►
From YouTube: 1-22-20 Zoning Board of Adjustment
Description
Des Moines Zoning Board of Adjustment meeting on Wednesday, January 22, 2020 in Des Moines, Iowa.
Help us caption & translate this video!
https://amara.org/v/C0stG/
A
City
of
Des
Moines
Zoning
Board
of
Adjustment.
This
board
has
the
power
under
Iowa
law
and
the
zoning
ordinance
of
the
City
of
Des
Moines
to
hear
and
make
decisions
on
requests
for
variances
and
exceptions
from
the
regulations
in
the
zoning
ordinance
conditional
uses
and
appeals
from
any
decision
of
city
staff
in
the
administration
of
the
zoning
ordinance.
The
members
of
this
board
are
citizens
of
the
city
and
have
been
appointed
to
the
board
by
the
City
Council.
A
The
board
members
are
volunteers
and
receive
no
compensation
for
our
public
service,
so
I'm
gonna
introduce
the
board
members
who
are
here
as
well
as
city
staff,
on
the
audience's
Left.
We
have
Cindy
Smith
and
Marla's
Jones
on
the
audience's
right,
starting
from
the
end
is
Justin
gross
Dave
Jer,
Lynn
Carlson,
the
board
chair,
Mel
pins
is
absent
today,
I'm
Nathan
Blake
and
the
vice
chair
and
serving
in
kind
of
in
his
stead.
As
far
as
staff
on
hand,
our
legal
counsel,
Judy
parks,
Cruz,
is
to
my
left.
A
We
have
three
city
planners
sitting
in
the
front
row:
Bert
drost,
Eric,
Lundy
and
catherine
de'
start
soon
and
Donovan.
Our
zoning
enforcement
officer
is
here
as
well.
This
is
an
open
and
informal
meeting.
It's
being
recorded,
the
board
members
have
each
received
a
copy
of
the
agenda
and
the
staff
recommendations
associated
with
each
item.
A
Copies
of
these
agendas
and
the
staff
recommendations
are
available
in
the
trays
by
the
door
that
you
most
likely
walked
in
and
if
you
want
to
step
up
and
grab
one,
the
board
is
required
to
base
its
decision
in
each
case
upon
the
criteria
established
by
law
for
the
type
of
relief
sought
by
the
applicant.
The
law
applicable
to
each
case
is
identified
in
the
written
staff
report.
If
the
facts,
as
determined
by
the
board
demonstrate
that
the
criteria
established
by
law
for
granting
the
relief
have
been
satisfied,
then
the
board
must
grant
the
relief.
A
Otherwise
the
board
must
deny
the
relief.
Each
appeal
will
be
announced
in
the
order
that
they
appear
on
the
agenda.
When
an
item
is
announced,
staff
give
an
overview
of
the
appeal
and
distribute
any
written
comments
received
prior
to
the
hearing.
Then
the
appellant
or
their
representative
will
be
allowed
up
to
ten
minutes
to
present
their
appeal.
Anyone
else
present
in
support
of
the
appeal
will
then
be
allowed
up
to
five
minutes
each
to
provide
their
comments.
A
After
that,
anyone
present
in
opposition
to
the
appeal
will
then
be
allowed
up
to
five
minutes
each
to
provide
their
comments.
The
board
will
then
ask
any
additional
questions
of
staff
before
giving
the
applicant
three
more
minutes
for
rebuttal
or
other
closing
comments.
All
speakers
are
requested
to
speak
from
the
podium
and
begin
their
presentation
by
giving
both
their
name
and
address.
All
speakers
are
requested
to
remain
courteous
and
focus
their
comments
only
upon
those
facts
that
demonstrate
whether
or
not
the
criteria
established
by
law
have
been
satisfied.
A
Speakers
are
also
asked
to
ensure
that
they
are
respectful
of
time
considerations
if
necessary.
The
board
chair
will
limit
further
comments
by
a
speaker
if
they
exceed
their
time
limitation.
The
board
will
then
close
any
further
public
comment
on
the
agenda
item
and
the
board
will
then
immediately
deliberate
the
requests
that
make
a
decision.
Please
note
that
it
takes
at
least
four
affirmative
votes
for
any
zoning
appeal
to
gain
approval.
A
If
your
appeal
is
approved
today,
we
ask
that
you
wait
until
next
week
to
go
to
the
city's
permit
and
Development
Center
to
obtain
any
necessary
building
permit,
so
that
the
decision
of
this
board
can
be
documented
in
the
form
of
a
decision
and
order.
Any
appeal
that
is
approved
by
the
board
must
be
implemented,
constructed
or
otherwise.
Utilize
within
two
years
of
the
date
of
the
decision
by
this
board
or
such
approval
shall
expire
items
listed
on
the
consent
portion
of
the
agenda,
which
today
I
believe,
is
the
first
four
items.
A
They
will
not
be
individually
discussed
and
will
be
considered
for
approval
in
accordance
with
the
recommendation
in
the
staff
report,
unless
the
appellant
does
not
agree
to
the
conditions
recommended
by
staff
or
if
there's
an
individual
present
or
a
board
member,
that
requests
that
the
item
be
removed
from
the
consent
agenda,
so
that
a
full
discussion
on
the
matter
cannot
her.
The
decisions
of
this
board
can
only
be
appealed
in
district
court.
If
you
believe
you
have
been
harmed
by
an
error
made
by
this
board.
A
Your
only
remedy
is
to
seek
relief
through
the
district
court
within
30
days
of
the
filing
of
the
Board's
decision
and
order,
if
you
believe
the
zoning
regulations
applied
by
this
board
are
wrong,
you
may
petition
the
City
Council
to
change
those
regulations.
All
material,
written
or
otherwise
used
today,
as
part
of
any
presentation,
will
become
a
permanent
part
of
the
record
and
will
not
be
returned.
You
may
contact
staff
after
the
hearing.
A
If
you
need
a
copy
handful
of
housekeeping
items,
please
avoid
conversation
in
the
audience
to
limit
distractions
during
the
hearing
that
is
in
progress.
Please
ensure
that
your
cell
phone
has
been
silenced
or
turned
off.
If
you
need
to
use
a
restroom,
you
can
leave
through
this
main
door,
stay
to
the
right
of
the
stairs
on
this
level
past
those
stairs
the
restrooms
will
be
on
their
left.
Once
the
agenda
item
that
you
are
interested
in
has
been
completed,
you
are
welcome
to
leave
the
meeting
or
you're
welcome
to
stay.
It's
pretty
fun.
A
A
B
Chair
members,
the
board
Bert
Ross
appointed
for
the
city,
we
have
four
items
currently
on
the
consent
agenda.
We
did
not
receive
any
opposition
to
any
of
those
and
we
also
have
item
number
seven,
an
appeal
at
8:01,
southeast
28th
Street,
that
staff
is
recommending
to
be
moved
to
the
consent
agenda
as
well.
I
now
take
a
motion
and
a
vote
by
the
board.
A
What
Bert
is
saying
is
the
item
that's
listed
as
number
seven
is
been
proposed
because
there's
no
opposition,
that's
been
stated
and
I
assume
that
the
appellant
is
fine,
with
the
conditions
that
the
staff
has
kind
of
proposed,
we're
going
to
try
to
move
those
to
the
consent
agenda
and
the
consent
agenda
we
handle
all
together,
we'll
take
one
vote
to
handle.
All
of
them
it'll
be
an
approval
just
based
with
those
restrictions
as
laid
out
by
staff.
A
A
What
we'll
be
doing
is
I'll
read
through
each
of
these
more
specifically,
so
you
understand
exactly
which
item
I'm
talking
about,
but
the
idea
is
we're
gonna
vote
it
on
these.
As
a
block,
we
will
be
voting
for
approval,
subject
of
staff,
the
staff
recommendations
there,
sometimes
conditions
on
what's
been
requested,
and
so,
if
you're,
the
appellant,
you
need
to
be
okay
with
those
and,
if
you're,
someone
who
came
to
oppose
these.
A
For
some
reason,
we're
gonna
try
to
elicit
your
kind
of
hand-raising
for
each
item,
so
we
can
actually
have
a
full
hearing
on
the
item.
If
needed.
Item
number
one
is
in
the
vicinity
of
eleven
hundred
seventh
Street.
It's
a
special
permit
request
by
d-mac.
Is
there
anybody
in
the
audience?
Who
is
would
like
to
move
that
from
the
consent
agenda
to
have
a
full
hearing
opposes
the
appellant
all
right?
A
Moving
on
a
number
item
number
two,
which
is
an
amendment
of
a
conditional
use
permit
at
215,
East
Third
Street
anybody
in
the
audience
who
wishes
to
oppose
that
or
speak
about
it
item
number
three
can
another
conditional
use
permit.
This
is
at
14,
33,
Walnut
Street.
Anybody
in
the
audience
who
wishes
to
comment
or
oppose
that
item
number
four
amend
conditional
use
permit
at
322,
East,
Court
Avenue,
anybody
in
the
audience
to
that
wishes
to
speak
on
that
and
in
just
a
double
check
item
number
seven.
A
A
E
A
D
D
That
was
the
document
that
should
have
been
appealed
from
regarding
the
parking
situation
at
33,
23
ingersoll
I
heard
nothing
back
until
January
22nd
of
2019
exhibit
number
10
at
no
time
did
they
request
an
appeal
of
that
determination.
They
didn't
request
the
appeal
until
January
of
this
year,
so
I
would
request
that
the
board,
under
its
rules,
cases
before
the
board,
every
appeal
or
application
or
decision,
shall
be
directed
within
ten
days
of
data-centric,
shorter
and
determination.
D
D
Believe
that
the
appeal
was
timely
and
I,
don't
believe
it
should
be
heard.
There
was
no
request
for
an
extension
on
the
appeal
time
at
any
time
that
we've
discussed
this
case
and
there
was
no
granting
in
any
way
shape
or
form
that
the
city
said
that
we
would
withhold
and
let
them
appeal
that
determination
a
later
date.
A
E
A
F
David
ginger
bell,
McCormick
law,
firm
I
represent
HC,
will
lent
LLC,
which
is
the
owner
of
three
three
two
three
Ingersoll
I
have
two
issues
with
staff's
waiver
argument.
The
first
is
I,
really
think
it's
a
question
of
whether
staff
can
cite
an
inapplicable
City
Code
provision
that
doesn't
apply
and
then
get
the
benefit
of
a
10-day
waiver
period.
I
really
think
there
needs
to
be
some
good-faith
basis
in
the
provision
being
cited
by
staff
prior
to
that
10-day
appeal
period.
F
Starting
I
mean
if
you
look
at
the
provisions
cited
by
staff
and
it's
December
2018
letter,
it
is
section
134
1352
now
by
it's
clear
language.
It
only
applies
to
our
district,
my
clients,
properties,
NPCs
in
PC
district.
It
simply
doesn't
apply
now.
More
importantly,
I
think,
there's
a
misunderstanding
between
staff
and
my
client
on
what
my
client
is
appealing.
The
decision
made
in
the
December
2018
letter
was
that
my
client
abandoned
illegally
non-conforming
use.
That's
not
what
my
client
is
appealing
today.
F
My
client
is
simply
requesting
the
board
and
the
staff
consider
the
applicable
provisions
of
the
city
code
and
realize
that
it
has
always
been
in
compliance
with
the
parking
requirements
required
under
the
code
than
an
effect.
And
if
you
look
at
the
applicable
provisions
of
the
city
code
for
parking
in
the
NPC
district,
you're
going
to
come
to
section,
134
915
and
what
that
says
is
in
lieu
of
specific
off
street
parking
requirements
for
a
property
located
within
the
NPC
district.
F
Sorry,
Lewis,
specific
off
street
parking
requirements,
new
construction
and
remodeling
within
the
NPC
district
must
comply
with
the
site
plan
design.
Guidelines
staff
has
not
alleged
that
my
clients,
property
constitutes
new
construction
or
remodeling.
My
clients,
property
doesn't
constitute
new
construction
or
remodeling,
and
even
if
it
did,
you
need
to
go
to
the
design
guidelines
to
determine
the
number
of
off
street
parking
and
when
you
move
to
the
design
guidelines
again,
it's
clear
then
my
client
is
in
compliance
with
the
code
as
it's
in
effect
as
it
was,
in
effect,
the
design
guidelines.
F
The
applicability
provision
states
that,
in
acting
upon
any
site,
plan
application
for
property
located
within
the
NPC
district,
my
client
hasn't
filed
a
site
plan
until
a
site
plan
is
filed.
There
are
no
parking
requirements
for
in
piece
property,
so
I,
don't
think
the
staffs,
a
decision
that
their
argument
that
my
client
appealed
its
or
waived
its
ability
to
appeal
is
correct.
F
G
F
Us
I
think
two
reasons:
one
is
I
think
that
again
I'm
not
appealing
the
December
2018
letter,
I'm
appealing
something
else
and
two
I
would
ask
the
board
to
look
at
the
date
that
December
2018
letter
was
sent.
It
was
sent
eight
days
before
Christmas
and
we
did
respond
to
that
letter
a
month
later.
Now
it
wasn't
within
the
ten
days,
but
we
did
respond
to
that
letter.
F
A
Are
there
other
questions
so
I
feel
like
you
started
off
with
this
procedural
point
and
I
frankly,
still
don't
understand
exactly
what
what
you're
saying,
because
it
seemed
like
what
Lin
just
said.
You
moved
into
the
substance
of
the
argument
which
I
don't
we
really
want
to
focus
on
the
procedural
point,
I
think
if.
F
H
F
Decision
that
was
made
in
that
December
2018
letter
was
that
we
abandoned
a
legally
non-conforming
use
to
be
legally
non-conforming
use.
You
have
to
be
out
of
compliance
with
the
code,
we're
not
saying
that
we
have
a
legally
non-conforming
use,
we're
simply
saying
we're
in
compliance
with
the
code,
but.
A
F
F
A
F
Impliedly,
perhaps
but
I
don't
think
we
should
a
plot
imply
what
the
zoning
enforcement
officers
decision
is.
I
think
we
should
look
at
the
December
2018
letter
determine
that
what
what
that
was
in
in
any
case,
I
still
think
we
need
to
analyze
the
code
to
determine
what
was
required.
Zoning
enforcement
officer
maybe
have
determined
that
we
were
out
of
compliance,
but
what
does?
What
does
that
mean?
Does
that
mean
that
the
staff
gets
to
set
the
off
street
parking
requirements,
or
does
it
mean
that
we
have
to
look
at
the
code?
A
F
Correct
I
agree
with
that:
that's
fine,
and
after
that
ten
days,
let's
say
sorry,
I,
don't
think
I
want
to
pose
a
hypothetical
to
the
board.
But
if
my
client
failed
to
a
plot
fail
to
appeal
within
ten
days,
I
think
the
requirement
would
be
okay.
Now
you
have
to
show
that
you're
in
compliance
with
the
code
and
I
think
that's
what
I'm
doing
here
is
I'm
saying
this
ten
days
may
have
occurred,
but
we
are
in
compliance
with
the
code.
F
This
is
the
provision
that
applies
and
I'm
just
simply
saying
the
zoning
enforcement
officer
staff,
you
made
a
decision
that
we
lost
a
legally
non-conforming
use
that
we're
out
of
compliance.
It
didn't
say
that
you
have
to
have
ten
parking
spots,
it
didn't
say
you
have
to
have
15
parking
spots.
It
said
you
need
to
show
that
you
are
in
compliance
with
the
code
and
that's
what
I'm
doing
today,
I'm
showing
that
my
client
was
in
compliance
with
the
code.
H
B
E
G
If
you
take
it
to
a
thing,
if
you
were
called
into
court
to
do
something,
even
if
you
were
innocent,
you
didn't
show
up
you're
arrested,
and
this
is
where
there
was
not
an
appropriate
play.
You
didn't
reply
within
the
ten
days
saying
that
we
are
in
compliance
hour.
I,
don't
understand
your
letter
and
the
law
is
the
law,
so.
F
I,
like
that
analogy,
because
you
say
the
law
is
the
law.
So
if
I
don't,
if
I
don't
make
an
acknowledgement
to
the
court
within
that
ten
days,
the
law
is
the
law
right.
I
still
have
to
comply
with
the
law
I'm
in
compliance
with
the
law.
So
if
I
don't
apply
within
ten
days,
I
might
have
not
applied
within
the
time
period
set
forth
under
the
requirements,
but
that
doesn't
mean
I'm
in
violation
of
the
law.
We
still
need
to
look
at
what
the
law
is
to
determine
the
off
street
parking
requirements
that.
I
A
And
that's
kind
of
what
I
was
going
to
say
as
well,
that
it
does
seem
like,
while
you
may
have
theoretically
some
argument
to
have
with
respect
to
whether
you
were
in
compliance
or
not.
The
idea
that
we
would
talk
about
the
substance
of
that
letter
back
and
forth
and
and
the
substance
with
respect
to
parking
seems
untimely
for
this
board
rather
than
district
court
or
something
else.
A
J
J
K
D
Members,
the
board,
you
can
decide
procedure,
you
have
a
couple
statements
to
make
the
determination
in
December
on
December
17th
of
2018
and
exhibit
nine
was
specifically
that
they
lost
illegal
non-conforming
rights
to
off
street
parking.
They
would
have
had
to
bring
in
a
site
plan
which
would
have
been
reviewed
under
Chapter
82,
which
you
don't
have
authority
over.
They
have
never
in
the
year
that
I've
asked
them
brought
in
a
site
plan
for
us
to
consider
what
relief
they
may
need
to
provide.
The
off
street
parking
they've
been
repeatedly
asked
for
that.
D
They
have
failed
to
to
bring
that
in.
It's
not
my
job
as
a
zoning
enforcement
officer
to
tell
them
how
many
spaces
they
have
on
the
site,
it's
their
job,
to
hire
somebody
to
draw
a
drawing
and
bring
it
in
to
us.
So
we
can
say
your
X
number
of
short
on
parking.
They
didn't
do
that.
They
didn't
appeal
that
they
had.
They
have
not
appealed
that
and
you
can't
hear
anything
under
the
chapter
82
provisions
of
what
the
site
plan
needs.
D
A
D
They
should
have
appealed
that
determination
and
come
to
you
and
said
we
are
in
compliance.
We
have
not
lost
our
legal
non-conforming
rights
or
some
other
argument
under
the
code.
That
would
say
they
hadn't
lost
it,
but
they
didn't
do
that.
They
haven't
done
it
in
over
a
year
of
continuing
back-and-forth,
where
I
grew,
we
asked
them
for
a
site
plan
to
be
reviewed.
They've
never
come
into
it
to
you
at
all.
Until
we
told
them,
they
needed
a
dumpster
enclosure,
and
then
they
tried
to
pile
everything
in
on
the
dumpster
enclosure
appeal.
So.
D
In
communication
with
them,
a
number
of
emails
have
gone
back
and
forth
over
this
property.
If
you
recall,
this
is
the
property
where
the
apartment
sits
on
one
lot
and
they
sold
off
the
back
two
lots
to
the
residential
units
and
then
came
in
six
months
later,
with
an
easement
to
provide
that
back
to
them,
but
they
did
not
timely
appeal.
This
thank.
A
D
K
Thank
You
chair
member
members
of
the
board,
my
name
is
Nate
barber
I'm
located
at
2033,
Forest
Drive
in
Des,
Moines
Iowa
I
am
an
attorney
at
Bell
and
McCormack
and
I
represent
the
landowner
here.
I
think
we
need
to
start
with
the
emphasis
that
we
are
not
appealing
to
December
letter,
whether
this
property
is
legally
conforming
or
legally.
Non-Conforming
is
not
at
issue.
The
question
is
whether
they're
not
there's
any
party,
so
we're
not
appealing
whether
or
not
it
doesn't
matter
for
purposes
of
the
discussion
that
we're
having
right.
Now.
K
That
says,
that's
the
centerpiece
of
why
this
we
did
not
waive
anything.
We
are
not
appealing
that
determination
of
legally
conforming
or
legally
non-conforming
and
the
staff
just
said
that
that's
what
the
letter
was
about.
That's
not
what
we
are
appealing.
So
we
would
ask
that
we
go
to
the
merits
of
this
discussion,
because
the
question
is:
is
what
is
the
parking
requirement
and
NPC
district?
That's
what
we
want
to
discuss,
but
those
parking
requirements
have
nothing
to
do
with
whether
or
not
it's
legally
conforming
or
legally
non-conforming.
K
It's
not
it's
not
a
rule
that
if
you're
legally
conforming
your
parking
requirements
or
this
or
if
you're,
legally
non-conforming
your
parking
requirements
or
this
so
again,
I
can't
emphasize
enough
that
I
think
there's
confusion,
that
we
are
not
appealing
what
the
staff
is
saying
that
we're
waiving
that.
We
that
we
waive,
which
is
this
that
was
sent
that
says,
that
you're
legally
conforming
or
that
I'm,
sorry
that
you
lost
your
legal
non-conforming
status
and.
K
K
J
K
Do
on
a
day,
there's
been
a
lot
of
response
back
and
back
and
forth
and
I
think
there's
been
a
lot
of
discussion
with
staff
on
this
property
and
and
and
those
discussions
so
they're
there.
There
were
responses
shortly
after
receiving
and
discussing
and
saying
that
we
disagree
with
you
that
we
don't,
but
we
didn't
feel
like
there's.
No,
because
there's
the
code
says
that
there's
no
parking
in
an
NPC
district
and
that's
what
we'd
like
to
discuss.
You
know
what
we'd
like
to
get
to,
but
that's
that
that's
why
but
they're
there.
K
We
we
had
discussions.
My
client
had
discussions,
sent
it
to
us
and
asked,
and
you
know
we
said:
there's
no
parking
requirement
and
BC
District,
so
whether
you're,
legally
conforming
or
legally
non-conforming,
doesn't
affect
the
parking
requirement.
So
you
don't
need
to
appeal
that
that
determination.
We
have
issues
with
that.
You
know
on
this
dumpster
enclosure
and
and
and
other
issues,
but
we
don't
need
to
appeal
something
that
doesn't.
We
didn't
feel
like.
We
need
peels,
but.
J
K
G
Another
analogy:
I
got
a
letter
from
the
IRS
saying
they
want
Audra
and
my
taxes
on
23rd
December
I.
Had
you
know,
20
days
to
respond
a
bank
call
that
was
a
holiday.
It
didn't
count
that
I
was
in
the
right.
I
still
had
to
respond
legally
and
according
to
their
form,
and
that's
what
we're
saying
is
you
have
not
responded
to
that
and
to
bring
it
up
now
with
the
dumpster
is
not
appropriate.
So
what
we
should
be
hearing
today
is
just
the
dumpster,
because
the
parking
issue
is
something
else.
K
Again,
I
took
that
the
letter
and
like
gave
admission
the
letter
says
that
we
lost
our
legal
non-conforming
use.
It
doesn't
say
that
what
we
say
on
parking
is
well,
doesn't
it
doesn't
cover
I,
don't
think
the
scope
of
what
they
asked
is,
and
that's
not
fair,
to
say
that
we
should
have
appealed
general
parking
when
it
all
said
was
that
we
lost
our
legal
non-conforming
use
and
that's
that's
at
most
what
they
could
say
that
was
waived
in
this
in
this
case.
So,
but
that's
so.
A
A
G
D
E
D
Were
not
within
the
ten
days,
but
there
were
a
number
of
emails
after
the
January
letter
that
went
back
and
forth
on
this
issue
or
we're
talking
about
rental
certificates
that
haven't
been
issued
because
they
don't
have
the
parking
and
the
dumpster
enclosure
they've
been
told
to
bring
in
a
site
plan.
So
we
can
review
the
deficiencies,
so
we
can
figure
out
how
to
how
to
get
it
into
compliance.
They
have
failed
to
do
that.
D
The
parking
issue
when
they
bring
a
site
plan
in
won't
be
heard
by
you
anyway,
it
will
be
heard
by
the
Zoning
Board
of
or
the
planning
Zoning
Commission,
and
if
they
want
to
submit
a
site
plan
that
says
we
don't
have
any
required
parking
needs
off-site.
They
can
take
it
to
the
Planning
Zoning
Commission
and
they
can
decide
if.
E
E
A
A
All
right
so,
on
this
question,
I
guess
I'd
entertain
a
motion
unless
there's
further
discussion
that
we,
we
all
think
it's
necessary,
but
I'm
kind
of
inclined
to
move
along.
So
we
can
get
to
the
substance
of
the
debate.
We're
gonna
have,
which
I
think
will
probably
include
the
parking,
any
motions,
I
move.
A
D
I
D
Another
shot,
I've,
also
going
to
put
in
two
exhibits,
number
seven,
eight
and
eight
and
seven
and
eight
polk
county
assessor,
is
exhibit
seven
for
the
apartment
and
then
eight
is
the
two
houses
from
the
assessor.
After
they
sold
the
property.
They
came
in
to
talk
to
staff
and
they
had
a
pre-application
conference
regarding
how
they
could
make
this.
D
None
make
this
right
with
the
parking
because
they
had
sold
off
their
parking
lot
and
they
were
told
at
that
time
that
they
needed
a
site
plan
and
it
did
not
comply
with
the
regulations
of
the
district
they
did
come
in
in
exhibit
12.
They
came
in
and
pulled
the
permit
for
the
garage
and
showed
it
it's
gonna
be
a
2020
garage
back
on
the
back
of
the
site
right
there,
which
was
previously
where
the
dumpster
enclosure
was
located.
D
On
November
25th
of
2019
and
exhibit
13
I
explained
that
the
appeal
couldn't
go
to
the
housing
Appeals
Board
that
it
needed
to
come
here
and
that
it
had
moved
from
its
primary
location,
is
shown
on
the
aerial
photographs
and
that
they
needed
to
bring
in
a
site
plan
and
show
her
the
dumpster
enclosure
would
be
located.
That
is
what
we're
here
on
today
is
that
appeal.
D
So
I
think
that
sort
of
the
most
telling
thing
is
aerial
photographs
from
this
is
2002
shows
the
dumpster
back
in
the
back
where
the
garage
was
previously
is
now
located.
This
is
about
16,
as
2004
again
shows
the
dumpster
in
the
rear
of
the
property
2006
same
location,
that's
exhibit
17,
exhibit
18,
shows
the
same
location
in
2009
and
exhibit
19.
We
have
another
picture
where
the
dumpster
is
in
the
rear.
D
I
D
Contained
all
three
Lots:
they
sold
23:23
Crescent
drivin,
2320,
Crescent
Drive,
on
November,
7,
18
and
with
the
sale
they
sold
off
the
parking
area
and
the
location
where
the
dumpster
was
located.
Here's
an
exhibit
25
a,
and
it
shows
here's
where
the
garage
is
gonna,
be
that
was
the
existing
parking
before
it
was
sold
off.
D
So
26
is
a
copy
of
the
easement
agreement
that
was
previously
upheld
by
the
board,
and
it
says
that
the
parking
easement
for
the
limited
purposes
of
constructor
replacing,
repairing
and
maintaining
the
parking
area
as
a
parking
lot
for
the
ownership
operation
of
the
apartment
building,
including
a
trash
enclosure
in
the
general
area,
just
picked
it
in
exhibit
a
this
is
Exhibit.
A
shows
the
garage
and
here's
where
they
show
the
dumpster
right
there.
D
So
what
we
have
is
they
also
lost
legal
and
conforming
rights.
They
sold
it
off
that
broke
the
the
continuous
ownership
of
these
two
properties
to
be
used
together.
They
didn't
do
the
easement
for
six
months,
which
gave
them
that
right
back,
so
it
lapse
for
six
months
and
pursuant
to
the
ordinance
you
can't
let
it
lapse,
and
that
would
be.
D
I'll
put
in
the
parking,
easement
and
or
you
submit
just
example
26.
So
what
we
really
have
is
two
two
reasons
that
they
lost
legal
on
conforming
or
only
have
lots
of
reason,
but
two
reasons
that
they
lost
legally
non-conforming
rights.
They
sold
it
off
that
broke
the
legal,
conforming
rights
to
use
that
area
for
parking
and
the
dumpster
enclosure
that
broke
they.
Let
that
use
of
that
legally
lapse
for
six
months,
because
it
took
them
over
six
months
to
get
the
easement
recorded
from
the
date
of
sale
to
the
easement
being
recorded.
D
Additionally,
the
place
that
the
dumpster
was
now
is
a
garage,
so
you
have
eliminated
the
space
on
the
land,
use
that
the
dumpster
can
be
by
building
something
else
on
top
of
it.
So
it
has
to
move
because
there's
no
there's
no
other
way
for
where
it
to
go
once
it
moves,
and
it
loses
legal
non-conforming
rights
to
be
where
it
is
we're
requiring
a
dumpster
enclosure.
D
It's
not
because
the
dumpster
can
move
around
it's,
because
the
place
that
it
was
previously
legal
on
conforming
doesn't
exist
anymore,
because
there's
a
garage
there
and
to
those
properties
being
joined
together
for
legal
non-conforming
rights
expired
when
they
sold
it
off
and
lapse
for
six
months
before
they
put
before
they
entered
an
easement
agreement.
Can.
D
1:34
1353
is
some
land
and
ocean
structures
and
structures
in
district
other
than
an
art
district
refers
you
back
to
134,
13,
52,
B
and
4.
So
it
says
a
non-conforming
use
of
a
structural
and
in
combination
is
abandoned,
the
use
of
which
shall
therefore
conform
with
use
permitted
in
the
district
and
which
is
located.
You
shall
be
deemed
abandoned
if,
while
such
use
has
been
discontinued,
the
owner
of
the
property
makes
any
change
their
property
inconsistent
or
resumption
of
such
use.
D
The
the
building
of
a
garage
absolutely
makes
a
change
in
the
property
inconsistent
with
the
use
of
a
dumpster
that
site,
you
can't
put
it
there.
The
land
is
such
as
a
land
of
solder
put
to
another
use.
Use
use
was
granted
by
an
easement
entered
into
722
of
nineteen,
but
the
sale
of
the
property
was
six
months
prior
to
that,
so
they
were
using
them
in
combination
for
the
for
the
dumpster
enclosure.
That
was
fine.
D
They
sold
it
off,
so
they
lost
a
lot
Billy
DeLong
conforming
rights
to
that
portion
of
land
here
because
they
sold
it
off.
Then
they
came
in
with
an
easement
said:
okay,
we're
gonna.
These
two
houses
will
grant
them
an
easement,
so
they
can
use
this
area
for
parking
in
the
GART
and
the
dumpster
enclosure.
We
had
a
hearing
on
that.
Whether
the
easement
was
sufficient
to
grant
that
and
the
board
ruled
it
was
in
the
meantime.
Then
they
built
a
garage
where
the
dumpster
was
they
showed.
On
this
plan.
D
The
dumpster
was
going
to
move
over
here
now,
they're,
arguing
that
since
the
dumpster
can
roll
around
anywhere
that
they
can
put
it
here
and
they
don't
have
to
build
a
dumpster
enclosure-
that's
not
logical
once
it
once
they
lost
lost
the
location
for
that
dumpster
to
be
in
and
and
they
can't
build
it
there
and
I
have
to
move
it.
The
code
says
they
have
to
have
an
enclosure,
so
we're
asking
them
to
enclose
it.
J
A
D
A
D
Recorded
and
we
would
have
had
the
decision
by
the
board
that
the
easement
was
sufficient
to
grant
them
the
off-street
parking
and
we
might
be
in
a
different
situation,
but
they
didn't
they
waited
six
months
before
they
recorded
it
and
then
they
came
then
I
said
no.
The
easement
doesn't
doesn't
give
you
the
right
to
eliminate
the
backyards
of
the
houses
and
the
board
said.
Well,
you
can
you
can
use
these
men
and
it
doesn't
matter
about
the
setbacks
to
the
house.
D
D
D
You
later
said:
okay,
they
can
use
that
as
part
of
the
as
part
of
the
structure
as
part
of
the
apartment
complex,
but
they
built
a.
They
built
a
garage
where
their
dumpster
enclosure
would
have
had
legal
non-conforming
rights
to
stay.
So
then
it
has
to
move
and
it
needs
an
enclosure.
Under
the
code.
E
G
D
D
D
A
D
F
Look
just
to
clarify,
so
the
staff
did
state
that
we
can't
determine
parking
here.
Simply
we
have
lost
the
ability
to
appeal
the
December
2018
letter,
but
it's
a
matter
for
a
different
day.
How
many
parking
stalls
are
required
for
the
party?
That's
what
I
understood
staff!
It's
an
82
chapter,
82
issue
that
can't
be
decided
today.
It
will
determine
the
specific
number
of
parking
stalls
at
a
later
date.
Unless
anyone
has
any
questions,
they
would
like
to
ask
me:
I.
F
With
respect
to
the
abandonment
of
a
legally
non-conforming
use
for
the
dumpster
enclosure
staff
talks
about
a
lot
of
different
facts,
but
she
doesn't
really
analyze
the
requirements
of
section
134,
13
53
and
she
read
it
verbatim
and
there
are
two
requirements.
The
first
is
discontinuance
and
then
a
change
that
is
inconsistent
with
the
resumption.
My
client
hasn't
stopped
using
the
dumpster,
it's
always
used
the
dumpster,
and
until
it
stops
using
the
dumpster
it's
legally
non-conforming
use
remains.
F
Staff
doesn't
have
any
support
that
the
movement
of
a
dumpster
constitutes
a
discontinuance
of
use
and
that's
what
needs
to
be
decided
here.
My
client
has
to
discontinue
the
use
of
the
dumpster,
not
the
use
in
a
specific
location
of
the
dumpster
prior
to
an
abandonment
of
its
legally
non-conforming
use,
and
in
this
case
it
simply
moved
the
dumpster
about
8
to
10
feet
to
the
south.
But
it's
always
used
the
dumpster
for
the
property.
G
G
F
So
this
is
going
to
roll
back
into
the
parking
issue,
so
I
apologize
but,
as
you
may
recall,
from
the
first
time,
I
was
up
here.
My
position
was,
and
still
is,
that
parking
requirements
is
based
upon
the
application
of
a
site
plan.
Whenever
we
file
a
site
plan,
city
staff
is
going
to
I
presume,
take
the
position
that
we
have
insufficient
parking
and
that's
not
the
position.
That's
the
correct
position,
there's
no
legal
requirement
that
requires
my
client
to
file
a
site
plan.
F
F
F
Well,
he's
objecting
to
is
staffs
position
that
he's
lost
his
rights,
his
legally
non-conforming
rights.
My
client
has
legally
non-conforming
rights
and
the
requirements
under
the
law
to
abandon
those
legally
non-conforming
right,
so
he
has
to
stop
the
use
which
he
has
not
done,
and
then
there
must
be
a
change.
That's
inconsistent
with
the
resumption
of
the
use,
both
of
those
must
be
met
and
my
clients
never
discontinued.
The
use
of
the
dumpster
can.
A
You
turn
this
because
I
know
it's
in
your
letter
or
I.
Don't
know
if
it's,
maybe
it's
not
in
this
letter.
I
guess,
but
your
letter
they
got
passed
around
does
cite
to
the
actual
part
of
the
code
and
for
some
reason
it's
not
in
our
packet,
but
the
part
of
the
code
that
deals
with
legal
non-conforming
use,
because
I
think
that
it
was
helpful
to
actually
see.
G
A
C
F
This
subsection
B
states
the
not
it's
the
just
what
non-conforming
rights
are
and,
and
what
that
says
is
whenever
you,
whenever
there's
a
change
in
the
zoning
code
that
creates
the
property
from
you
that
causes
the
property
to
be
out
of
compliance.
Nevertheless,
the
city's
not
going
to
require
property
property
owners
to
take
affirmative
actions
to
bring
it
into
compliance.
Rather,
they
have
a
right
to
continue
the
property,
as
it's
always
been
used.
So
you
have
a
legally
non-conforming
right
until
you
abandon
that
right.
F
And
abandonment,
the
the
applicable
subsections
for
abandonment
in
this
appeal
are
subsection,
five
and
subsection
six
and,
as
you
can
see,
each
of
these
requires
a
discontinuance
of
use
prior
to
abandonment,
arising
and
staff
hasn't
taken.
The
position
that
my
client
has
stopped
using
the
dumpster
rather
they've,
taken
the
position
that
the
movement
of
a
dumpster
which
which
has
wheels,
which
gets
moved
every
week
when
it
gets
emptied,
constitutes
and
abandonment
a
discontinuance
and
that's
simply
not
the
case.
F
H
A
L
The
read
apartments
willingly
entered
into
an
agreement
with
Owen
LLC
to
sell
those
two
units
for
$250,000
whether
it
was
not
through
proper
determination
of
where
the
land
lines
were,
then
that's
what
caused
them
to
enter
into
an
easement
agreement.
So
I
assume
they
never
had
any
non-compliance.
Letters
before
they
sold
the
property
by
making
that
choice
to
sell
the
property
and
gain
the
financial
benefit,
then
they
became
under
non-compliance.
I
did
receive
a
letter
from
a
representative
of
Reed
asking
if
I
would
cooperate
with
them
by
allowing
their
tenants
to
use.
L
My
dumpster
I
said
that
really
didn't
make
much
sense.
The
only
compensation
they
were
offering
was
to
pay
for
my
tipping
fees,
which
was
about
$1,000
a
year.
The
liability
of
having
that
many
people
come
under
my
property
for
the
purpose
of
jumping
their
trash
didn't
make
sense,
but
we
do
have
a
common
property
line
and
I
offer
to
grant
an
easement
without
cost
for
them
to
use
that
to
build
an
enclosure
on
several
different
locations.
L
I
never
received
any
response
or
anything
like
you
know,
a
site
plan,
or
even
where
do
you
propose
to
build
it?
There
is
a
piece
of
land
that
we
were
actually
sued
for
for
someone
that
trespassed
and
injured
themselves
and
I
thought
let's
finally
cooperate
and
make
this
a
better
area
and
I'll
be
happy
to
grant
you
easement
for
my
property
again
without
cost,
to
build
an
enclosure
here
or
further
towards
the
front
of
the
building.
I
would
grant
that
land
as
well,
so
there's
many
places
where
they
could
build
an
enclosure.
L
A
L
Property
with
cigar
sources,
duplex,
solar
loan
and
sales-
is
these
two
properties,
and
then
our
common
border
is
right.
There,
okay-
and
this
particular
corner
right
here-
is
where
I
proposed
that
we
built
an
enclosure
and
as
it
is,
my
property
line
actually
goes
into
part
of
an
area
that
the
garage
is
is
using
as
well.
They
again
haven't
raised
an
issue
with.
D
Really
briefly,
for
clarification
under
134
1352
to
note,
non-conforming
usually
moved
in
in
part
to
any
other
portion
of
the
lot
or
parcel
which
is
not
was
not
occupied
by
such
use
at
the
effective
date
of
the
ordinance
adopting
or
amended
amending
the
chapter.
So
they
can't
just
move
that
dumpster
from
the
place
that
it
was
always
established
to
be
to
another
portion
without
violating
the
code
number
two.
They
have
lost
their
legal
non-conforming
rights
to
the
use
of
the
area
when
they
sold
it
off.
That
was
proof
of
an
attempt
to
discontinue
the
use.
D
They
rectified
it
later
with
an
easement
agreement
that
they
entered
into,
but
it
was
six
months
after
the
sale.
Any
use
that
discontinues
for
six
months
in
a
commercial
zone
loses
legal
non-conforming
strip
rights
so
either
way
you
can
argue
it
either
way
that
when
they
sold
it,
they
lost
the
lead
of
the
non-conforming
rights.
If
that
argument
fails
they
when
they
sold
it,
they
discontinued
it
by
selling
it
and
didn't
reestablish
it
for
an
easement
that
they
entered
for
six
months.
It's
lost
its
legal
non-conforming
rights.
D
They
don't
get
to
decide
when
they're
gonna
bring
in
a
site
plan.
The
code
tells
them
when
they
need
to
bring
in
a
site
plan.
This
is
a
situation
that
absolutely
needs
to
bring
in
a
site
plan,
so
we
can
see.
What's
going
on
out
there,
chapter
82
demands
it.
You
can't
you
can't
override
that.
That's
a
different
chapter,
you
don't
have
the
right,
it's
my
argument
that
they
have
to
put
in
a
dumpster
enclosure.
J
D
J
I'm
saying
they're
not
submitting
the
site
plan
because
they
disagree
with
what
you're
doing
and
by
submitting
the
site
plan
they're.
Basically,
then
you
know
and
maybe
I'm
missing
something
here:
they're
I
guess
basically
saying:
okay
you're
right.
We
need
to
get
this
figured
out.
So
what
they're
doing
is
they're
objecting
by
not
submitting
the
sites
like.
D
J
Far
as
okay,
as
far
as
the
dumpster
goes
all
right,
there
probably
isn't
a
dumpster
in
this
town,
I
shouldn't
say
that
most
of
them
that
I
see
in
situations
like
this
are
on
wheels.
So
the
fact
that
it's
on
wheels
doesn't
matter
anything
there
ought
to
be
an
enclosure
on
this
thing,
whether
they
want
to
locate
it
somewhere
else
or
not.
I
think,
if
that's
from
a
convenience
standpoint
for
the
property,
let
them
move
it
just
put
it
put
it
in
enclosure
around
it.
I
mean
somebody
built
a
garage
there.
J
J
I
know
and
you've
got
you
get.
You
gave
us
15
years
worth
of
history,
where
I
see
a
picture
where
a
dumpster
sat
now,
there's
a
garage
there,
I'm
Sann
and
I'm
not
taking
a
side
here
other
than
there
ought
to
be
a
dumpster
enclosure
around
this
thing,
whether
it's
located
next
to
the
garage
or
it's
on
the
other
side
of
the
property
I,
don't
care
there
ought
to
be
an
enclosure
around
it.
Everybody
talks
about
being
on
wheels
big
deal
feather
on
wheels,
it's
pretty
easier
for
the
guy
to
dump
in
it.
J
So
I'm
just
saying
we
need
to
figure
out,
and
then
this
is
a
really
complicated
situation.
Okay,
I'll
give
you
that
and
I
think
some
people
are
planned
from
a
convenience
standpoint,
err
from
their
perspective.
Well,
we
don't
have
to
do
this
and
by
not
doing
it,
then
we've
got
a
case
and
I
don't
agree
with
that
either.
So
we
need
to
get
something
to
clear
it
up
today,
because
we've
spent
way
too
much
time.
On
this
thing,
my
estimation
we're.
D
J
If
they
put
an
enclosure
up,
they
won't
bill
move
around
because
they've
got
to
keep
it
in
the
enclosure.
So
that's
like
putting
a
fence
around
my
yard,
so
my
dog
doesn't
get
out.
So
they
put
the
enclosure
up.
They're,
not
gonna,
be
wheeling
it
all
over
the
property.
I,
don't
think
because
traditionally.
J
D
G
J
F
A
What's
what's
your
response
to
the
relevant
language
that
she's
it's
not
there
anymore,
but
just
under
that
top
sheet
of
paper
to
the
right
of
you,
that's
part
of
the
code
that
appears
to
describe
use
of
land
and
the
restrictions
on
non-conforming
use,
including
a
restriction
on
moving
that
non-conforming
use
to
another
portion
of
the
lot
or
parcel
that
wasn't
occupied
by
such
use
as
of
the
effective
date.
So.
F
H
F
F
So,
there's
a
difference
between
a
non-conforming
use
of
land
and
a
non-conforming
use
of
land
and
structures
right.
My
client
is
using
the
land
appropriately.
It's
authorized
to
use
the
land
for
multifamily
purposes.
That's
a
use!
Now
the
non-conforming
use
of
land
and
structures
is
what
is
at
play
here.
So
if
you
look
at
1353
subsection,
a
which
incorporates
1352,
as
the
zoning
enforcement
officer
noted,
it
states
non-conforming
uses
of
land,
not
non-conforming
uses
of
land
and
structures,
whereas
elsewhere
in
the
code,
it
references,
non-conforming
use
of
structures.
B
F
That's
as
well
I
think
whether
a
dumpster
enclosure
ought
to
be
built
and
whether
a
dumpster
enclosure
is
legally
required
to
be
built
is
what
needs
it
is
is
really
the
issue,
and
this
boards
role
is
not
to
determine
whether
one
ought
to
be
built.
It's
whether
to
determine
one
is
legally
required
right,
built.
A
A
G
We
might
call
it
living
here
is
on
non,
confirming
use
of
land
or
non-conforming
use
of
structure,
I,
think
a
structure
on
the
land.
It
becomes
part
of
the
land.
We
talk
about
sheds
that
aren't
permanently
attached
to
the
ground.
There
are
movable
sheds
and
where
they
can
be
located
and
how
big
they
can
be,
and
everything
else
like
that.
So
I.
A
C
A
G
J
I
I
A
E
B
H
A
H
A
A
And
just
in
seconds
that
they
have
not
lost
non-conforming
use,
there's
a
motion
in
a
second
all,
those
in
favor
say:
aye,
raise
your
right
hand
all
those
in
favor
or
all
those
opposed,
raise
your
right
hand
all
right.
So
the
zoning
officers,
because
it
was
an
appeal
of
the
zoning
officers,
determination
because.
I
A
A
C
M
A
M
M
Then,
years
later
they
incorporated
this
portion,
then
they
went
through
a
process
where
some
some
of
the
right
away
ended
up
being
vacated
of
southeast
21st
Street,
and
then
they
went
through
a
rezoning
process
to
rezone
land
so
that
they
could
ask
for
a
conditional
use
then
to
incorporate
this
portion
right
here,
and
so
they
have
they.
The
situation
is
that
they
have.
M
M
They
are
now
working
with
staff
to
try
to
come
into
compliance.
They
had
enforcement
ongoing.
Some
of
the
conditions
of
these
various
orders
were
not
kept
in
compliance
or
brought
into
compliance
initially
with
with
the
decision
at
the
time,
one
of
those
pieces
would
being
not
having
a
site
plan
for
the
for
the
expansions
with
with
some
of
the
elements,
so
in
an
effort
to
sort
of
get
this
cleaned
into
one
site
under
one
compound
use.
M
They
filed
under
the
previous
code
before
the
December
15th
effective
date
of
the
currently
enforceable
code
for
a
conditional
use
permit
just
so
you're
aware
under
the
current
code,
it
would
be
the
same
thing
they
would
have
I
to
zoning
and
we
would
still
be
looking
at
a
conditional
use
process
for
a
junk
and
salvage
yard.
Basically,
so
really
nothing
in
it.
From
this
particular
scenario
doesn't
really
change.
M
Given
the
new
code,
they
happen
to
file
it
under
the
old
just
too,
so
they
didn't
have
to
try
to
sort
through
any
changes
in
the
in
the
code
sections
or
anything
like
that,
but
essentially
what
staff
did
then
is
review.
Okay.
What
elements
of
this
are
in
compliance?
What
elements
aren't
sort
of
what
changed
in
the
interim
I
guess,
one
of
the
big
things
that
changed
in
the
interim
was
how
we
looked
at
dustless
and
durable
surfaces
for
outdoor
storage
use
and
junk
and
salvage
uses.
H
M
And
one
of
the
area's
that's
really
problematic
in
the
city
is
this
particular
area
of
the
city,
the
industrial
users.
A
lot
of
that
was
due
to
both
untamed
city,
roads,
public
road
surfaces,
which
prompted
modifications
to
how
we
treat
and
maintain
city
streets
that
were,
you
know,
not
paved
streets
at
the
time
and
also
requiring
that
it's
storage
and
so
forth,
occur
on
dustless
surfaces
and
parking
and
in
driveways
be
paved.
H
M
M
Storage
areas
to
be
maintained
going
forward
with
a
dusty
material.
We
want
a
dustless
and
durable
material
that
doesn't
wash
away
and
by
moseph
eyeing
it
also
stays
cohesive
or
sticks
together.
It
doesn't
wash
away
from
the
site
and
have
to
be
maintained
frequently,
so
that's
another
piece
to
it
so
that
that
was
in
previous
renditions.
M
Now
the
question
was
always:
was
it
only
applicable
to
this
consideration
for
the
new
expansion
or
the
you
know,
the
existing
site,
I
suppose,
there's
some
argument
to
be
made
one
way
or
the
other
I
think
staff
just
wants
to
get
something
that
is
in
compliance.
I
would
say
that
we're
not
pushing
for
things
that
are
would
be
applied
to
something
brand-new.
If
this
were
built
today,
I
think
there's
additional
things
that
we
would
ask
for,
such
as
open
space,
Oh
a
lot
more
open
space.
M
What
we
did
is
we
looked
at
the
previous
orders
and
tried
to
incorporate
as
much
as
possible
from
those
that
was
reasonable
and
not
onerous
both
and
still
achieved.
What
we're
trying
to
do,
which
is
essentially
get
some
open
space,
some
shading,
that
we
get
through
landscaping
and
this
surfacing
that
is
acceptable
and
doesn't
create
impacts
on
the
surrounding
area.
So
when
you
look
at
this
list
of
staff
recommendations,
it
really
is
kind
of
a
condensation
or
a
collection
of
the
three
orders
together.
M
Staff
doesn't
believe
they
meet
the
test
of
hardship
to
grant
that,
but
we
believe
that
they
can
achieve
the
intent
of
the
ordinance
with
the
durable
and
dustless
material
for
the
storage
areas
going
forward
and
would
not
need
that
variance.
So
we
are
recommending
denial
of
the
variance
that
just
outright
ask
for
the
waiver
of
the
paving
and
requirement
altogether
so
that
based
on
that
finding
and
so,
but
we
believe
that
what
they're
able
to
do
fairly
reasonably
moving
forward
is
use
that
dustless
material
as
they
have
to
maintain
that
surface
over
time.
M
M
For
a
slight
modification
in
our
and
my
interactions
with
their
attorney
and
we're
not
gonna
I,
don't
think
we're
gonna
stand
away,
stand
in
the
way
of
that.
I
think
we're
we're
of
the
same
mind
that
it
means
what
they're
asking
for
meets
the
same
intent
of
what
we're
trying
to
achieve
so
I
think
they're
just
concerned
that
the
way
it
reads
is
that
we
want
instantaneous
application
of
that
material
for
storage
areas
and
that
really
wasn't
the
intent.
It
was
more
about
making
sure
as
we
move
forward,
everything
is
maintained
with
that
material.
M
M
Is
that
we
want
to
make
sure
it
is
in
accordance
with
a
site
plan?
So,
yes,
we
do
still
need
a
site
plan
of
record
that
we
can
enforce
over
time
going
forward.
That
reflects
the
items
that
need
to
be
done,
and
so
we
we
did
not
get
that
in
previous
actions
of
the
board.
It
also
required
the
site
plan,
so
I
think
we
still
are
keeping
that
piece
into
it
and
we
do
want
that
in
all
likelihood
that
would
be
professionally
prepared.
M
Number
two:
the
provision,
all
driveways
parking,
lots
and
required
impermeable
areas
for
fluid
recovery
and
dismantling
shall
be
surfaced
with
Portland
cement,
concrete
or
hot
mix
asphalt,
so
cement.
You
know
what
two
types
of
paving
surfaces
both
either
one
is
acceptable,
and
then
all
other
areas
for
storage
shall
be
surfaced
with
pavement
or
recycled
asphalt.
M
So
we
don't
want
to
preclude
them
from
paving
these
areas
if
they
want
to,
but
they
that
recycled
asphalt
product
going
into
the
future
is
a
appropriate
material
to
be
maintaining
these
with
three
any
encroachment
of
junk
and
salvaged
vehicles
onto
private
property
to
the
west
shall
be
removed.
So
if
you
look
at,
there
is
a
slight
area
right
here
that
I
believe
there's
some
there
in
negotiations
with
the
adjoining
owner
over
whether
it's
theirs
or
they're,
going
to
purchase
it.
M
H
M
Any
use
of
the
site
for
a
salvage
yard
she'll
be
screened
by
a
minimum
eight
foot
tall,
metal
fence
with
uniform,
color
and
material.
All
fences
shall
be
maintained
and
good
repaired.
This
carries
from
the
previous
orders,
I
believe
they're
they're
already,
in
conformance
with
this.
For
the
most
part,
they
may
have
some
places
they
need
to
keep
it
maintained.
M
H
M
For
with
the
previous
decision
and
orders,
one
of
the
things
that
we've
discovered-
it's
not
very
practical-
this
is
a
levee
right
here
and
one
of
the
orders
asked
for
trees
to
be
spaced
along
this
property
line,
and
one
of
the
things
we
do
actually
don't
want
to
see
now
is
root
systems
getting
into
the
to
the
toe
of
our
levee,
so
we're
not
pushing
for
any
trees
in
this
request
for
this
recommendation.
We
do
think,
however,
that
they
still
can
provide
spacing
of
trees.
M
M
The
other
piece
of
this
is
because
they
have
a
lot
of
vehicles
in
some
of
these
areas.
They
don't
get
moved
around
overnight,
but
they
do
over
time,
get
processed
through
and
removed.
As
the
you
know,
the
parts
get
taken
off
of
these,
so
we
gave
them
we're
recommending
a
two-year
time
frame
the
length
of
the
decision
and
order
effectiveness
anyway
to.
B
M
Into
compliance
with
that,
if
they
want
the
idea
being
that
they
can
incrementally
displace
areas
that
are
currently
maybe
storage
or
out,
you
know
for
junk
vehicles
or
for
other
purposes
and
get
the
landscaping
in
incrementally
during
times
when
it's
appropriate
to
plant
landscaping.
That
type
of
thing
we
think
two
years
is
a
reasonable
amount
of
time.
To
do
that,
number
six
is
pretty
standard
language.
Any
dismantling
or
repair
of
vehicles
shall
appear
only
on
a
permeable
surface,
with
adequate
provision
for
collection
and
disposal.
M
Possibly
so
we
want
to
make
sure
they're
doing
it
on
a
impermeable
surface
that
meets
the
intent
junk
number
seven
Junkins
salvaged
materials
should
not
be
stacked
higher
than
the
perimeter
fence
within
75
feet
of
that.
So,
if
the
fence
is
at
the
perimeter,
you
know
they
shouldn't
be
stacking
higher
than
the
fence
until
you're
75
feet
away
from
the
fence
interior
to
the
site,
and
then.
H
M
B
M
E
M
M
M
E
M
And
we
have
been
trying
to
work
with
them
so
we're
trying.
We
know,
we
know
this
is
a
business,
that's
active
and
it's
not
something
that's
just
kind
of
a
part-time
situation.
It's
a
driving
business
that,
but
we
just
need
to
get
these
things
into
compliance
and
we're
working
with
them
to
try
to
get
that
as
easy
as
we
can
I
guess,
thanks.
N
Thank
You,
mr.
chairman
members
of
the
board,
my
name
is
Brian
Mayer
I'm,
their
attorney
for
y'all
salvage
address
is
1217
Army,
Post
Road,
Harding
law
firm
in
Des,
Moines,
Iowa,
five,
zero,
three
one,
five
I'll
just
go
through
the
staff
recommendations
and
point
out.
We
have
been
in
discussions
and
recognize
the
enforcement
factor
that
is
involved
here,
but
we
have
been
in
discussion
with
the
staff
on
how
to
best
proceed.
B
N
What
you
are
doing
is
you
are
eliminating
three
conditional
use
permits
and
rolling
them
into
one
which
I
think
benefits
the
city
in
terms
of
having
one
document
to
go
off
of
one
site
plan
to
go
off
of
for
enforcement
purposes.
We
agree
with
all
of
the
staff
recommendations.
We
have
no
problems
with
them,
except
for
a
few
minor
changes
that
I
talked
to
mr.
Lundy
about
this
morning.
N
Number
one:
we
have
no
problem
with
number
two
sentence:
number
two,
which
I
think
mr.
Lundy
referred
to.
The
concern
that
we
had
was
on
number
two.
All
other
areas
for
storage
shall
be
surface
with
pavement
or
recycled
asphalt
product.
Our
concern
was:
he
can't
do
that
now
that
would
be
cost
prohibitive
and
the
agreement
or
the
compromise
I
think
that
we
came
up
with
the
city.
Was
that
be
maintaining
mr.
N
Lundy
referred
to
as
maintaining
and
moving
forward
that
as
it
need
to
be
replaced
that
it
would
be
replaced
with
what
the
city
is
recommending
here?
The
recycled
asphalt
product,
so
they
can't
go
in
and
change
it
to
recycled
asphalt,
partic
product
now,
but
as
the
as
the
replacement
product
comes
in,
we
are
certainly
willing
to
do
that.
That's
not
a
problem,
but
it
would
be
cost
prohibitive
to
do
it
now
and
I
think
the
intent
mr.
Lundy
stated
was
that
it
would
be
moving
forward
and
not
a
requirement
now
number.
H
N
H
B
H
N
We
have
no
problem
with
number
five.
We
really
don't
have
a
problem
with,
because
we'll
just
plant
the
trees
within
the
perimeters
of
the
fencing,
I
think
the
concern
was
when
I
looked
at
it
this
morning
and
talked
to
mr.
Lundy,
that
the
concern
was
that
the
fence
is
on
the
property
line
and
there
was
no
opportunity
to
plant
outside
of
the
property
line,
and
so,
if
they
want
us
to
plant
within
the
property
line,
the
the
three
over
two
story-
trees,
three
evergreens
and
three
shrubs
I-
think
we're.
Okay.
N
N
A
G
G
G
M
M
M
G
A
N
About
if
we
could
keep
the
language
and
I
know,
sue
just
asked
me
about
ten
years,
but
we
would
prefer
to
keep
the
language
as
it
needs
to
be
replaced,
which
I
think
was
the
city's
intent
to
begin
with.
So
we
don't
want
to
put
a
time
frame
on
it
simply
because
again,
there
may
be
some
areas
that
never
need
to
be
replaced
or
replaced
within
10
years,
but
rather
that
as
they're
moving
and
and
need
to
replace
that
that
they
know
if
it
makes
the
city
more
comfortable,
they
can't
use.
N
A
A
I
guess
I
might
have
a
quick
one
for
Sue
Ann
on
the
enforcement
piece,
I
kind
of
understood
that
you
had
suggested
a
10-year
time
frame,
which
sounds
like
that's
not
really
workable
for
them,
or
they
would
prefer
not
to
realistically,
is
that
type
of
timeframe?
Does
that
really
make
your
job
any
easier
until
it
gets
to
ten
years,
or
would
you
have
the
same
kind
of
challenges
evaluating
whether
they're
actually
replacing
as
they
should
be
over
that
ten
year
pen
time
frame?
It.
A
D
L
D
J
H
B
J
D
J
J
G
It's
a
good
idea
that
way.
You
know,
I
understand
that
was
under
three
different
parcels
and
different
rules,
and
everything
is
getting
more
streamlined
for
them.
I
am
all
in
favor
and
I
would
be
willing
to
make
a
motion
changing
the
rules
on
or
the
staff
recommendation
for,
number
two
to
say
that
they
replace
the
stuff,
as
as
it
needs,
replaced
and
not
put
timeframe
on
it
at
the
for
the
hot
asphalt
in
the
Portland
cement
and
then
number
four.
G
No,
it
was
number
three
I'm,
the
encroaching
the
parcel
property
just
say
onto
the
adjacent
property
owners
property
to
the
west
and
then,
if
they
own
it,
then
that's
not
longer
the
adjacent
property
owner
they
own,
it
so
I
think
I've.
Always
everything
else
is
fun
and
they're
fine
with
it.
So
that's
what
I
would
like
to
make
a
motion
on
all.