►
From YouTube: 7-22-20 Zoning Board of Adjustment
Description
Des Moines Zoning Board of Adjustment meeting via teleconference on Wednesday, July 22, 2020.
Help us caption & translate this video!
https://amara.org/v/C1riE/
A
B
Okay,
when
we
get
to
roll
call
for
for
any
item,
we
have
to
vote
on
we'll
just
double
check
on
that.
Okay,
all
right,
I'm
gonna
go
ahead
and
try
to
start
my
video.
C
C
B
All
right
good
afternoon,
everyone,
my
name-
is
mel
pins,
the
chair
of
the
city
of
des
moines,
zoning
board
of
adjustment-
we're
just
I'm
just
going
to
have
video
on
here
briefly,
so
we
can
welcome
everybody
to
the
hearing
here
today.
Try
to
make
this
as
personable
as
possible.
B
There
are
just
a
few
differences
because
we're
doing
this
through
zoom
online,
but
the
general
hearing
itself
will
follow
our
same
procedure.
So
just
for
kind
of
this
preamble
and
opening
statement.
I
just
wanted
to
welcome
everybody
with
a
smile
here
today,
so
I'll
go
ahead
and
begin
here
again
good
afternoon.
Welcome
to
the
monthly
meeting
of
the
city
of
des
moines
zoning
board
of
adjustment.
B
The
members
of
this
board
are
citizens
of
the
city
of
des
moines
and
have
been
appointed
to
this
board
by
the
city
council.
The
board
members
are
volunteers
and
they
receive
no
compensation
for
their
public
service.
I'm
going
to
take
a
minute
here
and
go
through
the
names
of
our
board
members.
We
have
seven
board
members.
They
include
justin
gross
dave,
gare,
lynn,
carlson,
marlis
jones
smith,
nathan
blake.
B
Our
vice
chair
is
nathan
and
my
name
again
is
mel
pins,
chair
of
the
zoning
board
of
adjustment,
I'm
going
to
introduce
our
city
staff
here
as
well
briefly,
they're
helping
us
sometimes
behind
the
scene,
so
you
may
or
may
not
hear
from
them
today,
legal
counsel,
the
zoning
board
of
adjustment
from
the
city
is
judy
park's
crew,
michael
ludwig,
is
the
planning
administrator,
bert
drost,
planner
duane
donovan
is
the
city's
zoning
enforcement
officer.
B
Tyler
hall
is
our
meeting
moderator.
Dolores
rosino
is
also
our
meeting
moderator
eric
lundy,
the
planner
jason
vanessa
city,
planner
and
catherine
dostart
city
planner.
I'm
going
to
briefly
go
through
our
meetings
procedure
again.
This
is
basically
the
same
procedure
that
we
would
have
whether
we're
all
live
together
in
one
room
or
doing
this
here
by
telephone
or
computer
connection.
B
B
B
B
They
will
be
considered
for
approval
in
accordance
with
the
recommendations
in
the
staff
report,
unless
the
appellate
does
not
agree
to
the
conditions
recommended
by
staff
or
if
there
is
an
individual
or
board
member.
That
requested
the
item
be
removed
from
the
consent
agenda,
so
that
a
full
discussion
on
the
matter
can
occur,
and
I
will
come
back
to
this
in
just
a
minute
as
we
do
get
to
that
consent
agenda
in
order
to
help
everybody
through
that
for
the.
C
B
B
We
will
then
move
to
the
public
comment
portion
of
the
hearing.
Anyone
who
wishes
to
speak
in
support
of
the
appeal
in
opposition
to
the
appeal
or
maybe
they're
just
neutral
to
the
appeal,
but
would
like
to
address
the
board.
They
will
then
be
allowed
up
to
five
minutes
each
to
present
their
comment.
B
This
will
be
their
one
and
only
opportunity
to
address
the
board.
So
we
will
let
people
know
when
the
appropriate
opportunity
is
present
for
them
to
address
the
board,
but
outside
of
that
there
will
be
no
questions
or
answers
or
opportunities
for
folks
to
give
comment.
B
When
I
call
for
comments,
you
can
press
star
and
then
the
nine,
the
number
nine
star
nine
on
your
phone
when
it
is
your
turn,
either
by
zoom
or
phone.
B
The
meeting
moderator
will
unmute
your
microphone
through
this
application
and
that
will
acknowledge
that
it
is
your
turn
if
you
are
using
any
documents
or
want
to
refer
to
any
graphics
or
presentation,
you
must
ensure
that
you
send
them
by
email
to
planning
at
dmgov.org,
so
planning
pla
and
then
ing
at
dmgov.org
once
again,
that's
planning
at
dmgov.org.
B
B
All
speakers
are
required
to
begin
their
presentation
by
giving
first,
both
their
complete
name
and
address,
if
you're
here
as
a
resident
or
live
or
work
at
the
address
in
question,
you
can
give
that
address.
If
you're
here
in
a
professional
capacity
as
an
attorney,
engineer,
architect
or
contractor,
you
can
give
your
business
address
so
again.
We
need
both
your
name
and
address
prior
to
you
giving
your
comment.
B
Speakers
are
also
asked
to
ensure
that
they
are
respectful
of
time
consideration
and,
if
necessary,
the
board
chair
will
limit
further
comments
by
a
speaker
if
they
exceed
their
time
limitation
and
again,
the
appellant
the
applicant
has
10
minutes
to
present
their
case.
They'll
also
be
given
a
three-minute
rebuttal
in
between
anyone
else
who
wishes
to
speak
in
support
opposition,
or
even
with
some
neutral
comments
on
an
item
they'll
be
given
five
minutes.
B
B
If
your
appeal
is
approved
today,
we
ask
that
you
wait
until
next
week,
if
you
might
need
to
contact
the
city's
permit
and
development
center
to
obtain
any
necessary
building
permits
for
anything
approved
here,
so
that
the
decision
of
the
board
can
be
documented
in
the
form
of
a
decision
and
order.
That
decision
and
order
will
then
be
provided
to
appropriate
city
staff,
and
you
will
receive
a
copy
as
well.
B
The
decisions
of
this
board
can
only
be
appealed
in
the
polk
county
district
court
if
you
believe
you've
been
harmed
by
an
error
made
by
this
board.
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
for
future
considerations.
B
B
B
We
also
ask
that,
within
the
zoom
format,
you
refrain
from
using
any
chat
or
question
and
answer
function,
so
don't
type
in
any
questions
or
comments.
As
part
of
this
hearing,
that
could
be
construed
as
what's
known
as
an
ex
parte
communication,
and
it
will
not
be
considered
in
this
hearing
process,
so
that's
kind
of
our
intro.
For
this
again,
we
will
help
everyone
through
the
process
here
today.
A
Mr
chair
members
of
the
board
bert
ross
planner
for
the
city
on
today's
agenda.
We
only
have
one
consent
item
and
that
is
for
a
conditional
use
at
2501
garden
road
that
has
recommended
approval
of
the
conditional
use,
and
so
that's
the
only
item
eligible
today
for
approval
via
the
consent
agenda.
Okay,.
C
D
B
All
right
so
item
one
is
on
the
consent
agenda.
Do
we
have
anyone
present
here
today,
either
by
telephone
or
within
the
zoom
application?
B
That
is
opposed
if
the
board
would
consider
approval
of
this
conditional
use
permit
at
2501
garden
road?
If
you
would
be
in
opposition
to
us
considering
approval
for
this,
if
you're
by
phone
please
hit
star
and
then
nine
or
by
zoom,
hit
the
raised
hand
function
and
then
we'll
have
one
of
the
staff
members
get
you
cued
in
here
again
anybody
here
in
opposition
to
potentially
granting
a
conditional
use
permit
at
2501
garden
road
related
to
item
one.
B
Is
there
any
member
of
this
board
that
would
be
in
opposition
to
potentially
granting
approval
for
the
conditional
use
permit?
If
there
is,
we
can
take
that
item
off
the
agenda.
If
you
have
any
questions
or
would
want
to
hear
that
item
directly,
is
there
anybody
from
this
board
with
any
concerns
on
item
one.
B
Okay
being
none,
would
there
be
a
motion
to
grant
approval
on
item
one
basically
granting
approval
of
the
consent
agenda?
Would
there
be
a
motion
from
one
of
our
board.
B
D
C
C
C
C
C
B
Okay,
all
right!
So
if
you
were
here
for
item
one
that
decision
and
order
will
come
out
to
you
probably
first
to
next
week
with
approval
on
that
and
then,
if
you
have
any
further
questions
on
those
approval
conditions,
you
can
talk
with
city
staff,
so
so
item
one
has
been
approved.
B
Okay,
so
we'll
move
on
to
the
regular
portion
of
our
public
hearing.
Our
first
item
up
for
consideration
is
an
appeal
determination
for
related
to
1922,
ingersoll
avenue
and
lamar
outdoor
advertising
of
iowa
incorporated
us.
This
is
an
appeal,
determination.
C
B
See,
city
staff
will
present
an
introduction
on
this
one
and
then
we
will
hear
from
the
appellant
lamar
so
I'll
turn
it
over
to
city
staff.
To
get
us
started
on
item
number
two.
B
The
city
of
des
moines
and
I
will
be
presenting
items
two
through
six
this
morning.
These
sites
are
independent
of
each
other,
but
all
of
the
issues
and
the
process
and
the
appeal
questions
are
the
same.
The
addresses
are
1922
ingersoll,
2724,
east
university,
4337
park,
avenue,
3519,
hubble
and
215
university,
since
there
aren't.
B
Facts
right,
okay,
all
right!
What
I
would
like
to
do,
then,
is
before
we
hear
from
our
board
members.
I
would
like
to
hear
from
lamar
outdoor
advertising
to
see
if
they
might
be
willing
to
consider
that
or
if
they
might
prefer
concur
with
that
as
well.
Yes,.
G
This
is,
this
is
will
reasoner
for
lamar
outdoor,
and
I
concur
with
ms
donovan
that
items
two
through
six
should
essentially
consist
of
one
presentation
from
each
side
and
should
be
decided
by
the
board
together.
B
B
If
not,
would
there
be
a
motion
to
combine
our
testimony
on
items
two
through
six
generally
to
we'd
also
have
to
do
that
in
confines
of
the
general
time
consideration.
So
would
there
be
somebody
who
would
want
to
make
that
motion.
B
H
C
C
E
E
B
Great,
thank
you,
tyler,
okay.
So
what
what
we
will
do
here
since
I
I
think
it's
my
understanding
from
what
dwan
said
that
the
facts
of
each
case
are
generally
the
same.
This
is
related
to
an
appeal
of
the.
I
think,
implementation
or
interpretation
of
the
zoning
ordinance
so
we'll
go
ahead
and
let
sue
ann
kick
us
off.
B
So
just
in
order
to
get
started,
I'm
going
to
ask
bert
to
go.
B
C
B
E
E
I
B
B
E
C
E
B
B
E
B
B
B
Reviewing
and
and
finishing
that
review
I
did
tell
lamar
that
the
permits
would
be
processed
processed
as
the
thing
that
we
were
doing
at
that
point.
So
I
asked
the
zoning
inspector
to
look
to
go
ahead
and
issue
the
building
permits.
She
correctly
saw.
B
B
And
special
testing
agreement
forms
were
submitted.
I
checked
the
transitional
provisions
of
the
new
code
and
determined
that
the
permits
were
incomplete.
The
use
of
conversion
credits
that
they
had
needed
to
be
used
under
the
new
code
exhibit
one
of
the
traditions
to
transitional
provisions
in
the
new
code
adopted
december
16th
of
2019
provides
that
in
part
that
any
building
development
or
structure
for
which
a
building
permit.
B
Permit
and
other
applicable
permits
and
conditions,
even
if
such
building
and
development
or
structure
does
not
comply
with
the
provisions
of
the
new
zoning
ordinance,
the
permits
were
not
issued,
they
were
not
completely
given
to
us.
Therefore
they
were,
they
were
told
that
the
permits
would
not
be
issued.
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
They
talked
about
number
26
and
paragraph
10
again
not
before
this
board.
This
board
cannot
discuss
or
decide
anything
under
chapter
26.
B
E
I
have
a
question:
this
is
lynn,
carlson,
okay,
so
if
this
can't
be
heard
by
this
board,
why
are
we
hearing
this?
They
made
an.
B
E
Is
legal
counsel
on
this
classroom?
I
was
going
to
confirm
the
same
thing
when
an
application
comes
in,
it's
merit
or
how
it
should
be
decided
even.
E
Point
we
have
to
then
provide
evidence
as
to
what
should
be
done
with
it.
In
this
case,
it
is
more
of
a
jurisdictional
issue
than
a
hearing
on
the
of
whether
your
minds
are
good,
bad
or
otherwise.
Okay,.
B
Suan,
I've
got
a
very
brief
that
kind
of
two
questions,
one
into
the
other
here.
If
a
yes,
a
permit
application
was
submitted.
In
essence,
the
city
said
it
was
an
incomplete
submittal.
B
If
the
submittal
was
complete
and
the
conversion
credits
were
applied
and
the
locations
were
were
were
clearly
noted,
that
would
have
been
reviewed
under
the
old
zoning
ordinance
if
I'm
correct
and
potentially
generally
speaking,
there
may
have
been
an
opportunity
for
some,
if
not
all,
of
these
to
have
been
considered
for
conversion
under
a
normal
permit
process.
Is
that
correct
correct
if
they
would
have
filled
out
the
application
for
the
building
permit,
with
all
the
information
that
was
required
and
submitted
the
supporting
documents
right?
B
That
would
have
once
we
decided
that
the
conversion
credit
could
be
applied
at
the
locations
that
they
chose
to
have
them
yeah?
Then
we
could
have
issued
those
permits
under
the
old
code.
You
got
it
and
fan
you
mentioned
that
some
of
the
concerns
you
had
is
there
were
some
engineering
studies
related
to
the
design
and
construction
of
these
that
were
not
submitted,
and
a
lot
of
that
is
the
jurisdiction
under
the
building
and
fire
code.
B
B
And
got
their
decision
okay.
So
if
I
try
to
give
maybe
a
general
analogy
or
comparison,
if
you
will
to
something
the
board
is
familiar
with
quite
often
if
we
have
somebody
that
wanted
to
build
a
garage
too
close
to
the
property
line,
there
are
things
under
the
board
of
adjustment.
We
might
be
considered
for
its
location,
such
as
setbacks
or
height,
but
we
never
have
the
authority
to
override
things
required
in
building
or
fire
code
for
that
garage,
such
as
how
the
footings
are
designed
or
what
materials
the
structural
components
are
made
of.
B
Fire
protect,
as
required
under
the
building
code.
Okay,
all
right,
good,
okay!
Well,
thank
you
for
that
clarification.
Okay!
Would
there
be
any
other
questions?
First,
do
I
am
we'll
just
like
twice
yeah:
this
is
justin.
D
E
A
B
G
G
First
of
all,
I
guess
I
would
request
some
additional
time
on
the
major
almost
holy.
The
city's
argument
is
a
lack
of
jurisdiction
issue,
so
I
need
to
address
why
the
sport
absolutely
does
have
jurisdiction
to
decide
these
combined
appeals,
and
then
I
guess
I
would
like
a
little
bit
of
time
to
actually
discuss
why
the
board
should
grant
my
appeal.
G
G
Ms
donovan
stated
that
when
she
was
looking
at
these
permits,
she
looked
to
section
or
to
chapter
134
in
these
transitional
provisions.
In
the
new
zoning
code
and
after
looking
at
chapter
134,
she
then
decided
that
those
new
zoning
provisions
were
not.
G
They
were
not
applicable
and
therefore
denied
the
building
permit.
So
it's
true
that
there's
certain
dual
tracks
here,
where
there's
a
need
to
follow
the
building
code,
but
the
whole
reason
that
these
permits
were
denied
was
because
of
ms
donovan's
application
and
interpretation
of
chapter
134,
which
is
the
zoning
code,
and
this
appeal
wholly
is
focused
on
the
unlawful
interpretation
and
incorrect
application
of
chapter
134
by
the
city
of
des
moines.
G
So
I
guess
another
issue
here
that
I
guess
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
I
raised
for
the
record.
Ms
donovan
took
some
time
going
through
essentially
community
comments
about
these
appeals.
Again,
this
is
appeal
arises
from
the
city's
unlawful
rejection
of
applications.
G
You
know,
after
applying
chapter
134,
this
is
not
a
conditional
use
permit
application.
This
is
not
a
request
for
a
variance,
and
so
I
believe
that
any
community
comments
regarding
this
should
be
disregarded.
This.
This
appeal
should
be
wholly
focused
on
the
analysis
of
of
the
code
chapter
and
not
any
consideration
of
neighborhood
desires,
because
before
I
move
on
to
the
meat
of
this,
can
I
I'd
be
happy
to
address
any
questions
about
jurisdiction,
specifically.
B
G
Okay,
prior
to
today's
hearing,
I
submitted
three
documents
to
the
city
and
they
have
been
designated
as
exhibits:
a
exhibit
b
and
exhibit
c.
I
believe
they
are
uploaded
and
looks
like
they
are
appearing
on
the
screen,
so
exhibits
a
b
and
c
are
all
written
submissions
that
should
be
considered
in
full
by
each
member
of
the
board
before
they
make
their
determination
on
today's
appeals,
exhibit
a
is
a
declaration
of
jason
palmerenki.
G
Mr
palmrenke
is
an
employee
of
lamar,
and
his
declaration
essentially
goes
through
the
city's
prior
practice
and
how
it
handled
these
fine
permit
applications.
And
then
it
briefly
discusses
the
facts
that
happen
here.
In
this
case,
I
don't
think
that
any
of
the
facts
in
this
declaration
are
all
too
controversial.
G
Exhibit
b
is
a
slightly
modified
copy
of
the
presentation
that
was
submitted
to
the
fire
board
of
appeals.
The
the
february
hearing
that
ms
donovan
referenced
several
times.
I
believe
it's
also
proper
for
those
documents
to
be
submitted
and
reviewed
by
this
board,
and
I
guess
a
few
comments
related
to
exhibit
b
the
fire
board
of
appeals.
It's
clear
in
their
decision
that
they
did
not
deny
the
appeal
on
the
basis
of
chapter
26.
G
Looking
at
the
minutes
and
the
recording
of
that
hearing,
it's
absolutely
clear
that
the
that
board
incorrectly
attempted
to
interpret
and
apply
chapter
134
for
specifically
these
transitional
provisions
and
they
denied
it
on
the
basis
of
their
belief
that
lamar
did
not
fall
within
application
of
chapter
134.
G
I
would
disagree
with
miss
donovan
that
any
of
the
paragraphs
here
are
not
properly
before
the
zoning
board
of
adjustment.
Each
fact.
Each
email
here
is
pertinent
to
explaining
why
the
city
did
what
it
did
now.
G
G
134-1.11.1
a
so
this
is
the
transitional
provision.
It
essentially
says
the
permits
accepted
for
processing
are
considered
under
the
prior
zoning
ordinance.
So
what
we've
got
here
is
a
statute,
an
ordinance
saying
that
any
permits
are
accepted
for
processing
are
considered
under
the
prior
zoning
ordinance
and
on
december
12th.
G
We
have
ms
donovan
with
the
city
confirming
in
writing
that
she
will
have
staff
process
be
permitted,
so
just
based
on
that
email
alone,
it's
clear
that
lamar
submitted
these
applications
prior
to
any
sort
of
new
zoning
ordinance
taking
effect
and
that,
under
the
transitional
provisions
of
the
new
zoning
code,
all
of
those
permits
should
have
been
considered
under
the
prior
zoning
code,
and
I
believe
you
just
heard
ms
donovan
explain
that
if
that
was
the
case,
these
permits
would
have
been
granted
now,
let's
fast
forward
to
december
30th,
which
is
after
the
new
zoning
ordinances
effect,
was
donovan
in
emailing
council
member
josh
mandelbaum
explained
that
the
permits
were
pulled
under
the
old
code.
G
There
was
no
way
to
prevent
them
from
the
conversions
council.
Member
mandelbaum
obviously
did
not
like
this
answer.
They
tried
to
find
ways
to
prevent
lamar
from
using
the
permits
that
ms
donovan
had
just
said.
There
was
no
way
to
prevent
lamar
from
obtaining
in
response,
as
donovan
stated
on
january,
2nd
2020.
G
G
Then
it's
clear
that
there
was
external
pressure
that
was
improperly
applied
by
the
city
council
on
ms
donovan's
work
as
a
zoning
enforcement
officer,
and
it's
clear
that
the
city
then
fabricated,
a
reason
for
denial.
The
city
decided
to
use
the
new
zoning
ordinance
as
a
sword
to
cut
off
the
rights
to
the
permit.
The
city
now
claims
that
the
engineering
information
had
to
be
submitted
by
december
15..
G
Again,
ms
donovan
stated
I
will
have
staff
process
that
permits
on
december
12th.
The
next
day
of
friday
december
13th
at
1007,
am
is
when
staff
city
staff
first
requested
any
information
from
lamar
in
that
email
requesting
the
information.
There
was
absolutely
no
reference
to
any
sort
of
december
15th
deadline.
In
fact,
december
15th
was
a
sunday,
so
what
the
city
would
have
you
believe
at
this
point
is
that
after
the
city
requested
information
at
10,
07
am
on
a
friday.
That
lamar
was
expected
to
submit
all
that
information
within
the
next
few
hours.
G
Liz
donovan
said
it
herself.
She
took
extra
time.
She
did
a
very
comprehensive
review.
There
was
no
way
to
deny
the
permit,
but
after
substantial
improper
pressure
from
the
city
council,
the
city
ignored
its
own
ordinances,
made
up
arbitrary
deadlines
retroactively
and
acted
illegally
and
denying
the
permits
and
again
that
illegal
action
was
based
wholly
on
a
misinterpretation
misapplication
of
the
transitional
provisions.
G
G
And
again,
I
would
request
it
before
any
sort
of
decision
is
made
that
these
documents
in
the
written
submission
which
includes
snippets
of
emails
and
then
at
the
end
poll
copies
of
the
emails.
I
would
request
those
to
be
specifically
reviewed
by
each
member
and
that
in
any
decision
that
those
those
emails
and
these
written
submissions
be
specifically
referenced
in
the
findings
of.
G
C
B
All
right,
mr
reasoner,
do
you
have
any
more
testimony
you'd
like
to
present,
or
would
you
like
to
see
if
there's
any
questions
from
the
board.
E
G
E
G
Okay,
whoever's
controlling
the
screen,
then
I'd
request
that
you
start
at
page
four
on
the
written
submission
and
go
through
each
page
slowly,
so
that
board
members
are
able
to
read
these.
A
A
H
B
B
C
G
G
And
I
I'd
like
to
point
out
on
this
email.
Mrs
donovan
earlier
stated
that
you
know
in
january
when
she
checked
in
on
these
permits
that
all
of
a
sudden,
she
realized
that
they
were
not
engineering
reports.
Well,
if
you
look
at
this
email
that
has
contradicted
she
knew
that
they
were
waiting
on
engineering
reports
and
then
she
went
on
to
say
if
there
were
any
shortcomings
in
the
application,
so
we
would
not
have
issued
them.
G
No,
no
and
that's
that's
an
issue
under
chapter
26,
chapter
26
and
I've
included
these
ordinances
for
you,
the
chapter
26
states
that
when
required,
the
plan
shall
be
submitted
and
then
it
goes
on
safe.
G
The
plan
shall
be
submitted
when
required
by
the
community
development
department
and
again
here,
the
the
permits
or
the
applications
excuse
me
were
accepted
for
processing
and
then
several
or
one
day
later
a
friday
morning
is
when
city
staff
required
the
information
to
be
submitted,
requested
that
information,
so
that
under
chapter
26-803
b
is
when
that
information
was
triggered
and
then
it
goes
on
to
say
essentially
there's
180
days
to
get
that
information
in
that's
under
chapter
26-138.
A
C
B
B
B
E
E
G
At
this
point,
the
council,
this
members
of
the
board,
these
emails,
begin
to
repeat,
and
in
order
to
support
my
argument
that
I
make.
But
I
believe
you
reviewed.
B
G
G
B
Yeah,
that's
that's
fine!
Well
I'll,
give
you
a
little
of
my
thought
here
not
trying
to
wrap
anybody
up
in
anything,
but
if
I
was
a
company
that
more
than
likely
knew
that
the
zoning
ordinance
was
going
to
change
on
december
15th
and
I
applied
less
than
or
about
30
days
in
front
of
that
expiration
date
and
maybe,
as
you
just
noted,
some
came
in
a
week
or
two
later
less
than
maybe
less
than
two
weeks
or
10
days
before
this
was
to
expire.
B
I
would
certainly
try
to
make
sure
that
I
was
as
complete
and
thorough
as
possible,
and
I
would
have
asked
upon
that
submission
within
let's
say
three
or
four
business
days:
hey
how?
How
is
this
looking?
Did
anybody
inquire
with
the
city
on
the
status
of
their
permit
review
before
sue
ann,
contacted
you
on
december
15.
G
Yes,
they,
I
believe,
was
jason
palmerick.
He
sent
emails
asking
for
status
updates.
Additionally,
it
seemed
like
your
question
was
implying.
Why
wouldn't
lamar
have
had
this
done
and
accepted
for
processing
before
the
december
15th
deadline?
I
guess
the
answer
is
they
did
submit
all
the
applications
and
they
were
accepted
for
processing.
Okay
lamar
as
a
business
was
aware
of
the
zoning
change
coming
up
and
they
followed
chapter
134
1.11
and
made
sure
that
the
applications
were
submitted.
G
Chapter
26
allows
the
community
development
department
to
request
additional
information
that
additional
information
can
cost
lamar
thousands
of
dollars
and
until
lamar
receives
the
preliminary
approval,
where
it
begins
being
accepted
for
processing.
It
does
not
make
business
sense
for
lamar
to
expend
thousands
of
dollars
on
a
report
that
the
city
might
not
even
request.
Okay,
and
that
that
is
contained
in
the
declaration
of
jason
palmer.
Be
the
factual
support
for
that
right.
B
And
I
would
generally
understand
that
well,
and
I
don't
claim
to
be
an
engineer
and
and
I'm
not
on
the
building
department.
But
if
somebody
wanted
to
build
a
billboard,
I
would
think
they're
going
to
have
to
have
some
engineering
studies
on
soils
and
stability
and
things
of
that
nature
and
it
wouldn't
be
unreasonable
for
the
city
to
require
that
or
for
somebody
with
their
past
experience,
to
anticipate
that.
That
might
be
important.
G
First
of
all,
these
are
conversions.
These
are
not
building
new
spines,
okay
and
secondly,
I
mean
the
code
is
pretty
clear
that
it's
when
required-
and
I
guess
lamar
could
have
anticipated
it.
But
the
issue
here
is
not
the
reasonableness
of
lamar's
actions
that
the
issue
before
this
board
is
whether
the
city
accepted
these
applications
for
processing
before
december
15th,
and
it's
clear
that
they
did.
Okay.
B
G
Yes,
chapter
134-1.2
sub
a
any
building,
development
or
structure
for
which
your
building
permit
was
issued
or
where
a
complete
building
permanent
application
had
been
accepted
for
processing
before
the
effective
date,
which
is
december,
15th
may
be
completed,
in
conformance
with
the
issued
building
permit
and
other
applicable
permits
to
blah
blah
blah
under
the
old
code.
So,
yes,
the
the
the
text
of
the
new
zoning
ordinance
is
clear.
That
it
is
accepted
for
processing
is
the.
G
B
Okay,
all
right
so
from
from
either
your
argument
or
or
what
you
believe,
the
zoning
ordinance
says
it
needs
to
be
an
application
if
it
is
not
a
hundred
percent
complete
or
maybe
if
the
more
information
is
requested
or
even
required
later.
It's
your
contention
that
that
preserves
your
right
under
that
old
chapter,
134.
B
Okay,
seeing
none
or
hearing
none,
I
should
say
what
will
go
ahead
now
and
do
well,
is
we'll
take
testimony
from
any
other
interested
parties,
and
then
we
will
come
back
to
staff.
If
we
have
any
questions
and
then
you
get
a
closing.
G
Well,
actually,
I
guess
for
the
record,
I
would
lodge
an
objection
to
consideration
of
any
additional
testimony.
As
I
stated
earlier,
I
don't
believe
any
other
parties
would
have
standing
to
discuss
this.
This
is
an
outright
appeal.
So
at
this
point
the
board
is,
you
know,
taking
they're
looking
in
the
appellate
review
area,
they're,
no
consideration
of
any
community
compliments
or
any
other
party
should
be
considered.
G
It
would
be
irrelevant
and
I
think
any
consideration
of
any
other
comments
would
be
grounds
for
reversal
at
the
district
court
level,
so
just
like
to
lodge
that
objection.
B
Before
I
make
any
comments
of
my
own
on
that,
I
appreciate
your
comments.
Judy.
Is
there
anything
that
you
would
want
to
add
in
regard
to
will's
statement?
B
B
Information
which
is
presented-
but
this
is
a
public
hearing
and
this
the
only
opportunity
for
people
who
are
citizens
and
have
been
given
notice
to
make
whatever
comments
they
want.
I
don't
know
that
they
will
speak
to
jurisdiction
or
to
the
matters
of
the
most
humane
and
being
argued
here,
but
we
are
under
the
obligation
to
allow
them
to
speak,
because
this
is
the
only.
B
To
do
with
what
is
being
argued
here,
but
you
need
to
allow
it
to
be
yeah,
I'd,
say
judy,
that's
that
that's
very
well
put
as
a
long-term
member
of
this
board
and
an
officer
of
this
board.
You
know
as
as
well
stated
he
he
felt
there
was
jurisdiction
for
an
appeal
to
come
to
this
board.
B
So
therefore,
as
such,
the
board
does
have
an
obligation
to
hear
people
who
would
be
concerned
either
either
in
support
potentially
or
in
opposition
to
the
appeal
which,
as
I
always
say
in
the
preamble,
any
comments
or
testimony
has
to
be
related
to
the
nature
of
the
appeal
itself.
So
if
we
do
have
people
that
want
to
get
into,
I
just
don't
like
billboards-
or
I
love
billboards
and
they're-
wonderful
that
that
is.
That
would
not
be
something
that
the
board
would
take
into
consideration.
So
there's
anybody
here
in
support
of
opposition.
B
So
I
think
what
I'm
going
to
do
is
chair
at
this
time
I'm
going
to
go
ahead
and
allow
anyone
that
wishes
to
support
the
applicant's
request
or
their
appeal,
which
would
be
lamar
to
speak
first.
They
would
have
up
to
five
minutes.
Then
I'm
I'm
not
going
to
vary
on
that.
So
was
there,
anybody
is
there
anybody
present
by
phone
or
by
zoom?
B
B
J
B
B
So
is
there
anybody
that
wishes
to
be
speak
in
support
of
the
applicant's
request?
We
do
that
first,
all
right
city
staff
to
anybody
else.
B
J
That's
for
robin
morse,
3517,
52nd
street
speaking
on
behalf
behalf
of
the
mural
hand,
neighborhood
association,
who
did
register
an
email
that
you
had
a
chance
to
view
earlier
in
regards
to
what's
germane
to
this
conversation
and
how
it's
evolved,
I
will
forego
any
conversations
pro
or
against
billboards
in
general.
J
However,
I
do
think
that
there's
an
appropriate
context
that
the
this
board
needs
to
be
provided
in
case
they
were
not
aware
of
it.
In
paragraph
three
of
our
letter,
we
acknowledge
that
several
years
ago,
when
lamar
acquired
billboards
in
this
market
from
clear
channel
outdoor,
they
soon
began
removing
replacing
sign
faces,
which
we
believe
violated
city
regulation.
At
that
time,
on
legal
non-conforming
side,
we
believe
that
lamar
should
have
lost
their
grandfather
right
and
should
have
to
remove
the
billboards
that
were
altered.
Unfortunately,
city
code
enforcement
and
legal
staff
have
not
pursued
removal.
J
J
Lamar
advertising
out
lamar
outdoor
advertising
of
iowa
has
demonstrated
time
and
time
again
they
do
not
desire
to
be
a
good
neighbor
in
the
city
of
des
moines
and
they
want
to
call
out
the
city's
errors
when
it
benefits
them,
but
skirt
the
city
code
when
it
benefits
them
as
well.
They
shouldn't
be
allowed
to
have
it
both
ways
and
I
encourage
the
board
to
deny
their
application
for
repeal.
E
H
Is
lynn
carlson?
What
is
what
do
you
mean
by
a
signed
face
that
they
removed.
J
There
was
numerous
billboards
in
the
murrell
hay
corridor,
my
understanding
this
is
before
my
time
with
the
merle
hay
neighborhood
association.
So
I
am
going
off
of
institutional
knowledge
if
you
will,
but
there
were
numerous
billboards
that
they
converted
from
static
to
digital,
that
they
should
not
have
been
able
to
do
so
under
the
city
code
and
in
fact,
it's
my
understanding
that
they
made
these
transitions
over
the
weekend
to
prevent
any
interruption
by
city
code,
inspection.
B
Okay,
seeing
are
there
any
speakers
that
wish
to
speak
with
any
general
comments,
perhaps
neutral.
B
I
A
B
A
D
H
Zoomed
up,
okay,
this
is
andrea
devore.
After
listening
to
the
appeal,
I
think
my
issues
are
not
pertinent
to
the
actual
subject
at
hand.
B
Okay,
all
right,
so
at
this
time
I
believe
the
zoning
enforcement
officer
has
the
opportunity
to
make
a
statement
if
they
so
choose
to
I
sent
bert
a
document.
I
would
like
to.
B
E
B
E
B
B
B
Would
have
if
they
would
have
submitted
it
until
it
came
to
my
knowledge.
They
didn't
have
those
in
that
that
zoning
staff
probably
would
have
issued
those
in
error,
and
then
we
would
have.
We
would
have
dealt
with
it
and
and
lived
with
it,
but
in
this
case
they
didn't
have
submitted,
they
knew
they
had
to
submit
them.
B
For
those
is
not
is
not
the
truth,
because
they
were
asked
for
them
on
the
permit
application
that
they
filled
out,
but
it
doesn't
comply
with
the
provisional
credit,
the
provisional
ordinance
and
the
board,
and
the
other
board
already
found
it
didn't
comply
with
the
provisional
ordinance
they
didn't
have
to
complete
the
middle.
This
board
can't
override
another
board's
determination
on
a
complete
submittal
question.
B
C
E
B
Joanna
question
I've
got
for
you,
so
so
so
what
you're
saying
it
appears?
We
got
some
semantics
here.
A
complete
application
would
submit
all
the
required
material.
Is
that
correct,
correct.
E
E
B
A
J
You
mel
joanne,
so
lamar
is
basically
saying
that
your
email.
E
B
B
E
C
B
B
E
I
have
two
questions.
This
is
glenn
carlson
on
the
on
the
permanent
application
that
on
the
screen
right
now,
it
says
in
fine
print.
He
just
moved
it
now.
I
can't
read
it
structural
plans
required
yes
or
no.
It's
not
marked.
E
E
B
The
question
before
them
was
whether
they
believed
the
submittal
was
complete.
They
made
the
determination
it
was
not
complete
and.
E
H
B
To
pick
corridors
that
those
conversion
credits
can
be
used
on,
but
yes,
they
can
submit
it.
Okay,
thank
you,
yes,
but
as
to
the
locations,
those
locations
will
be
different,
so
the
determination
as
to
whether
it's
complete
or
not
has
already
been
decided
by
that
board.
That
is
their
question
to
answer.
E
B
Appeals
came
in
pretty
much
simultaneously
that
board
met
before
you
did,
but
they
have
made
the
determination.
It
was
not
complete
right.
Okay,.
B
B
Somebody
would
have
at
least
had
to
present
complete
enough
information
for
what
I
would
call
a
complete
review
in
order
to
preserve
their
rights.
Is
that
correct
right?
Okay?
How
long
does
it
normally-
and
I
know
you
get
hundreds
if
not
thousands
a
year,
but
if
you
have
a
permit
of
this
general
type
or
significance?
B
B
It
can
take,
depending
on
the
information
we
get
from
lamar,
which
in
this
case
was
incomplete.
Just
on
the
question
of
conversion
credit.
It
can
take
15
days
or
more.
A
full
middle
can
take
up
to
30
days,
and
that
would
be
looking
at
the
engineering
plans
and
the
site-specific
plans
and
the
setbacks
yeah.
We
didn't.
We
couldn't
review
this
because
we
didn't
have
a
plan
yeah.
B
Do
you
also
have
an
obligation
I
mean,
can
can
somebody
submit
something
and
you
just
mull
it
over
and
it
takes
you
180
days
six
months,
nine
months
is
there
a
target
you've
got
to
get
back
to
people
if
they
submit
a
an
incomplete
permit
and
we
ask
them
for
additional
information.
It's
on
them
to
get
it
to
us.
E
B
B
If,
if
we
weren't
looking
at
transitions
between
two
codes,
correct
correct,
but
they
knew
about
the
transition
between
the
codes
there
were,
they
were
aware
of
what
would
happen
yes
and
the
latest
date
that
you
had
a
submittal
that
was
turned
in
on
any
one
of
these
was
what
did
I
hear
december,
2nd
or
december
9th
december
5th?
They
turned
into
permit
november
to
complete
the
middle,
which
would
have
been
10
calendar
days
and
less
business
days
before
the
transition
period
would
expire,
correct.
B
Okay,
seeing
none
mr
reasoner
you've
got
we'll
we'll
give
you
three
to
five
minutes
here
for
rebuttal
or
closing
remarks
you
get
the
last
say
in
this.
G
G
G
Because
of
the
format
of
this
meeting,
I
was
unable
to
lodge
objections,
and
I
absolutely
do
not
want
this
to
be
construed
as
me.
Waiving
any
sort
of
evidentiary
objection.
Now
I
need
to
object
to
the
the
statements
that
were
made
by
the
gentleman
representing
the
merle
hay,
neighborhood
association.
G
I
do
have
to
watch
the
objections,
as
the
testimony
is
irrelevant
should
not
be
considered.
I
need
to
lodge
an
objection.
I
guess
just
the
fact
that
I
couldn't
even
object
in
that
procedural
norms
were
not
followed
there.
Now,
there's
a
few
points
that,
oh
and
again,
I
need
to
object
to
any
sort
of
statement
by
the
city
pertaining
to
ammar's
prior
conduct
in
submitting
information.
G
Okay,
the
prior
application-
there's
absolutely
no
testimony
here
today
and
no
documentation
as
to
the
timing
of
any
sort
of
prior
submittals,
and
so
that's
insufficient
information
on
which
the
board
is
not
permitted
to
make
a
decision.
G
G
This
is
the
email
on
december
13th
from
ms
burgess.
Nowhere
on
this
email
does
it
state
that
the
application
is
incomplete.
Nowhere
in
this
email
does
it
state
that
the
city
cannot
process
it
all
it
says
is
I
am
entering
the
permits
into
the
system
and
request
and
require
the
following
documents
and
lamar
has
never
raised
a
did,
not
know
argument
that
lamar
didn't
know
that
it
would
need
to
submit
certain
information
to
the
city.
G
Chapter
26
is
clear
that
lamar
has
no
obligation
to
submit
that
information
until
it's
requested
by
the
city,
and
so
I
I
just
needed
to
touch
on
those
few
points
and
on
the
issue
of
overwriting
the
fire
board
of
appeals.
I
I
think
that
that's
not
a
proper
way
to
look
at
this.
G
I
council,
I
can't
remember
exactly
how
she
phrased
it,
but
I
think
that
I
generally
agree
with
her
that
the
issue
before
that
board
was
whether
the
permit
was
properly
denied
under
chapter
26,
and
in
that
proceeding
we
lamar
argued
that
there
was
nothing
under
chapter
26
that
allowed
for
the
rejection
and
that
any
consideration
by
that
board
of
chapter
134
was
outside
the
jurisdiction
of
that
board's
purview,
and
I
think
it's
clear
that
that
board
looked
to
chapter
134
to
determine
whether
the
chapter
26
denial
was
proper.
G
We
have
filed
a
petition
for
register
ferrari,
challenging
that
board's
decision
has
been
outside
of
the
scope
of
their
jurisdiction,
because
I
think
that
this,
the
appeal
before
you
should
have
occurred.
First,
where
you
need,
you
need
to
decide
whether
the
transitional
provisions
under
chapter
134
were
properly
applied,
and
then
it
would
be
an
issue
for
the
building
appeals
board
to
determine
whether
the
denial
was
properly
made.
So
I
don't
think
that
you're
overriding
any
sort
of
decision.
G
I
think
that
the
order
of
events
in
terms
of
these
appeals
has
made
it
difficult
to
try
to
wrap
your
head
around.
What
exactly
we're
seeking,
but
if
we
distill
it
down
to
the
issues
before
this
board,
we're
asking
you
to
rule
on
the
cities.
Now,
there's
an
application
of
chapter
134
and
I
will
again
lodge
my
position
that
the
other
appeals
board
exceeded
their
jurisdiction
to
the
extent
that
they
made
any
sort
of
ruling
that
treaded
on
this
board's
jurisdiction.
B
All
right!
Well,
I
appreciate
your
comments,
mr
reasoner,
so
at
this
time,
as
I
said,
you
get
the
last
word
so
we're
going
to
go
ahead
and
close
the
public
portion
and
we'll
go
to
board
deliberation.
B
I
I
think
I
do
feel
that
I
owe
mr
reasoner
a
little
bit
of
a
response
here.
I'm
sorry
if
he
was
disconnected
temporarily
from
the
call.
If
that
so
happened.
However,
the
schedule
this
public
hearing
is
very
clear:
the
the
the
agreement
party,
usually
the
applicant
or
in
this
case
lamar
they
have
a
specific
time
period
in
which
they
provide
their
testimony.
B
If
others
are
providing
testimony
that
someone
believes
is
irrelevant
or
incorrect
or
improper,
they
don't
have
the
authority,
in
the
middle
of
that
testimony
to
object
to
that
or
to
change
the
schedule
of
the
public
hearing
and
ask
for
objections
to
be
reviewed
continually
as
the
hearing
progresses.
B
If
we
were
to
do
that,
then
I
would
think
that
I
would
have
the
authority
to
either
sustain
or
overrule
such
objections,
and
I
do
not
so.
Therefore
that
is
why,
within
our
preamble
and
our
opening
statement,
we
clearly
state
when
testimony
is
given
when
people
will
be
acknowledged,
and
I
reinforced
that
double
triple
since
we're
doing
this
by
zoom,
and
we
didn't
recognize
people
outside
of
the
of
the
parameters
and
venue
as
I
provided.
B
That
is
why
mr
reisner
had
in
essence
the
last
day
in
this,
so
that
appellant's
rebuttal
that
gives
them
a
chance,
and
I
and
I
think
he
made
his
points
very
clear
from
his
perspective,
what
his
concerns
were.
So
it
is
up
to
this
board
then
to
review
the
facts
and
as
a
preamble
state,
to
consider
those
facts
that
are
relevant
based
on
the
zoning
ordinance
and
the
issue
in
front
of
this
board.
B
So
I'm
going
to
ask
my
board
members
to
to
give
any
statements
or
discussions
that
they
would
like
to
have
and
then
they're
after
any
potential
motions
here
so
I'll
open
the
floor
to
my
colleague.
H
E
That
were
going
on
between
the
city
council
members
on
a
way
to
stop
this
from
happening.
I
don't
want
those
good
faith
of
operating
within
the
law.
It
may
not
be
something
we
like
as
far
as
electronic
billboards,
but
we
are
not
here
to
say
whether
we
like
him
or
we
don't
like
them.
But
what
is
the
law
in
regards.
H
To
the
moral
hay
issues
in
any
court
of
law.
E
E
E
H
The
change
that
he
should
be
allowed
to
submit
those
engineering
reports
and.
C
I
don't
this
is
nathan,
I
don't.
J
Know
if
I'm
ready
to
talk
about
the
case
itself
or
I'm
interested
in
hearing
from
other
people,
and
I
kind.
B
B
C
B
And
frankly,
knowing
mr
mandelbaum,
I
would
assume
this
of
him
an
assumption
of
you
know,
taking.
E
You
this
is
cindy
and
my
comment.
It
just
hi,
mr
chair,
this
is
cindy.
One
of
my
comments
was
that,
in
terms
of
stating
that
time
frame
excuse,
they
stating
a
deadline
for
submission
of
requested
information.
E
E
D
Mr
chair,
if
I
can
just
give
some
of
my
own
opinion.
D
Gross
you
know
I
read
as
much
as
I
could
here
and
it
it
appeared
that
there
you
know
lamar
is
trying
to
pull
the
permits
under
the
old
code
and
the
old.
D
Cannot
prevent
you
know
in
order,
so
those
could
be
used
without
being
prevented
for
the
type
of
use
and
and
therefore
I
I
feel
like
that,
using
the
old
code
then.
A
J
B
Justin,
I
think
you
have
some
good
points
there.
I
would
generally
concur.
I
I
might
have
a
few
concerns
here.
I
probably
wouldn't
submit
an
application
less
than
10
calendar
days
before
the
end
of
an
old
zoning
ordinance.
But
if
I
did,
I
would
want
to
make
that
application
as
complete
as
possible.
B
B
Some
other
appeals
board
jurisdiction
is
relevant
or
not
that's
a
job
for
a
district
court,
and
that
appears
to
be
where
a
lot
of
this
case
might
hang
on
on
the
applicant's
side
and
from
their
perspective.
If
they
do
say,
chapter
134
is
where
this
all
should
reside,
then
they
should
have
submitted
an
application
that
was
complete
enough
so
that
it
could
be
reviewed.
B
And,
frankly,
I
would
want
to
make
sure
I
had
that
in
in
plenty
of
time,
because
the
staff
has
clearly
stated
they
receive
a
lot
of
permit
a
lot
of
their
permit
review
takes
time
and
unless
they're
really
pushed
on
that,
you
know
people
didn't
wait
till
the
permit's
issued.
So
if
I
was
concerned
about
a
transitional
permit
or
a
transitional
code
of
ordinances-
and
I
wanted
to
make
sure
that
my
permit
got
in-
I
would
submit
it
early,
I
would
submit
it
complete
and
I
would
bird
dog
that
sucker.
B
So,
in
my
opinion,
if
the
applicant
believes
that
they
are
aggrieved,
you
know
for
all
parties.
I
I
think
that
this
could
be
a
district
court
case
for
everybody
to
fully
adjudicate
this
beyond
what
I
feel
our
duties
are,
which
is
the
general
interpretation
of
the
zoning
ordinance.
B
So
so
those
are
some
of
my
sloth.
But
again,
we've
got
some
other
members
here,
so
any
thoughts
they
have
and
then
any
emotions
anybody
might
have.
We
could
consider.
E
E
E
Basically,
I
totally
agree
with
what
justin
and
the
point
that
justin
and
yourself
make
okay
and
you.
B
D
B
B
We
got
a
motion
by
marvelous,
I'm
going
to
go
ahead
and
second
that
now
this
was
an
application
for
a
sign
permit,
as
required
under
chapter
26.
So
I'm
going
to
second
that
motion.
So
all
those
that
would
be
in
favor
of
the
motion
as
presented
we'll
take
roll
call.
Please
say
irony.
C
I
E
E
E
E
C
B
B
Oh
yes,
that
concludes
agenda
items
two
through
six,
as
those
were
combined
for
testimony
and
motions
and
decision
making.
B
We
entertain
any
questions.
Do
you
have
questions
for
clarification
or
something
I
think
as
as
long
as
it's
very
brief,
I
would
be
willing
to
entertain
that
will.
Is
there
something.
G
Very,
very
briefly,
the
staff
recommendation,
as
I
read
it,
was
that
this
board
lacks
jurisdiction
to
hear
the
appeal.
As
I
understood
the
last
boat
was
that
it
was
six
to
one
that
the
board
lacks
jurisdiction.
Can
we
just
make
it
clear
for
the
record
that
that
was
the
basis
of
the
decision?
It
was
not
on
any
of
the
merits.
B
I
I
think,
that's
more
than
fair
will
and
I
will
in
essence
kind
of
re
re-quote
myself.
It
said
in
there
that
the
staff's
recommendation
was
that
the
application
was
for
a
sign
permit,
which
was
under
chapter
26,
and
so
therefore,
yes,
this
board
lacks
that
jurisdiction
to
review
items
under
chapter
26,
which
included
those
those
applications
related
to
that
sign,
permit
and
the
requirements
they're
in
but
yeah,
that's
as
simple
as
I
can
place.
It.
B
K
Mr
chair
members
of
the
board,
this
is
eric
lundy
senior
city,
planner
item.
Seven
is
a
request.
I
believe
it's
both
the
stomping
meditation
monastery
and
they
are
back
to
you
after
a
decision
that
was
made
back
last
november.
K
With
regard
to
a
special
permit
under
the
old
code
former
code,
I
should
say
which
allowed
special
permits
for
religious
institutions
of
religious
character,
and
in
that
case
they
were,
they
were
given
a
phased
program
essentially
to
to
develop
the
parking
in
accordance
with
the
requirements
for
their
use,
which
was
to
use
the
building
at
the
site
for
their
religious
assembly
function.
So
that
triggered
you
know
the
need
for
a
certain
amount
of
parking.
K
They
had
already
had
a
site
plan
under
previous
to
that,
and
that
site
plan
then
was
given
some
phasing,
and
I
will
I'll
show
you
the
order
at
the
end
of
the
presentation,
so
you're
clear
on
what
the
order
was
on
november.
20Th
2019,
but
I'll
proceed
with
what
they
are
asking
for
first
and
give
you
a
little
orientation
to
the
property.
K
And
I'm
gonna
fix
this.
I
think
to
make
sure
we
get
the.
K
Proper,
otherwise,
some
of
these
graphics
aren't
going
to
show
completely.
So
this
is
the
property
we're
dealing
with
east
14th
street
highway
69
on
the
right
and
there's
a
there's,
an
entrance
off
of
that
to
the
to
the
site,
and
then
there's
also
an
entrance
off
king
avenue
coming
from
the
south,
also
going
into
the
site.
K
And
then
this
is
looking
the
other
way
down
the
lane
that
comes
in
off
the
southeast
14th
street.
From
from
the
facility,
then
this
is
looking
back
towards
the
other
lane
that
we
looked
at
coming
in
kind
of
pulling
back
further
to
see
some
of
the
area
to
the
right,
which
is
also
parking.
K
One
of
the
things
you'll
notice
is
that
there's
a
sort
of
a
un
not
unfinished
that
there's
areas
that
were
paved
with
asphalt
over
time
that
have
become
in
such
disrepair
that
the
gravel
was
started.
They
started
putting
gravel
at
some
point
in
time
over
the
top
of
it.
So
there's
areas
that
have
a
surface
of
gravel.
K
K
Diagram
of
showing
an
additional
area
that
they
would
now
like
to
improve,
the
applicant
is
stating
that
they
have
economic
hardships
that
are
preventing
them
from
meeting
the
the
schedule
that
was
approved
by
the
board
in
november,
and
they
want
to
work
within,
what's
already
paved
currently,
which
you
see
and
then
at
some
point
in
the
future.
Add
additional
paved
spaces
to
the
east
of
the
building.
K
This
is
the
staff
report
which
you
should
have
received
if
you
didn't
I'll
I'll
summarize
it
here
and
then
get
to
the.
K
This
is
in
this
was
also
given
notices
to
indianola
hills
neighborhood,
which
is
then,
and
then
the
pioneer
park
neighborhood,
which
is
to
the
east
across
southeast
14th,
highway
69.
K
This
is
the
history
again
back
in
2013
the
special
permit
was
given
for
a
farmers
market.
K
I
don't
believe,
that's
all
any
longer
part
of
their
operation,
but
then,
in
in
november
of
2019,
the
board
granted
special
permit
to
allow
a
religious
assembly
with
28
paved
spaces
and
then
additional
gravel
surface
parking
for
temporary
use
to
be
formally
paved
at
that
at
a
certain
points.
In
time
there
was
an
area
identified
as
phase
one,
and
I
will
get
to
that
sketch
too
as
well.
K
It
was
supposed
to
be
paved
by
may
of
this
past
may
22nd.
They
did
not
reach
that
benchmark.
So
then
they
filed
this
application
in
anticipation
of
probably
not
meeting
the
the
benchmarks
in
in
number
three,
which
are
phases
two
and
three
to
be
completed
by
november
of
2021.,
and
then
in
the
interim.
K
The
areas
that
were
in
phases
two
and
three
were
to
be
paved
with
a
dustless
material
until
the
point
in
time
where
it
was
permanently
paved,
and
then
this
is
the
standard
language
that
it
could
be
revoked
or
brought
back
for
reconsideration.
K
I
K
So
this
was
the
area
that
was
supposed
to
be
finalized
by
may
22nd
of
this
year
and
then
phases.
Two
and
three
were
where
this
was
where
these
parking
areas
that
would,
in
the
interim,
have
to
be
covered
with
a
dustless
material
phases.
Two
and
three
included
the
drives
and
the
these
additional
space.
So
when
that's
why
they
were
supposed
to
be
done
simultaneously,.
K
K
So
again,
I'm
going
to
show
you
this
sketch,
I'm
wondering
if
they,
if
david,
has
something
different.
He
wanted
me
to
show.
I
need
to
have
him
email
that
so
that
we
can
get
it
put
up
there
for
him.
K
K
So
right
now,
staff
is
recommending-
and
I'm
going
to
zoom
in
again
here.
So
you
can
see
that
we
are
recommending
approval
of
the
request
to
amend
this
for
an
institution
of
religious
character.
K
We
want
compliance
with
a
site
plan
to
to
actually
formally
document
this
under
the
special
permit
that
will
be
trigger
some
requirements
under
review
by
chapter
135,
for
example,
landscaping
and
planting
that
wouldn't
be
under
the
purview
of
the
board,
but
yeah
we
would
be
able
to
proceed
with
a
bank
plan.
K
That's
actually
on
record,
which
there
isn't
currently
one
of
record
that
we
can
go
from
number
two:
the
the
existing
paving
identified
as
being
repaired
for
32
on-site
parking
spaces
in
accordance
with
the
site,
yet
shall
be
completed
no
later
than
may
31st
of
2021.
So
that's
giving
them
another
full
year
after.
K
So
if
they
don't
meet
that
that
marker
or
that
benchmark,
then
at
that
point
we
would
call
it
not
in
compliance,
and
they
would
need
to
then
submit
everything
under
the
current
chapter.
135
provision
number
three:
is
that
same
standard
language
about
if
there's
some
kind
of
pattern
of
violation
so
down
the
road.
If
they
continue,
they
do
meet
the
terms
of
this
decision
and
order,
and
they
show
some
pattern
later
on
of
not
following
what
they
had
put
into
place.
Then
that
could
be
brought
back.
J
K
I'm
looking
to
see
if
david
emailed
any
a
sketch
of
the
32
space
layout.
C
B
And
eric,
if
that's
not
handy,
I
understand
staff's
recommending
a
approval
here.
Could
you
just
summarize
it
the
best
you
possibly
can,
if
that's
not
easy
to
find.
K
B
B
M
J
Oh
great,
this
is
david
churchill.
B
20701
kirkwood
street,
milo
iowa-
I
did
send
a
revised
sketch
to
bert,
so
it
should
be
in
the
file
somewhere.
If
not
I'm
unable.
C
B
That's
required,
we
would
be.
The
owners
are
agreeing
to
do
that
within
that
first
year
period.
It's
just
unfortunate
that
during
the
con
current
conditions,
they're
basically
shut
down
and
it's
very
difficult
for
them
sure
any
sort
of
fundraising
or
that
kind
of
situation
yeah.
So
with
that
being
said,
we
agreed
at
the
conditions
and
look
forward
to
your
positive
response.
If
there's
any
questions,
I'd
be
glad
to
answer
as
best
I
can.
B
B
If
there
was
a
site
sketch,
it
sounds
like
we
moved
into
your
testimony.
Just
very
briefly.
What
I'd
like
to
do
is
is
go
back
to
eric
eric.
Is
there
anything
you
want
to
summarize
with
us
yeah,
mr.
K
K
K
So
in
the
interim
they
seek
to
repair
these
surfaces
to
be
serviceable
for
parking
and
have
it
strike
with
with
an
overlay
and
they
would.
They
would
agree
to
have
that
done
before
may
of
2021
or
that's
what
staff
is
recommending
that
they
have
that
accomplished
by
then,
but
we
also
are
seeking
the
site
plan
that
would
show
a
full
build
down
the
road
for
additional
parking
to
to
meet
their
their
overall
requirement.
K
They're
somewhat
deficient
so
right
now
we
do
want
to
see
a
site
plan
to
show
this
repair
and
the
striping,
basically
a
more
formalized
version
of
this
sketch
and
then
getting
that
on
the
books.
With
landscaping
and,
like
I
said
some
of
that's
going
to
be
in
court
in
accordance
with
chapter
135
provisions
and
then
they
would
they
would.
Then
you
know
anything
that
they
would
expand
over
time.
K
A
K
K
Yeah
we're
recommending
that
they
get
that
done
in
a
that
reasonable
amount
of
time.
So.
D
K
K
And
and
understand
that
if
they
don't
meet
that
may
31st
2021
deadline,
you
know
in
the
interim
they
have
the
option
to
file
under
the
the
new
code.
If
they
don't
beat
that,
then
everything
you
know
this
permit
expires
and
they're
kind
of
starting
from
scratch.
Under
the
new
code.
Okay,
I've
got
it.
C
C
K
Do
you
want
to
add
so
then
here's
the
here's,
the
cards
we
received
two
in
favor
and
then
I
will
show
you
the.
K
K
K
B
K
B
K
B
C
B
J
B
Up
here,
if,
in
fact
prepared
to
do
that
right,
I
think
in
the
staff
report
and
eric
you
can
help
me
with
this.
If
they
would
not
comply
with
your
recommendation
to
approve
this
amended
number
of
parking
spaces
and
the
timeline
they
don't
comply
with
it,
then,
if
they
want
any
new
consideration,
we
have
to
do
that
under
the
news
zoning
ordinance
to
begin
with,
which
should
be
a
lot
more
painful,
is
that
correct.
K
Yeah
yeah
they
really.
This
is
kind
of
their
last
opportunity
with
the
board
unless
we
bring
it
back
for
some
some
pattern
of
violation.
If
they
don't
get
something
going
to
meet
your
deadline,
then
anything
further,
we
would
accept
under
the
new
code.
C
K
M
Was
is
their
occupancy
permit.
K
B
A
B
All
right,
let's,
let's
let's
hold
on
here
david
I've
got
a
little
off
track
on
our
hearing
process.
So
eric
are
you
done
with
your
presentation.
K
B
D
B
J
D
B
B
M
B
B
B
Okay,
do
you
have
anybody
wishes
to
speak
in
opposition
to
the
applicant's
request,
same
process,
raise
your
hand
through
the
zoom
app
in
the
participant
window
or
hit
star
9
on
your
phone
and
you'll,
be
recognized
anybody
to
speak
in
opposition
going
once
going
twice
and
does
anybody
have
any
general
comment
that
has
not
already
spoken?
That
would
like
to
speak
with
maybe
neutral
comment
same
sign.
B
Okay,
seeing
none
do
we
need
to
address
zoning
enforcement
comments,
staff.
B
Chair
members
of
the
board,
this
is
duane,
donovan
just
want
to
say:
yes,
if
they
don't
comply,
zoning
enforcement
is
ready
to
go
in
and
do.
B
B
Anybody,
okay,
the
appellant,
could
have
a
rebuttal
but
david
since
there
have
been
no
comments
or
any
other
information
presented.
Anything
else
you
want
to.
F
B
A
What's
going
on
with
coved.
A
B
B
In
his
motion,
I
think
again
with
culvert
and
everything
compassion
is
certainly
unwarranted.
So
I
second
that
motion.
B
Okay,
we've
got
a
motion
and
a
second-
and
I
think,
justin's
reasoning-
is
there
in
accordance
with
what
staff
had
put
out
there
for
their
rationale
as
well.
So
would
there
be
a
we'll
take
a
vote
here,
we'll
be
voting
on
approving
staff
recommendation.
C
C
C
I
H
B
Okay,
all
right!
Thank
you
tyler
and
david.
We
appreciate
you
tuning
in
today
to
represent
your
client
and
we
look
forward
to
them
getting
that
amended
parking
area
in
next
spring
at
the
latest.
D
There
are
members
of
the
board
jason
van
ester
with
the
city
planning
staff.
You
see
the
agenda
heading
ahead
of
you.
This
is
a
variance
request
for
rooftop
mechanical
equipment,
screening,
the
permit
and
project
started
under
the
previous
zoning
ordinance.
So
we
are
reviewing
this
today
under
that
standard
and
that.
D
Hopefully,
you're
seeing
an
aerial
identifying
the
subject
property
on
the
north
side
of
park
avenue
at
the
intersection
with
george
flagg
parkway.
Yes,
sir,
in
this
area,
you'll
you'll
see
the
footprint
of
the
building
that
was
there
at
the
start
of
the
project.
The
applicant
expanded
renovated
the
site
and
the
project
still
underway.
D
Okay
photograph,
the
property
looking
at
it
from
the
kind
of
the
west
or
excuse
me
east
corner
of
the
side,
the
driveway
I
can
see
the
shorter
part
of
the
building
or
the
original
parts
and
then
the
additions
to
the
side
and
back
mechanical
equipment
on
the
roof.
Subject
of
our
discussion
today,.
D
In
your
packet,
you
received
a
staff
recommendation.
We
sorted
out
the
standards
that
apply
to
this
application,
provided
some
analysis
and
a
recommendation.
We
are
recommending
denial,
the
applicant's
case
or
concern
that
they've
brought
forward
really
is
twofold.
One
is
changes
in
grade
between
the
street
level,
the
level
of
the
site
and
then
also
the
cost
to
modify
the
building
to
be
able
to
install
a
screening.
D
In
looking
at
the
topography
that
you
saw
in
the
photographs
and
then
you
know
I
did
a
site
visit
and
I
don't
think
that
that's
a
concern
the
site
and
sidewalk
are
within
five
feet
of
each
other.
I
think
you
can
put
in
screening
material
that
would
adequately
screen
the
equipment.
D
This
I'm
just
flipping
through
this
was
the
submittal
from
the
applicant
talking
through
the
both
the
grade
and
load
issues,
snow
loads
or
the
structural
load.
I
have
the
site
plan
available.
Let
me
escape
or
get
out
of
the
full
screen
mode,
so
I
could
jump.
I
don't.
I
won't
go
into
a
lot
of
detail
on
that.
I
think
I'll
go
ahead
and
skip
the
site
plan.
D
D
D
D
Know
and
then
here's
the
letter
that
came
in
today
I'll
give
you
guys
a
minute
to
look
at
that.
Let
me
know
if
I
need
to
zoom.
I
D
He's
one
of
the
he
owns
one
of
his
town
homes
got
it,
but
there's
his
address
at
the
bottom.
Okay.
D
With
that,
I'm
happy
to
answer
your
questions.
I,
like
I
said
in
my
presentation.
I
think
what
we
really
need
to
hear
from
is
the
the
architect
for
the
project
walk
us
through
what
challenges
they
face
from
a
structural
and
cost
standpoint,
because
that's
really
kind
of
the
missing
bit
of
information.
B
Sure
questions
for
jason
jason-
this
is
dave
here
when
they
submitted
their
drawings
originally
did
they
show
screening.
D
You
know
I
don't
have.
I
don't
know
if
it
was
included
as
a
note
on
the
site
plan
or
if
it
was
a
something
that
went
to
our
plans
reviewer
in
their
submittal.
I
do
know
anecdotally
from
talking
to
one
of
our
plans
or
building
plans,
reviewers,
that
when
the
project
first
came
forward,
the
applicant
wasn't
aware
of
how
many
condenser
units
was
going
to
end
up
needing
to
be
installed
and
as
they
moved
forward
into
construction
that
it
once
they
brought
in
the
consultant
for
that
it
expanded.
D
So
I
I
think
this
is
the
case
where
maybe
the
information
available
in
the
situation
was
a
little
bit
unknown
at
the
beginning,
but
I'll.
Let
the
architect
for
the
project
they're
doing
a
great
time
out.
Okay,.
B
Yes,
okay,
all
right,
and
could
you
maybe
put
up
that
that
very
nice
picture
that
shows
the
building
how
it
looks
now
from
park
avenue
if
possible,
because
one
question
I
have,
it
actually
looks
like
there's
a
parapet
or
an
upper
wall
above
the
roof
line
on
some
of
the
other
sides
of
the
building
that
has.
D
That
is
that's
the
correct
observation.
The
addition
was
built
with
a
quite
a
parapet
wall.
So
the
only
area
that
needs
to
be
screened
is
the
kind
of
the
views
from
park
avenue.
As
you
look
at
the
site
directly
from
park
avenue
and
then
right
slightly.
J
D
L
Okay:
okay,
let's
we'll
start
here,
this
is
bruce
girlman
303,
locust,
suite
150
des
moines
iowa,
I
own
clapham
corner,
which
is
the
property
owner,
and
I
also
own
jethro's
barbecue.
L
This
has
been
an
exciting
project
for
us
here
on
the
south
side,
the
difficult
site
to
work
with
because
of
the
elevation
changes.
One
of
the
first
things
we
had
to
do
when
we
started
with
the
site
was
bring
in
90
load
truckloads
of
dirt
just
to
raise
the
elevation.
L
The
biggest
issue
that
we
have
here
is
that,
as
park
avenue
runs
east
and
west.
As
you
go
from
west
to
east,
it
goes
up
a
hill
and
that
that
at
the
at
the
southeast
corner
of
our
property
line,
our
southeast
corner
of
our
property,
that
hill
is
six
feet
higher
than
our
floor
level,
so
we're
you're.
When
you're
over
on
the
southeast
corner
you're
looking
down
at
the
building,
we
have
over
eight
almost
800
feet:
lineal
speed
of
frontage
on
george
flagg,
parkway
and
combined
with
park
avenue.
So
we
have
800
feet
of
frontage.
L
L
I've
I've
done
historic,
renovations
throughout
the
city
and
that
building
to
me
was
important
to
save
and
that
that
caused
some
limitations
on
what
we
could
do
because
of
the
structure
we
did
as
a
part
of
our
submittal
to
the
city
and
on
site
plan
and
on
our
original,
the
middle,
the
we
did
raise
the
paraffin
on
the
existing
building,
where
it
says
south
side
that
is
the
existing
building.
L
We
did
raise
that
barefoot
three
and
a
half
feet,
and
that
is,
we
were
limited
because
of
snow
load,
calculation
and
structural
shortfalls
within
that
existing
building.
So
that's
that's
I'm!
That's
that's
our
biggest
issue,
so
my
solution
and
my
proposal
to
the
board
would
be
as
you
as
you
look
there
we're
limited.
We
can't
put
anything
up
any
higher
on
that
part
of
the
building
would
be
to
paint
all
of
the
exist.
L
So
that's
my
proposal
to
the
board.
I'm
going
to
I'm
going
to
have
rich
arc
rich
ayers
who's,
the
architect
who
designed
all
of
this
speak
now
on
the
technical
issues
of
the
structure
and
and
and
those
issues.
The
other
comment
that
I
would
make
you
did
receive
some
negative
comments
from
the
people
who
live
across
the
street
in
those
town,
homes
and
apartment.
L
If
you
look,
I
think
you
had
five
negative
comments
and-
and
they
all
are
living
on
the
second
and
third
and
fourth
floor
of
those
buildings,
so
they're
looking
down
on
the
top
of
our
roof,
there's
no
possible
way
that
we
can
shield
those
units
from
those
people
across
the
street
that
are
looking
down
on
the
top
of
my
roof,
and
so
with
that
all,
if
you
have
any
questions
for
me,
I'm
happy
to
take
them
otherwise,
rich
heirs.
The
architect
is
going
to
speak
now.
B
J
L
M
M
Anything
that
we
would
do
within
the
border
or
overflood
loading
onto
the
structure
would
create
snow
drifting
that
was
causing
17
to
20,
pounds
of
additional
snow
load
or
doubling
the
snow
load
capacity
of
the
roof.
M
M
C
M
They
weigh
21
pounds
a
foot
so
you're
talking
about
32
feet
times
21,
so
you
have
800
pound
joists.
That
would
have
to
be
passed
through
a
window,
and
this
is
even
during
initial
construction
pass
through
a
window
lifted
in
place
and
anchored
to
the
existing
walls.
M
By
the
same
token,
if
we
added
a
screen
wall
to
the
addition
areas
that
creates
a
snow
drifting
onto
the
existing
building
again,
so
that's
why
this
corner
was
left
open
during
initial
design,
the
mechanical
equipment
that
is
visible,
the
first
one
sits
on
top
of
the
existing
roof
and
is
essentially
the
same.
That
was
there
before
it's
just
a
more
efficient
unit,
so
it
was
visible
originally
and
is
visible
now
the
equipment
that
you
see,
the
duct
work
and
the
exhaust
bands
in
the
back,
which
is
32
feet
from
the
front
of
the
building.
M
M
M
The
primary
thing
is
that
it's
our
eye
level
is,
at
you
know,
six
foot
of
the
ground,
plus
five
foot
person
that
puts
us
at
11
to
12
feet
and
the
top
of
the
parapet
is
14
feet,
so
we're
looking
eye
to
eye
with
the
root
and
it's
impossible
to
screen
that
now
you
see
that
straight
on
as
eye
to
eye.
If
you
go
to
the
next
picture,
you
see
what
it
would
look
like.
M
And
the
information
that
you
submitted
in
the
in
the
submittal
that
I
provided
the
photograph
number
six
in
the
middle
shows
what
the
photo,
what
your
eye
level
would
be,
which
photo.
J
M
H2
photo
or
page
four
photo
number
six.
M
Okay,
this
one
yeah
that
one
there,
as
you
can
see,
you
just
barely
see
it.
That
is
at
eye
level
at
five
foot
above
finished
floor.
So
typically,
your
street
is
at
the
same
elevation
in
the
front
or
lower
than
than
your
finished
floor.
So,
as
you
can
see
from
this
view,
under
typical
sites,
you
you
barely
see
the
units,
you
don't
see
any
of
the
units
that
are
sitting
on
the
roof
behind
the
building.
M
You
see
just
the
one
mechanical
unit
that
basically
was
existing
and
was
replaced.
So
great
is
the
two
issues
is:
is
the
right?
Raising
up
of
the
street
brings
us
to
an
eye
level
that
we
can't
screen.
The
second
item
is
that
the
structure
required
to
have
roof
screening
adds
a
tremendous
amount
of
difficulty
and
structure
and
money,
and
I
mean
to
try
to
bring
in
twice
as
much
roof
steel.
The
size
of
the
beam
cannot
be
any
larger
because
it's
already
at
eight
foot.
M
Items
items
that
we
looked
at
was,
for
instance,
we
could
paint
the
units.
Any
screening
that
we
would
try
to
put
up
there
would
have
to
be
over
75
percent
open
in
order
to
not
hold
back
the
snow.
M
M
There
yeah
total
number
two
that
is
a
that
is
a
two-story
building
that
you
can
see
all
the
rooftop
units.
It's
an
older
building,
so
it's
compliant
via
that
way.
But
you
can
see
all
the
rooftop
equipment
on
a
building
that
is
over
30
foot
tall,
so
gray
does
have
an
effect
on
being
able
to
feed
the
units.
B
Okay,
so
guys,
here's
a
question:
I've
got
and
I'll
give
a
statement.
First
you're.
This
is
a
fabulous
looking
change
from
what
this
used
to
be
at
this
location.
I
was
a
fan
before
going
down
or
orlando's
hope
to
be
a
fan
here
coming
back,
but
it
looks
night
and
day
different
and
I
know
you've
spent
a
lot
of
money
to
invest
in
this
site.
B
I
I
feel
like
to
a
degree
you're
99
there
already,
but
what
I'm
not
able
to
pick
up
from
the
photographs
that
maybe
staff
could
put
the
picture
up
from
the
park
avenue
view.
Yes,
it
looks
like
on
the
east
side
of
the
old
building,
where
the
walk
door
is
it.
It
looks
like
there's
a
white
parapet
already,
but
is
that
the
back
building?
B
F
B
M
High,
we
added
another
three
foot:
six,
three
perfect
okay
and
that
generated
snow
drifting
that
fell
within.
C
M
Wall
area,
so
to
speak
so
that
I
had
support
okay,
when,
with
the
additional
documentation
that
I
emailed
monday,
I'm
now
having
snow
drifting,
going
back
16
to
18
feet
onto
the
existing
roof.
In
order
to
provide
additional
support,
I
had
to
have
a
w21
or
w
16
by
21
spanning
32
feet.
B
M
B
M
B
B
B
Okay,
any
other
questions
for
rich
or
bruce
from
anybody
else.
B
B
B
Okay,
oh
yes,
okay,
thanks
yeah,
yeah,
okay,
so
well
that
takes
care
of
that.
So
just
by
default,
anybody
to
speak
in
opposition,
saying
none!
Anybody
speak
neutral,
see
none
any
comments
from
zoning
board
of
adjustment
or
from
the
zoning
enforcement
officer.
B
D
Chairman's
aboard
jason
vanessa
and
plans
that
so,
as
this
has
gone
through
the
permitting
inspection
process
it,
it
became
obvious
that
they
weren't
going
to
comply
with
the
zoning
requirement
for
the
screening,
and
so
the
only
way
that
they
can
be
allowed
to
not
put
screening
is
for
the
board
to
grant
a
variance
of
that
requirement.
D
I
C
D
B
D
What
I'd
like
to
hear
is
more
information
on
what
it
would
cost.
I
I
do
agree
that,
with
regard
to
grade,
I
think
that
the
you
could
provide
screening
that
met
the
intent
of
the
code
with
that
grade.
I
don't
think
that's
relevant,
but
I
do
understand
and
believe
that
there
are
snow
load
and
structural
concerns,
but
what
hasn't
been
provided.
I
don't
believe
in
testimony
today
is
information
on
the
financial
impacts
or
a
hardship,
and
my
sense
is
they're
pr.
F
B
Can
come
back
to
that
in
our
own
discussion?
Do
we
have
any
other
questions
for
city
staff,
I'm
going
to
go
ahead
and
ask
jason
to
the
best
of
your
knowledge
by
inspecting
the
site?
Is
the
location
generally
in
compliance
with
all
the
requirements
for
where
signage
is
present,
lighting
on
the
property,
etc?
D
Was
on
the
site,
I
didn't
have
the
site
plan
with
me,
so
I
couldn't
tell
you
on
giving
a
full
zoning
compliance
site
plan
compliance
report,
but
I
can
tell
you
that
it
did
catch
my
eye
that
there
is
a
poll
sign
along
park
avenue
that
is,
has
no
signage
on
it,
that
my
understanding
it
lost
its
non-conforming
rights
and
needs
to
be
removed.
But
that
would
be
the
only
thing
that
I'm
aware
of,
in
addition
to
the
screening
all.
A
For
jason,
real
quick,
I
and
I'm,
maybe
I
didn't
hear
it
in
your
presentation.
D
D
Screen
you
know
I
I
I
didn't.
I
can't
comment
on
what
the
building
plan
reviewers
saw
on
a
site
plan,
remembering
this
came
in
as
an
administrative
site
plan
under
the
old
code
and
the
old
process.
D
We
would
typically
require
some
sort
of
note
on
the
site
plan,
but
we
wouldn't
necessarily
see
the
drawing
and
my
understanding
from
talking
to
staff.
That's
been
intimately
involved
with
the
review
of
this
through
the
entire
process
is
that
there
has
been
a
little
bit
of
an
evolution
of
what
they
were
going
to
do
for
equipment,
mechanical
equipment
on
the
roof,
and
so
I'm
not
100
sure
that
that,
at
the
point.
B
C
B
L
Hello,
this
is
bruce
erlelman
again.
Can
you
hear
me?
Yes,
sir?
Okay?
Yes,
we
are
in
answer
to
questions
there.
This
is
the
last
item
on
our
list
before
we
can
get
our
certificate
of
occupancy.
The.
L
Design
of
the
building
really
never
changed
from
the
start,
to
finish
what
changed
for
the
mechanical
units
up
on
the
roof,
so
what
was
submitted
and
what
you
see
today
is
what
you
see
today
is
what
was
submitted
last
october
when
we
got
our
building
permit.
L
C
M
Yeah
to
answer
a
couple
of
your
your
questions
in
terms
of
what
it
would
we
have
not
gotten
a
contractor
price
to
install
these
beams,
but
just
the
logistics
of
it.
This
was
an
existing
building
existing
windows.
All
of
that
remained,
so
we
would
have
to
remove
a
window
pass
a
thousand
pound
beam
through
the
window
position
it
raise
it
up
and
then
anchor
the
structure
to
it
and
items
like
that.
There
are
12
of
them
and
if
you
figured
you
know
a
100,
you
know
it'd
be
a
thousand
dollars.
M
So
you
know,
I
mean
it,
try
to
go
in
and
reinforce
the
existing
structure,
but
it
wouldn't
make
any
sense.
Part
of
our
our
goals
was
to
reuse
the
existing
building.
We
did
everything
that
we
could
within
the
available
snow
loads
things
like
that
for
iowa
to
raise
the
parapet
as
much
as
we
could.
We
couldn't
raise
it
enough
deal
with
the
12th
of
the
road.
B
Okay,
all
right,
thank
you
very
much.
What
we'll
do
now
is
we'll
close
the
public
portion,
so
no
more
comments
and
we'll
go
to
board
deliberation
and
the
board
will
discuss
the
merits
of
the
case.
Email.
D
B
L
B
I
say:
yeah:
okay,
the
fact
that
that
wasn't
part
of
the
original
drawing
I
don't
know
that
were
submitted.
L
I
don't
think
any
of
that's
a
real
logical
excuse
either.
As
far
as
this
whole
thing
goes,
the
construction
could
have
been
done
when
they
were
doing
the
demo
way
back
when.
K
C
K
J
E
Anybody,
mr
chair,
this
is
cindy,
as
you
indicated,
this
is
a
huge,
a
great
improvement
to
this
area.
The
building
that
was
there
before
was
not
kept
up
very
well.
So
this
is
really
a
nice
improvement
for
the
south
side
and
for
this
area
and
I'd
be
inclined
to
go
along
with
the
idea
of
just
having
them.
You
know
paint
the
mechanicals
that
might
kind
of
give
it
a
nicer
view.
E
For
some
of
the
folks
in
the
apartment
across
the
street,
on
the
second
or
the
third
or
the
fourth
floor,
I'm
not
exactly
sure
how
tall
that
thing
is:
it's
not
too
tall,
but
they're
they're
going
to
see
they're
going
to
see
rooftop
regardless
and
with
the.
I
think.
E
C
E
Even
even
that
would
fix
it,
so
it
just
makes
the
most
sense
for
me
to
you,
know,
approve
the
variance
and
ask
ask
the
applicant
to
paint
the
mechanicals
and,
and
you
know,
keep
them
keep
them
painted.
So
they
look
good
and-
and
I
have
faith
that
that
would
happen.
B
Anybody
else,
oh,
this
is
nathan.
You
know,
I
think
they've
they
made
a
decent
case,
but
they
go
back
to
kind
of
what.
What
dave
was
saying
is
that
they
know
the
requirements
from
the
beginning
and
they
kind.
B
M
B
In
this
position,
where
it
does
sound
like
it,
there's
some
hardship
associated
with
it.
Although
I
don't
know
that
they've
even
made
the
case
fully
for
kind
of
a
variance
level
hardship
where
they
show
that
no
reasonable
return
at
all
can
be
received
from
the
site.
But.
B
About
shielding
things
on
top
of
the
roof,
and
so
I
don't
know,
I
guess
I'm
having
a
hard
time
coming
around,
even
though
it
you
know.
B
Up
to
this
point-
and
it's
not
like
this-
is
you
know
this
is
like
homeowner
x,
who
doesn't
do
building
stuff
ever
right?
Like
you
know,
it's
a
relative,
relatively
sophisticated
person
who
an
entity
who's
who's,
developing
something
that's
in
their
line
of
work
and
should
know
all
the
requirements
and
have
to
plan
for
them
appropriately
right.
B
A
I
I
sort
of
compare
with
nathan
and
dave
on
this
one
and
I
feel
like
if,
if
the
applicant
would
have
came
with,
maybe
some
hard
numbers
or
some
estimates.
B
B
I
like
to
consider
the
merits
of
each
case
on
the
merits
of
each
case,
and
I
don't
usually
look
at
precedent
or
anything
like
that
unless
that's
been
put
into
code,
but
there
there
seems
to
be
a
trend
where
people
aren't
aware
they're
supposed
to
be
screening
their
mechanical
it
either
doesn't
show
up
in
a
site.
Plan
doesn't
show
up
in
a
profile
drawing
and.
B
The
line
and
oh
my
god,
it's
not
there
there
you,
you
can't
claim.
B
C
B
Didn't
read
the
regulation,
but
I
would
encourage
city
staff
to
find
a
way
that
if
there
are
these
very
important
things
that
are
more
than
where
an
exit
sign
is
positioned
or
something
that
these
very
important
deal
of
sight.
Plans
are
clearly
dealt
with
during
site
plan
review.
If
people
have
to
submit
a
physical
site
plan
that
shows
how
things
relate
to
each
other
on
the
property,
including
heights
of
buildings
and
style
of
buildings,
then
this
this
needs
to
be
clarified.
B
B
There's
very
little
left
here
and,
as
I
think
it
was
cindy
noted,
the
taller
buildings
are
always
going
to
look
down
and
see
it
to
a
degree.
But
I
don't
believe
the
zoning
ordinance
requires
screening
from
any
of
you.
I
think
it
requires
screening
from
the
ground
level
view,
or
this
quote
street
view.
B
So
to
that
degree
I
don't
think
we're
too
far
off
the
mark.
If
we
could
look
to
find
a
way
to
maybe
look
at
meeting
in
the
middle,
I
do
think
on
an
existing
older
flat
roof
building.
Yes,
they
might
have
a
problem
installing
further
materials.
I'm
not
here
to
challenge
what
an
engineer
says
about
thickness
of
beams
and
loading
and
dimensions
and
how
all
that
would
work.
B
So
I'm
gonna
take
that
at
face
value,
and
I
would
say
that
the
pre-existing
condition
of
the
quote
land
in
question.
The
structure
itself
would
not
be
amenable
to
put
this
up
and
if
he's
given
me
a
bluff,
well,
then
he's
got
to
look
in
the
mirror,
but
from
what
he
told
me
was
snow
load
and
weight
load
of
more
stuff.
That's
that's
not
going
to
work
babbling
clearly
from
square
one.
He
was
willing
to
paint
all
the
mechanical
to
match
the
color,
the
white
color,
the
other
parapet.
B
I
would
be
in
favor
of
allowing
that-
and
we've
done
this
before
too,
to
make
sure
there's
other
non-compliant.
Things
are
also
removed
a
little
bit
of
a
quid
pro
quo
here.
I
I'd
like
to
see
the
non-compliant
sign
based
or
sign
poll
out
of
there,
but
but
that's
just
my
comments
of
the
four
to
five
here
that
I've
already
been
presented.
B
So
if
somebody
does
have
a
motion
one
way
or
the
other
there's
other
comments
great,
if
not
maybe
it's
time
to
make
a
motion
to
see
which
way
this
is
going
to
go.
B
C
E
B
So
you're
so
well,
one
of
you
can
can
second
the
other.
If
lynn
was
first,
was
your
motion
to
just
grant
the
variance?
Were
there
any
other
conditions
or.
E
B
Okay,
so
that's
your
motion
with
those
two
additional
conditions
to
grant
the
variance
and
I'll.
Second
that
mr
chair,
okay,
cindy
sounds
like
she's
in
favor
of
those
extensions
all
right.
So
we've
got
a
motion,
a
second
to
grant
the
variance
with
those
two
conditions
about
painting
the
mechanical
units,
white
or
color,
that
that
matches
that
and
and
removing
the
non-compliant
pole
stein
and
base
all
those
in
favor
of
the
motion.
F
B
Yeah
so
board
members,
you
can
unmute
yourself
at
this
time,
all
of
you,
so
we
can
take
roll
call.
F
B
A
J
B
It
to
you
briefly,
the
motion
is
to
grant
the
variant,
however,
with
amended
conditions
that
requires
painting
of
the
mechanical
units
white
or
that
matching
color
to
the
rest
of
the
parapet
of
the
building
and
the
non-compliant
or
non-conforming
pull
sign
and
base
on
the
property.