6 250 150 6,500-7,000 7 250 150 7,500 or more 8 or more' 200 120 Existing 16' Access Road with New SFD MELR0.5EAVE Melrose Ave +r �I 60I 605 601 _21 I �V ?O? 503 ; @1 �I 315 3� U ILLL0111I I01 �9 L°�r'I ❑ � 21� I2,8 W' J f 223 �24 i„ • ]�9 22fi 326 321 ❑ /� 233 300 303 m ] o ]10 �, o m d 311 306 r�'/ 3, 35, 300 N3 f300 Q �� I aJi6 6 �L4 V 48 I4 a25 'u 520 400 626 331 326 51fi Ell 4 BROOK PARK OR p 5 0 Issued 64' 5Ju m8 3 con r. ❑ U a 5 6 z 412 ("y''�0p(p oil rl e ive an ur �• n r� g 13 Conclusion • When the City issued the building permit for 101 Lusk Ave., the property had (and still has) a sewer service to the property. If use of the private sewer main is terminated for what ever reason, the Carlson's have the ability to extend a public sewer main to their property. • Lusk Ave. meets the minimum requirements for Fire Department access. The hydrants near the 101 Lusk Ave. property have adequate water flow according to the Fire Code standards. The Fire Department is not requiring a turn -around per IFC section 104.8 and consistent with City practice for lots of record. • 101 Lusk Ave. is an existing lot of record. A subdivision of the property, which would trigger City authority to require upgrades to infrastructure, is not being requested. • The Board of Appeals does not have the authority to hear appeals to the Zoning Code (Title 14), State Code Section 562A, nor to Public Works Chapter 16-3D-5. • The authority of the Board of Appeals is that it "may by majority vote reverse a decision of the building official or the fire chief based on the building code or fire code......:' (City Code Section 17-12-2C) • For the reasons stated above the appeal (IRC, IBC, UPC and IFC) should be denied. m MA M oftMGM= LAND PLLVrM LAM nU M ms �F� 5. 01B6i�9t. �-�'M G'*r.lO1W Sibtl R194�717m �nwr.mx�pW llw4 f+elrel uwcUT. BWD rzioi w+aiee SITE PLAN 101 Lusk Avenue Man0le Addition teary JOHNSON DrXLN jY ICTM Mhs GCMUL7AKM ine. TIPPER LEVEL PLAN y FINISH®SO�.INFO �� Aga Al MAIN LEVEL PLAN 141 v d w cv�rvc.nivaw:rn�. Appellant's power point presentation Board of Appeals December 7, 2016 cndiX 3 702 BAYARDj O W Ur Z U PROPOSED z ING SANITARY NIH 612 LEXINGTOA' BAYARD 8"INV=7 -73S uj Q I ¢ L 8"INV=]06]v5J I SX W x fix( BAYARD STREET EX W TERMAIN IN CI) —x—x—x—x—x—x PROP ROWI I8 LFB SANITARV EXISTING SANITARY MANHOLE EXISTING HYDRANT \ �I PRIVATESN MER IFIMARKED NIELD) N o PROPERTYFR LINE j 117 IJ I V 631 BAYARD 701 BAYARD PROPERTY LINE LUSK I n N ¢ WI I = IN I W O ICU X � ww W o <� LUSK I� EXISTING HYDRANT I a m lTD BE RELOCATED) I PROPOSED4� SANITARY SERVICE x l PROPOSED SANITARY MH 8" INV = JW.36 N PROPOSED BUILDING 101 LUSK GRANo/CRAILROAO TELOCATED FIRE HYDRANT EXISTING PAVEMENT EDGE 110 LUSK Ndix 4 O W V )02 Ui ZI Z 264 612 BAYARD Z W LEX9NGTON BAYARD - - - L L - J BAYARD STREET ST EX SANITARY w MANHOLE EX bVATERMAIN (6" CI) x—x—x—x—x—x—x—v - max- - - - - ��.� ROO�RTD EXISTING HYDRANT LLOCATIIII _ _ PRIVATE SEWER IN FIELD) N MARKED PROPERTY LINE FROM GIB j f,7 LUSK 2 BAYARB I Q �a I Ix Vo )Bp w o LUSK w LUSK Qw BAYARB EXISTING HYDRANT j a ¢ (TO 8E RELOCATED) PROPOSED PAVEMENT EDGE xl PROPOSED I' EASEMENT ( H[ 272 SF) PROPERTY LINE PRELOCATED PROPOSED FIRE HVDRAN BUILDING 101 LUSK 096, C21ND/CRA&'o" V Appendix 5 O WL204 )02 Ui Z612BAYARD ZW9MGTOMBAYARB LYARDSTREET EX SANITARY MANHOLEbVATERMAIN (6" CI)—x—x—x—x—x—v- - - ��.� ROO�RIV T p EXISTING HYDRANT LLOCATIIII _ _ PRIVATE SEWER IN FIELD) N MARKED PROPERTY LINE FROM GIB j 11) LUSK 2 BAYARB I Q �a I Ix Vo LUSk 701 w o LUSK w BAYARB <w I I �2e EXISTING HYDRANT a (TO BE RELOCATED) I PROPOSED I < PAVEMENT EDGE I� R28'APEROPOSEDEIAENT PROPERTY LINE -85FI RELOCATED PROPOSED FIRE HYDRAN BUILDING 26 101 70'/ C�ANo/C Rq/LRpgp � _ HBK Engineering 509 S. Gilbert Street 319.338.7557 UTILITY Iowa City, IA 52240 hbkengineering.com INFRASTRUCTURE SOLUTIONS hbk ENGINEERING Project Number: A16-0760 SITE INVESTIGATION REPORT 101 Lusk Avenue, Iowa City, 52246 Manville Addition, Lot 1, Block 14 Prepared for: Neighbors of Manville Heights Association August 30, 2016 UTILITY hbk INFRASTRUCTURE SOLUTIONS ENGINEERING Project Number: A16-0681 Contents Introduction and Summary of Findings ------------------------------------------- 2 Sanitary Sewer ------------------------------ ------------ 3 Fire Department Access and Coverage------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------ 3 SitePlan-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------ ----------------- 4 Storm Sewer and Stormwater Management------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4 SiteHistory ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------- ------------------ 5 SiteTopography................................................................................ 5 Easements and Encroachments 5 Floodplain 5 Geotechnical Conditions 5 Sensitive Area 5 Zoning 5 Figure1: Site Topography----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------6 Figure 2: International Fire Code - Selected Sections ------------------------------------------------ 7 Figure 3: Project Site — 2014---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11 Figure 4- Project Site — 2012--------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11 Figure 5: Project Site — 2011 12 Figure 6: Project Site — 2008 12 Figure 7: Project Site — 1990s 13 Figure 8: Project Site — 1970s 13 Figure 9: Project Site — 1960s-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 14 Figure 10: Project Site - 1950s------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------- 14 Figure 11: Project Site - 1930s------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------- 15 Figure12: Zoning Map------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------16 Appendix 17 Appendix 1: MMS Consultants Site Plan Appendix 2: Hart -Frederick PC Letter Appendix 3: Proposed Sewer Improvements Appendix 4: Fire Access Improvements — Option 1 Appendix 5: Fire Access Improvements — Option 2 Appendix 6: City of Iowa City Fire Flow Information Appendix 7: Runoff Information Appendix 8: Opinion of Cost UTILITY hbl INFRASTRUCTURE YLKl SOLUTIONS ENGINEEiUNG Project Number AIB-0760 Introduction and Summary of Findings HBK Engineering prepared this report to evaluate the proposed site plan submitted to the City of Iowa City for the property located at 101 Lusk Avenue. The 0.38 acre site is located at the south end of Lusk Avenue in the Manville Heights neighborhood in Iowa City. HBK Engineering evaluated the proposed site plan as it relates to zoning regulations and public utilities. The proposed site plan submitted to the City of Iowa City is depicted in the Appendix. The following summarizes HBK Engineering's findings: The site has a non -conforming sanitary sewer service as it relates to current code and standards I ❑ Service is shared with 2 other properties (111 Lusk Avenue & 117 Lusk Avenue) ❑ Service crosses multiple properties ❑ There is no documentation of an easement or other agreement for the shared sewer ❑ There are no cleanouts provided on the existing sanitary sewer line There is inadequate fire flow available for the proposed building ❑ 2,250 gallons per minute (gpm) fire flow is required for the proposed building (assuming Type V-B construction) ❑ 1,584 gpm fire flow is projected by the City of Iowa City to be available at the property via the existing water main on Lusk Avenue There is inadequate access for fire apparatus ❑ Access road (Lusk Avenue) is 20'-8" wide and parking is allowed on one side ❑ Fire code requires unobstructed access road that is at least 20 feet wide and marked with 'No Parking — Fire Lane" signs ❑ Lusk Avenue is 155' Iona and dead ends with no means for turn around ❑ Fire codE�, requires }approved" turn around for access roads longer than 150 feet There are concerns with the site plan ❑ Proposed driveway conflicts with existing fire hydrant ❑ How will the site be graded? ❑ How will storm water be managed to prevent erosion? ❑ How will adjacent properties be protected from damage during construction? UTILITY Jhbk INFRASTRUCTURE SOWTIONS ENGINEERING Project Number: A16-0760 Site Location and Description The project site is approximately 0.38 acres and is located on the west side of Lusk Avenue approximately 150-feet south of the intersection of Lusk Avenue and Bayard Street in the Manville Heights neighborhood in Iowa City. The Lusk Avenue pavement terminates in a dead end in front of the subject property without a cul-de-sac or other means of vehicle turnaround. Sanitary Sewer The site is currently served by a private sewer line that runs across the adjacent property to the north. This line is shared by the subject property (101 Lusk Avenue), 111 Lusk Avenue, and 117 Lusk Avenue. There is no record of an easement for this sewer- The service varies in size from 8 inches at the downstream, 6 inches at intermediate points, and 4 inches when it reaches the subject property. The 6 inch portion of the pipe is believed to have sections both cast iron and clay pipe. The 4 inch portion is cast iron. The private sewer was televised by Action Sewer on August 8, 2016. The televising started at the manhole in Bayard Street and proceeded upstream for approximately 81 feet at which point the crew was unable to advance the equipment further. H BK was able to document the location of the line in the field during this work. This same sewer line was also televised on September 23, 2015 by the previous owner of 101 Lusk Avenue. At that time, they were able to enter the service line from the residential home located at 101 Lusk Avenue and traverse the entire length of the service line- The previous owner hired Hart -Frederick Consultants, PC (HFC) to review the data collected. HFC concluded that the existing 4-inch portion of the service line should be replaced with a new 6-inch line and the existing 64nch portion of the service line should be lined to prevent future intrusion of tree roots. Relaying and lining the private service would require the approval from the other property owners served by the private sewer. Refer to the Appendix for a copy of the HFC letter. City staff has reviewed the downstream public sanitary sewer located in Bayard Street and has determined that these sewers are capable of handling the sanitary discharges from the proposed building. The Uniform Plumbing Code 2015 (UBC 2015 311.0) states that 'The drainage system for each new building ...shall be separate and independent from that of any other building, and, where available, every building shall have an independent connection with a public or private sewer' Installation of a separate and independent sewer would require the constmction of approximately 330 feet of public 8 inch sanitary sewer and two manholes in Bayard Street and Lusk Avenue. Refer to the Proposed Sewer Improvement exhibit and associated cost estimate in the Appendix - Fire Department Access and Coverage The property is served by the Iowa City water deparhnent. The water main is located near the centerline of Lusk Avenue and the water service connects to this main. There is a fire hydrant located in the Lusk Avenue right-of-way near the northeast comer of the subject property and another located at the intersection of Bayard Street and Lexington Avenue. Each of these hydrants is within 400 feet of the proposed building. Refer to the Fire Access exhibits it the Appendix - The following items are required by the 2015 International Fire Code (2015 IFC)- Refer to Figure 2. (htte'//codes iccsafe.omiam/bookitoc/201511-Godes/2015 IFC HTMlfndex.htini UTILITY hbk INFRASTRUCTURE SOLUTIONS 507.5.1 — onsite hydrants shall be provided if any point of building is more tha 400 feet from a hydrant located on an access mad B 105.1 fire flow is 2,250 gpm for a 2-hour duration C102.1 — 2 hydrants are required for the proposed building C103.1 — maximum hydrant spacing shall be 400 feet D103.1 require width of fire apparatus access road is 26 feet where road is adjacent to tire hydrant D103.4—fire apparatus access roads in excess of 150 feel'sh��all ytl1rovide aooroved turnaround. Minimum unobstructed road width is20 feet. construction type is assumed to be Type V-B as defined in the International Building Code, 2015 edition. According to the plans submitted to the city, the proposed building has a total floor area of 7,476 square feet. This results in a required fire flow of 2,250 gpm as depicted in Table B105.1 of the 2015 IFC. The City of Iowa City performed flow testing on August 22, 2016. This test indicated that the available fire flow at 101 Lusk Avenue is 1,584 gpm (Refer to the Appendix for a copy of the flow data). This does not meet the code requirements for available fire flow. The existing pavement on Lusk Avenue is 20-feet wide and extends 155'-5'south of Bayard Street. Parking is allowed on one side of the street. The existing pavement terminates prior to reaching the south property line. The street does not meet the access requirements. There is insufficient room for parking while allowing a 20' unobstructed lane. The street also lacks an approved turn around. The public right-of-way on Lusk Avenue is 50-feet wide. This is insufficient width for the required turn around options. Refer to the Fire Access exhibits in the Appendix for evaluation of the improvements required to meet the access requirements. A cost estimate was prepared for Fire Access Option 2. This cost estimate is included in the appendix. Site Plan The Site Plan that was prepared by MMS Consultants on March 15, 2016 was reviewed for completeness and concerns impacting the neighborhood. Refer to the Appendix for a copy of the site plan. HBK Engineering has identified the following items of concern- 1- The proposed driveway appears to conflict with the existing hydrant located near the northeast property comer- 2- It is unclear how the site will be graded and how this will impact adjacent properties. There is approximately six feet of elevation change along the west wall of the building and four feet of elevation change along the east wall of the building. In addition, there is minimal separation between the driveway and the north property line. The site plan does not indicate how these elevation changes will be accounted for and what, if any, impacts this may have on adjacent property owners. Storm Sewer and Stormwater Management The site is not currently or planned to be served by storm sewer. Runoff from the site flows overland generally from the west to the east to Lusk Avenue where it then flows south along the pavement. Upon reaching the end of the pavement the runoff continues to the south into the ravine located along the CRANDIC railroad. Once in the railroad right-of-way, the runoff flows east and ultimately discharges to the Iowa River. UTILITY lhbk INFRASTRUCTURE SOLUTIONS ENGINEERING Project Number: A16-0760 There is evidence of erosion at the point where the runoff leaves the pavement at the south end of Lusk Avenue. The Iowa City code has no post -construction stormwater requirements for a single- family residence that is not part of a larger, common plan of development. The site is less than 1 acre; therefore, there are not any Iowa DN R requirements related to stormwater management or construction site runoff_ The projected runoff from the developed site is calculated to be 1.37cfs and 2.09 cis for the 10-year and 100-year rainfall events, respectively_ Refer to the Runoff Information exhibit in the Appendix. Site History The 1,700 square foot single family residence that had formerly occupied the property was demolished. City assessor records indicate that this house was constructed in 1917. There are presently no structures on the site_ Review of the City Assessors' data indicates that the houses on the adjacent properties were constructed at the beginning of the 20m century and available aerial photography from the Johnson County Property Information View (httOs://Ois_iohnson- countv.com/oiv/) indicates that there has been little change to these properties since the 1930s (first period aerial photography is available). The area surrounding the site has not seen major changes other than the construction of the VA Hospital in the 1950s and subsequent expansions to the VA facilities. Refer to Figures 4 — 12. Site Topography This site slopes from the northwest comer towards the southeast comer with approximately 13-feet of fall across the site. The site generally drains from the northwest to the southeast- Refer to Figure 1. Easements and Encroachments A desktop review of the subject property did not find any easements on the property_ A boundary survey has not been completed; however, there are no obvious encroachments from adjacent properties. Floodplain Consultation of FEMA flood plain mapping indicates that the site is not within or adjacent to a floodplain. The site is contained on FEMA Panel 19103C0195E. Geotechnical Conditions Geotechnical exploration has not been performed on the property; however, review of the Soil Survey of Johnson County Iowa indicates that the soils are generally classified as Fayette Silt Loam which is generally well drained and found on gently sloping sites. When surface vegetation is removed erosion is a hazard. Sensitive Areas The site does not contain features subject to the Iowa City Sensitive Areas Ordinance_ Zoning The property is currently zoned RS5 (Low Density Single Family Residential). Refer to Figure 12. The applicable zoning requirements for RS5 zoning are: 1) Building height The maximum building height shall be 35 feet 2) Fmntyardsetback a. A front yard of 15 feet is required b. No more than 50% of the front setback maybe covered with impervious surface 3) Side yard setback a. Aside yard of 5 feet is required for the first two stories b. Two (2) feet must be added for each additional story beyond the first two stories UTILITY ONS Jhbk E INFRASTRUCTURE SOLUTIONS Project Number: A16-0760 4) Rear yard setback a. A rear yard of 20 feet is required. The proposed site plan appears to meet the setback requirements; however, it is unclear how the height of the structure will be determined. This could increase the required side yard setback_ Tat 71S' 631 111 = r Figure 1: Site Topography UTILITY ' bk INFRASTRUCTURE 1 1 SOLUTIONS ENGINEERING Figure 2: International Fire Code - Selected Sections SECTION B105 FIRE -FLOW REQUIREMENTS FOR BUILDINGS The minimum fire -flow and flow duration requirements for one- and two-family dwellings, Group R-3 and R-4 buildings and townhouses shall be as specified in Tables 8105.1(1) and 3105,1(2). TABLE B105.1(1FIRE-FLOW FOR ONE -AND TWO-FAMILY DWELLINGS, GROUP R3 AND R4 BUILDINGS AND TOWNHOUSES FIREFLOWMINIMUM FIRE. CALCULATION AREA AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER SYSTEM FLOW FLOW DURATION (square feet) (Design Standard) (gallons per (hours) minute) 3,601 and greater No automatic sprinkler system Value in Table Duration in Table 8105.1(2) at the 0105.12 required fira-flow rate 0-3,600 of the Intemafional Residential Code 500 I' Section 903.3.1.3 of the Intemat/onal Fire Code or Section P2904 1/2 value in Table 3,601 and greater of the International Residential Code I B105.1(2) 1 For Sk 1 square foot = 0.0929 m', 1 gallon per minute = 3.785 Jm- TABLE B105.1(2) REFERENCE TABLE FOR TABLES 01105.1(1) AND B105.2 FIRE -FLOW CALCULATION AREA (square feet) FIRE -FLOW (gallons per minute) FLOW DURATION (hours) Type U1 and IB' Type IIand IIIA' Type IV a0nd " a Type IIB and IIIB' Type V-B 0-22,700 0-12,700 0-5,900 0-3,600 1,500 22.701-30,200 12.701-17,000 $D�0 6.901-7.900 3,601-4,800 1,750 38,70148,300 21,801-24,200 2917,400 9,801.12,600 6,201-7,700 2250 01i5 33.201-39,700 5 , 0D59.0Ob70,900 2,301- 15.401-18,400 9,401-11,300 2,750 701-83, 540-3,107D0 2,501 18,401-21,800 11,301-13,400 3,000 3.-9,700 37 47.1014,900 3, 017 21,801-25,900 13,401-15,600 FA 906 1200 ,43 551 ., ,, 3,50097,701-112700 ' 00001600112,701-128700 6 0 4.6-4.4 29.301-33,500 18,DD1-20,6001 3,750 128,701-145,900 72,401A2,100 46,401-52.500 1 33,501-37,900 120,601-23,3001 4,000 For SI: 1 square foot = 0.0929 m', 1 gallon per minute = 3 785 Unt,1 pound per square inch = 6,895 kPa. a. Types of construction are based on the International Building Code. b. Measured at 20 psi residual pressure. UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE SOLUTIONS Jhbk E Project Number: A16-0760 SECTION C102 NUMBER OF FIRE HYDRANTS C102.1 Minimum number of fire hydrants for a building. The number of fire hydrants available to a building shall be not less than the minimum specified in Table C102.1, TABLE C102.1 REQUIRED NUMBER AND SPACING OF FIRE HYDRANTS FIRE -FLOW REQUIREMENTUMBER (glen) INIMUM :UMBER OF HYDRANTS AVERAGE SPACING BETWEEN HYDRANTS` (feet) MAXIMUM DISTANCE FROM ANY POINT ON STREET OR ROAD FRONTAGE TO A HYDRANT' r' ° 1.7500rless 1 5W 250 2,011 2 450 225 2,5W 3 450 225 3,OW 3 400 225 3,50114,000 4 350 210 4500.5000 5 300 1W 5500 6 30D 180 6,OW 6 250 150 6.500T,OW ] 250 150 7,SW amore Bare 2W 120 For Sl 1 foot = 304 B mm, 1 gallon per minute = 3 785 Um. a. Reduce by 100 feet for clari streets or roads. b. Where streets are provided with median dividers Mat cannot be crossed by fire fighters pulling hose Ilnes, or where internal chance are providd with far or more traffic lanes and have a traffic count of more than 30,000 vehicles per day, hydrant spacing shall average 500 Ieet on each side of the street ate be anangd on an alternating basis. Where new water mains are extended along streets where hydrants are not needed for mitechon of structures or similar fire problems, fire hydrants shall be provided al spacing not to exceed 1 OW feel to provide for tans portafion haaards. d. Reduce by 50 feet for dead-end streets or roads. e. One hydrant for each 1p00 gallons per minute or Eamon Merant. f A 50-percent span ing increase shall be permiad where the building is equipped throughout wilh an approved automatic sprinkler system in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1 of the hiernabonal Fire Cade. g. A 25-percent spacing increase shall be Permitted where the building is equipped throughout wit an approved automats, spnnkler system in accordance wiM Section 903. 3.1.2 or 903.3.13 of Me mismahanal Fire Coda or Section P2904 orthe Intematronal Residential Code. SECTION C103 FIRE HYDRANT SPACING C103.1 Hydrant spacing. Fire apparatus access roads and public streets providing required access to buildings in accordance with Section 503 of the International Fire Code shall be provided with one or more fire hydrants, as determined by Section C102.1. Where more than one fire hydrant is required, the distance between required fire hydrants shall be in accordance with Sections C103.2 and C103.3. C103.2 Average spacing. The average spacing between fire hydrants shall be in accordance with Table C102.1. Exception: The average spacing shall be permitted to be increased by 10 percent where existing fire hydrants provide all or a portion of the required number of fire hydrants. C103.3 Maximum spacing. The maximum spacing between fire hydrants shall be in accordance with Table C102.1. SECTION C104 CONSIDERATION OF EXISTING FIRE HYDRANTS C104.1 Existing fire hydrants. Existing fire hydrants on public streets are allowed to be considered as available to meet the requirements of Sections C102 and C103. Existing fire hydrants on adjacent properties are allowed to be considered as available to meet the requirements of Sections C102 and C103 provided that a fire apparatus access road extends between properties and that an easement is established to prevent obstruction of such roads. UTILITY hbk INFRASTRUCTURE SOLUTIONS ENGINEERING Project Number: A16-0760 SECTION D101 GENERAL D101.1 Scope. Fire apparatus access roads shall be in accordance with this appendix and all other applicable requirements of the International Fire Code. SECTION D102 REQUIRED ACCESS D102.1 Access and loading. Facilities, buildings or portions of buildings hereafter constructed shall be accessible to fire department apparatus by way of an approved fire apparatus access road with an asphalt, concrete or other approved driving surface capable of supporting the imposed load of fire apparatus weighing at least 75,000 pounds (34 050 kg). SECTION D103 MINIMUM SPECIFICATIONS D103.1 Access road width with a hydrant. Where a fire hydrant is located on a fire apparatus access road, the minimum road width shall be 26 feet (7925 mm), exclusive of shoulders (see Figure D103,1). �o a ss �/ �26'R —26' 26' R TVP' TVP• —20• 20'J 2fi 20 96'DIAMETER 6 FOOT Y MINIMUM CLEARANCE CUL-DE-SAC AROUND A FIRE HYDRANT ri / 2V- 26' RJ TYP' 120' HAMMERHEAD For SI: 1 fool = 304 8 mm. 28' R 4 "P 1 2 -T 21 ACCEPTABLE ALTERNATIVE TO 120' HAMMERHEAD FIGURE D103.1 DEAD-END FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROAD TURNAROUND UTILITY I Ehbk INFRASTRUCTURE SOLUTIONS Project Number A16-0760 D103.2 Grade. Fire apparatus access roads shall not exceed 10 percent in grade. Exception: Grades steeper than 10 percent as approved by the fire chief. D103.4 Dead ends. Dead-end fire apparatus access roads in excess of 150 feet (45 720 mm I shall be provided with width and turnaround provisions in accordance with Table D103.4. TABLE D103.4 REQUIREMENTS FOR DEAD-END FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROADS LENGTH WIDTH (reek) (reek) TURNAROUNDS REQUIRED 0-15L 20 None required i'b1-bC01111 20 120-fool Hammerhead, 60-fool'Y"or 96 foot diameter cut-de-sacin accordance with Figure U103.1 tU1-IbU 26 120-foot Hammerhead, 60-foot 'Y"or 96-foot diameter cul-de-sac in accordance with Figure D103.1 Cver T50 Special approval required For Sr. 1 foot = 306 8 mm. PARKING —FIRE LANE signs complying with Figure D103.6. Signs shall have a minimum dimension of 12 inches (305 mm) wide by 18 inches (457 mm) high and have red letters on a white reflective background. Signs shall be posted on one or both sides of the fire apparatus road as required by Section D103.6.1 or 0103.6.2. SIGNTYPE-V SN lYP SIGN E'D' FIPgMD ruNo Futl(IXG T FMB Ml FRE UIE 'g —Ir FIGURE D103.6 FIRE LANE SIGNS D103.6.1 Roads 20 to 26 feet in width. Fire lane signs as specified in Section D103.6 shall be posted on both sides of fire apparatus access roads that are 20 to 26 feet wide (6096 to 7925 mm). D103.6.2 Roads more than 26 feet in width. Fire lane signs as specified in Section D103.6 shall be posted on one side of fire apparatus access roads more than 26 feet wide (7925 mm) and less than 32 feet wide (9754 mm). UTILITY I hbk INFRASTRUCTURE SOLUTIONS Project Number: A16-0760 Figure 3: Project Site - 2014 Figure 4: Project Site - 2012 UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE SOLUTIONS lhbk ENGINEERING Project Number At6-0760 Figure 5= Project Site — 2011 Figure 6= Project Site — 2008 cndiX 3 702 BAYARDj O W Ur Z U PROPOSED z ING SANITARY NIH 612 LEXINGTOA' BAYARD 8"INV=7 -73S uj Q I ¢ L 8"INV=]06]v5J I SX W x fix( BAYARD STREET EX W TERMAIN IN CI) —x—x—x—x—x—x PROP ROWI I8 LFB SANITARV EXISTING SANITARY MANHOLE EXISTING HYDRANT \ �I PRIVATESN MER IFIMARKED NIELD) N o PROPERTYFR LINE j 117 IJ I V 631 BAYARD 701 BAYARD PROPERTY LINE LUSK I n N ¢ WI I = IN I W O ICU X � ww W o <� LUSK I� EXISTING HYDRANT I a m lTD BE RELOCATED) I PROPOSED4� SANITARY SERVICE x l PROPOSED SANITARY MH 8" INV = JW.36 N PROPOSED BUILDING 101 LUSK GRANo/CRAILROAO TELOCATED FIRE HYDRANT EXISTING PAVEMENT EDGE 110 LUSK Ndix 4 O W V )02 Ui ZI Z 264 612 BAYARD Z W LEX9NGTON BAYARD - - - L L - J BAYARD STREET ST EX SANITARY w MANHOLE EX bVATERMAIN (6" CI) x—x—x—x—x—x—x—v - max- - - - - ��.� ROO�RTD EXISTING HYDRANT LLOCATIIII _ _ PRIVATE SEWER IN FIELD) N MARKED PROPERTY LINE FROM GIB j f,7 LUSK 2 BAYARB I Q �a I Ix Vo )Bp w o LUSK w LUSK Qw BAYARB EXISTING HYDRANT j a ¢ (TO 8E RELOCATED) PROPOSED PAVEMENT EDGE xl PROPOSED I' EASEMENT ( H[ 272 SF) PROPERTY LINE PRELOCATED PROPOSED FIRE HVDRAN BUILDING 101 LUSK 096, C21ND/CRA&'o" V Appendix 5 O WL204 )02 Ui Z612BAYARD ZW9MGTOMBAYARB LYARDSTREET EX SANITARY MANHOLEbVATERMAIN (6" CI)—x—x—x—x—x—v- - - ��.� ROO�RIV T p EXISTING HYDRANT LLOCATIIII _ _ PRIVATE SEWER IN FIELD) N MARKED PROPERTY LINE FROM GIB j 11) LUSK 2 BAYARB I Q �a I Ix Vo LUSk 701 w o LUSK w BAYARB <w I I �2e EXISTING HYDRANT a (TO BE RELOCATED) I PROPOSED I < PAVEMENT EDGE I� R28'APEROPOSEDEIAENT PROPERTY LINE -85FI RELOCATED PROPOSED FIRE HYDRAN BUILDING 26 101 70'/ C�ANo/C Rq/LRpgp � _ Fire Access Option 3 -IRE ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS - OPTION 3 9AYAR0 STREET E% MA ITAR EY W=TEfO.W IX W 01) �— FICISTIPKi J wv oawur �� PaI.�nTT: sev.ea `� ION YWRKEo IN FIE IN IELI}j PROPERTY LINE I F ROM QIS I I tf� I � w 6Sf j F lv' I ps - Exlsnrv� wrownf.r BE RE LSNJ 0 ] I ED 4S PAYEPLEIYT EDGE I PR OPERTT LINE ' PLX]P2SED Fh3EMElYT I {spas 9F] / ! RE•1-or1+TED PRO PQ$ FIRE MYORAIIT BUILD IN CAW LEGEN6 EwaT.w w.reR �i.aaawY mat E..m.Ma • PRMO9ECEMECF PAVEYEM Fire Access Option 4 :IRE ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS — OPTION 4 I � � I � '• �. I e,s Ei+lYilR3 z � � LE.eMl: TL'W s,r.,,� � si YAFrb STREET EX SNI �THFT! -IN •16HHfiE t �rrpniur PRIVRTE'eEluER � r-- _ �L9CATIOR M4RKEp PROPERTY IN FIELC)j 1 LwE FIIOM CIS I i Til 11 1110 L1ESf I W flf y �rwnn } � p[ISTING HYORSNT d adS [T09E RELO CATEpI I PRQPdS ED PAVEMENT ENC� PRBPELRIRTIE I SO.PE®•OPi^ RFIERLEO II PPEFRy,,C ED rCTrAuTEw[I rr BUILDING I c LEGEND N - EV6T CIO 4bLTER YPM I�2%'AigN FROM WFIN} �O �. � � Feu e�eerx}srEUEvr 777 FEET Appendix 7 O Lu �� 102 z 204 (( (� : / 612 BAYARD ZI�W ¢ LET'INGTON ( __J IBAVARO (( ( 1 Q ' BAYARD STRE t EX SANITARY (( MANHOLE ( EX WATERMAIN (�CI) ROBLAND �/RT EXISTING x / HYDRANT_, I IN FIELD) _ _ 7 _ PTIOX MAR LOCAII MARKED PROPERTY LINE FROM GIB �( 717 LOSK L i Z 631 BAVARO ( 4 Iw _ W IS / I ra � 111 i �( Lush JO) L BAVARO j EXISTING HYDRANT j a (TO BE RELOCATED) ; Q - PROPOSED PROPERTY - DRIVEWAY LINE I ' PROPOSED - ---__BUILDING, LUSK _ - _ _ __ ____'i T 1 --- % �� % __ - „-, C�O/CfP�YAILAgAO � 7" RAINFALL RATIQNNETHQQ L - NA) WINTENSITY )<'t,,AL Q ( YEAP.1=i 97 If, .IMPERVIOUS-]Yn L,111YEAR)-111 I(100,sr)-,AInZ Q OYEAK-209,fs Appendix 8 OPINION OF COST m i. Bid It.. Estimated Unit Extended Quantity Unit Price Price "ineetlgg M M 9PA1. EU� LAND PUFNM laam sunv,•mas 4NC WI iAq =Ts @iffiall0ml SPam= 191 $,GWERTST. IdNA qTy, IOWAM? (319N5+.8282 WIMN.gIVh5m1189 isms D 978+ c 5T. SW SURE ceoAA R9cias,9W14wa (51919416169 � Fer4bn SITE PLAN 101 Lusk Avenue Manville Addition Iowa City - JOHNSONCOUNTY IOWA MMS CONSULTANTS, INC 3115A6 o..y.a nr 6P� swr9mes�w trsn Eq. vcs. M t tl,.=rc ex !9.d xa� nvJ.ra+b. 1 IC 9487-093 a= + IF 12.7.16 Board of Appeals Craig H Syrop The Ask: • "The Board of Appeals may by majority vote reverse a decision by the building official or the fire chief based on the building code or fire code only if it finds: .... (3) If the building official has incorrectly interpreted a provision of the Code. • We are asking the Board to determine that, for the private sanitary sewer issue, the Building Official erred in determining that the Carlson building would comply with the Plumbing Code based on plans to connect its sewer line to an existing sanitary sewer that does not comply with the present Code and concerning which there is no showing that a lawful easement exists. Plumbing Code at Issue: 16-3D-6: BUILDING SEWERS AND CONNECTIONS: "D. Separate Building Sewers Required: A separate and independent building sanitary sewer shall be provided for every building except as herein provided. (1978 Code §33-20.13)" Why now: • Directed by City to Board of Adjustment to address issues —see memo to Mr Ackerman • Remains timely filing based upon the public notification ( not decision) of action to lift suspension of permit • Not " re -litigating" as previously denied ability to address section 16 and fire code at Board of Appeals Y 101 Lusk Avenue • As approved , structure has neither the separate or independent sewer required • Has no easement of record across neighbors properties for such line • Termination of any real or perceived easement was issued • City ignored own records , availability of ROW option, and stated preferences • Line condition issues and risks to others unaddressed • Non conforming use should be extinguished Private sewer line for 101 Lusk • Filed Affidavit • Absence of knowledge of line or adverse possession for > 10 years • Absence of easement and any due considerations in abstracts • Formal termination notification was provided by adjacent owners • In 1927, the City issued a permit for the shared private line to connect to city sewer service. However, this shared line was established before code, by a single owner who acquired established properties, created an easement for themselves but adjacent, independent properties are without any documented or ongoing easements (as properties were sold). • Code compliant alternatives were available and known to the City, the builder and the Carlsons • Opportunity, with new construction, to bring use to code in interest of public safety ( see Udell and Board of Appeals) Non conforming situations The purpose of regulating nonconforming situations is "not to force all nonconforming situations to be immediately brought into conformance. Rather, the intent is to guide future uses and development in a direction consistent with city policy, to protect the character of an area by reducing the potential negative impacts" from nonconforming situations, and, over time, to bring development into compliance with the city's regulations. (Ord. 05-4186, 12-15-2005) 101 Lusk is new construction, replacing a house Neither destroyed or damaged by fire, explosion, act of God or by a public enemy. AND Whose sewer system has not been used by inhabitants for several years (>1 year) • discontinued : Webster's =" to cease to operate, administer, use, produce, or take" • Use was "discontinued", not "terminated" , as in code RE: Prestige Properties Proposal and Shared Sewer: Email from Paul Druivenga to Jason Havel, cc..Roger Overton, Feb. 25, 2015, 9:52am : ....Future repairs of the private line could get dicey. Generally when I'm asked about similar older sewers "Why did the City OK this?"' Jason Havel, March 11, 2015, 8.52pm.a °The proposed houses do not have separate and independent building sanitary sewer services as required in 16= 3D=6Dm " Email from Jason Havel to Mike Oliveira (Prestige Properties), Wed. March 25, 2015, 2:11pm. [referencing the comments of the joint staff]: "Our preference would be to provide new sanitary service out of the front to the house(s) to a new line along Lusk Avenue and installed by the developer. ........................................... IF YOU WOULD CHOOSE TO TIE INTO THE EXISTING PRIVATE LINE, WE WOULD NEED PROOF OF THE ABILITY TO DO SO, SUCH AS PROOF OF AN EASEMENT, AGREEMENT, ETC." Appendix 2 HART-PREDERiCK CONSULTANTS, Y.C. — ENGINEERS & SURVEYOR.' I October, 2015 presage psoperaea 21¢13, Cnmt Se. Ste 2 laws City, IA 5224O At: Mdt' a Ohvoim Ra Srmimrygewer Service to 101 Lash Avenue —Lows City, Iowa Deal Mr. oliveite: We hevereviewed tho vidm footage hum the se peetion ofibe nan;tazy sewer service to 101 Lusk Avemre in 10" City PmbnbM m SgA—bes z3, 2015. Haled omt1w vide, we woad not reommm®dvsmg the exwi z serviw line in its eormnf Wusti cos fax the proposed additiaatl single faraAY homer The luhemldeaon in the 44och d eaetgcast fromseafiena(tha service line ruin impede now aMdposoLlY c btookngca and bs°kupn '1Yu t°ms pxatruding t6rm.gyibe PIPa jNnq in the vCP emtioo have heed r ved, but maytplpow it tbo Mire. These would again becomo somcm ofpotenasl blocl.'gge cod infilrteaon-Many of Ihaloinb arc wffiei yjiBkgY fiom earh othv. the off" could be m sudemd minorand do w..* impede flow. The video ,seem did rewtlhamanhole is this inapeWw, end.ly twn smokes dism mm, The servicem 631 Bayard Shw was w RUA. Thia melee a total Offomrcesi& tiel ommecte on the seswira line that is believed m be &-inobes s dlsmetcr. Typical smndeN Pmeliee for mw cihw ss to mgoim a mudmlmpipe diameter of binohea when roses ihm one bui]diug is served by a single servicelite. According w the sewer insWAM eq ipm topemkr, cast lma pardon ofibis amvicn tine is 4innhaa io di�. Based on the latfi3l video i-pentiuq we rommmend a pew. 6-inch Samoa lion be sakIledm xeplaoe fbe4-imbmet t= secam of tta eaistia8service he, Ibe m singg axisfimg service Lisa should be Imed m prevent Suture root gmwW and infilt 6m ShOlUYou have soy gaeot3ona, Please do oat bedTkA to call $amtt Ritter, L.S., or myself at ma office. Segnota A. CmWM p.L Batt-Fmderink Comulhoh P.C. ca: 1'ggea Ravel, Coy oflews City emc: video m US8 Flash Dtive SIB 510 Sa,re gdeQ p,O. Hsa 560 • Tidq JA52940ASW 3o}5£4Ttl5 Fc 31p-59}73bo wm.La,t-F.• wm Rn¢�uluB ' 3irwrta8 • 1M.w�g HBK Site Plan 020 Esbibit 1.020 Summary: • It was an error to allow new construction that knowingly violates current plumbing code 16-3D-6: BUILDING SEWERS AND CONNECTIONS: "D. Separate Building Sewers Required: A separate and independent building sanitary sewer shall be provided for every building except as herein provided. (1978 Code §33-20.13)" • 101 Lusk building permit allows construction and sanitation connection to a shared private sewer line for which there were no easements of record, and for which external engineers voiced concerns that could pose health, safety and financial risk to the public. • Any potential easement has been terminated by adjacent owners. • In the interest of public safety, please reverse the decision by the building official to issue a building permit for 101 Lusk Udell and Board of Appeals • MINUTES APPROVED • IOWA CITY BOARD OF APPEALS • MONDAY, AUGUST 1, 2016 • DALE HEELING CONFERENCE ROOM, CITY HALL • 410 E. WASHINGTON STREET • IOWA CITY, IA 52240 • MEMBERS PRESENT: John Roffman, Scott McDonough, Andrea French, Jim Walker • MEMBERS ABSENT: John Gay • STAFF PRESENT: Tim Hennes (Sr. Building Inspector), Sue Dulek (Asst. City • Attorney), Stan Laverman (Sr. Housing Inspector), John Yapp (Development • Services Coordinator), Brian Greer (Fire Marshall), Jann Ream (Code Enforcement • Specialist, acting as minute taker) Udell and Board of Appeals • Owner felt the question in front of the Board was not that a property had to comply with building code but whether it was required to be brought into compliance with current building code. She stated that investors should be able to rely on certificates and permits issued by the City that verify a property is compliant with applicable codes • Roffman explained that the Board does not have authority to override or ignore health and safety issues. So it doesn't matter when the violation is found; it becomes a matter of what is a reasonable correction. Udell and Board of Appeals • Dulek said that sadly mistakes happen and the City is immune to claims based on errors in inspections. • She said the Board has to decide if City staff's interpretation of "good and safe working condition" means that this particular situation must comply with the building code. • She understands the owner's situation but that's what it comes down to. Udell and Board of Appeals • McDonough said he understood the applicant's predicament but that he just could not ignore the safety concerns —especially if children moved in. • Roffman said .....that the Board should address the issue now..... Health and safety issues should not be circumvented. • Udell said this situation has existed for 25 years — how is this now a health and safety issue? • Laverman made the point that, as the furnace and water heater age, the chances of malfunction increase. Perspective • Nearly 90 years have passed since the private sewer line was established , and almost 40 years with clear existing code which requires a separate and independent sewer before the corrective opportunity of new construction and a clear alternative have both became available and known to the City and owners before purchase and demolition. • Now is the time to act in the interests of public safety, before foundations are poured , greater equity is threatened, damage is done to others or neighbors are forced into civil action as a result of a City building official's error in plumbing code enforcement. cndiX 3 CURRENT SHARED LINE VS ALTERNATE R.O.W. OPTION F- � I =- PROPOSED 702 Ui z z 204 SANITARY MIT612 BAVARD LEXINGTON BAVARD w Yu,H 8" INV = T06.66 W J w 3"INV=706.TGS L J BAYARD STREET �x w EXISTING SANITARY WATERMAIN (6" CI) MANHOLE W WEX w " w w ��.� RO�jLA/VO 8" INV = 705.94 E _ ! PROP. 880 LF 8 "SANITARY a, C 40% URT EXISTING HYDRANT \ �1 PRIVATE SEWER I �(LOCATION MARKED IN FIELD) PROPERTY LINE I FROM GIG j 117 U LUSK631 I BAYARD Q W I w Q I � � w J 701 a o LUSK I a I BAVARD % W EXISTING HYDRANT a (TO BE RELOCATED) I Q PROPOSED 4" w� SANITARY SERVICE EXISTING PAVEMENT EDGE PROPERTY LINE PROPOSED 110 SANITARYMH LUSK 8" INV = 707.36 N PROPOSED L RELOCATED BUILDING FIRE HYDRANT 101 LUSK ORAND/O RA/LROAO C. E. * NEWS Couple Plans to Replicate University of Iowa's Kinnick stadium With Nearly 7,500-square-Foot House By KATIE KINDELAN Jun 24, 2016,7.14AM ET "My step -son suggested that if we're going to build a house to tailgate at it should mimic the stadium," Carlson, 64, told ABC News. "I'm kind of a theme guy anyways, so I thought that was a great idea." Lusk Ave/Bayard Street/Rowland Ct PIN 47920 6006 Value 479?00 Addxass 11 RO EL CT Ow¢ar EAICKSON, BAADLEY A Class AESID ENTIAL CL "rN" jr i - 3' -, 5� t -d.� ,,�, •-�,:-,may .. ,