APPLICATION TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPEAL DATE: 06/29/2016 PROPERTY PARCEL NO. 1009155004 APPEAL PROPERTY ADDRESS: 101 LUSK AVE. APPEAL PROPERTY ZONE: APPEAL PROPERTY LOT SIZE: 16.650 50. ft. APPLICANTS NAME ADDRESS PHONE Neighbors of Manville Heights Association, Karin Southard, 420 Lexington Ave. (319) 337-6337 President Anne Lahey 111 Lusk Ave. (319) 339-6100 Craig Syrop Anne Sadler 117 Lusk Ave. (319) 621-2192 Bill Karen Ackerman 631 Bayard St. (319) 338-8449 Bradley Catherine Erickson 11 Rowland Ct. (319) 356-7221 I CONTACT PERSON NAME ADDRESS PHONE James C. Larew 504 E. Bloomington St. (319) 541-4240 PROPERTY OWNER NAME ADDRESS PHONE Frederic Sandra Carlson 101 Lusk Ave. The Applicants: The Applicants are comprised of the following group and individuals: Neighbors of Manville Heights Association, whose members are real property owners and electors who reside in Manville Heights and who believe that proposed structure at 101 Lusk Avenue will adversely affect their property and associational interests and rights; Anne Lahey, who owns and resides at 111 Lusk Avenue, which is located immediately to north of 101 Lusk Avenue; Craig Syrop and Anne Sadler, who own a rental property at 117 Lusk Avenue, which is immediately to the north of the Lahey property; Bill and Karen Ackerman, who own a rental property at 631 Bayard Street, and whose entire southerly property line is shared with a portion of the northerly property line of 101 Lusk Avenue; Bradley and Catherine Erickson, who own and reside at 11 Rowland Court, which is just around the corner from 101 Lusk Avenue. The decisions being appealed: The Applicants allege that errors have been made by the following administrative official: John Yapp, Development Services Coordinator, and/or others in his Department during the week ofJune 26, 2016, pursuant to the Iowa City Zoning Ordinance ("Zoning Code") as applied to a proposed structure to be located at 101 Lusk Avenue. The errors have been made in dimensions: 0 The City?s wrongful misclassification of the proposed building at 101 Lusk Avenue as a single family residential structure, when, in fact, the structure has been designed for, and will be used by, the owners as an entertainment venue for large tail-gate?type parties related to University of Iowa sports events. 0 The City?s wrongful approval of the Site Plan for this proposed building which fails to comply with provisions of the Code?s Title related to Site Plans; and The City?s wrongful approval of the Building Permit for this proposed building plans that fail to comply with essential Code provisions. Purpose of the Appeal: The Applicants challenge the above decision(s) based on the interpretation of the following section(s) of the Zoning Code: 0 The Applicants? appeal the City?s misclassification decision arises under one or more of the following Zoning Code Sections: 14-1A-3A, 14-2A-1.B, 14-4A- 2.A.1.c, 14-4A-2.A-1.K, The Applicants? appeal the City?s approval of the Site Plan arises under one or more of the following Zoning Code Sections: 18?3?2, 18-3-2.A, 18-3-2.D, The Applicants? appeal the City?s approval of a Building Permit for the subject property violates one or more of the following Zoning Code Sections: 3.B.4, 14-2A-4.C.1, 16-3D-7. it 3" . Appeal to Iowa City Board of Adjustment 101 Lusk Avenue Summary of the bases for the appeal, referring to the Code sections listed above and providing sound reasons for overturning the decisions: 1. The provisions of the Iowa City Zoning Code are "intended to implement the City of Iowa City?s comprehensive plan in a manner that promotes the health, safe, order, convenience, prosperity, and general welfare of the citizens of Iowa City} Iowa City Zoning Code (hereafter, Code?) 14-1A-3.A. (emphasis added). In this instance, material provisions of the Zoning Code have been applied and interpreted in a manner that will be injurious to citizens of Iowa City. The City's Misclassi?cation Decision 2. The proposed building at 101 Lusk Avenue has been misclassified as a Single Family Residence whereas, in fact, it should be classified as a structure to be used in exactly the manner that the owners have described: for large private group events?ones that the owners describe as tailgating. 3. The City?s characterization of property in the classification process must be based on use definitions set forth in the Zoning Code. Code Land uses are assigned to the use category that most closely describes the nature of the principal use. Code 14-4A-A.1. When a property has more than one use, then the City must determine whether a use is a "principal" use or an "accessory" use. Code 14-4A-A.1. In determining a property?s principal use, the Zoning Code sets forth evaluative criteria to be applied to that property. Those criteria include the following: a. The description of the use or activities in comparison to the stated characteristics of each use category. Code b. The intensity of the activity or use in comparison to the stated characteristics of each use category. Code c. The amount of site or floor area and equipment devoted to the use or activity. Code The bUIlding site and arrangement. Code . The number of vehicle trips generated by the use or activity. Code f. How the use advertises itself. Code One need not go much further than reviewing the planned uses of the various rooms of the entertainment structure and the public statements made by the owners to determine that the principal use of this building will not be as a single family residence for owners who do not even reside in Iowa City. This is a venue designed to hold more than 200 people; its owners describe it as a tailgate venue; its layout is intended to entertain crowds; its building plans show a separate entrance for the "owners"; the structure will be equipped with commercial-grade kitchen fixtures; its multiple toilets and urinals and showers far exceed in number what a single family would normally use; a two-story basketball court will assure Appeal to Iowa City Board of Adjustment - 101 Lusk Avenue Page 2 that all of those who come will, in fact, be entertained?a viewing deck is provided in what drawings depict as an interior ?courtyard.? 4. The Zoning Code?s Scope provides that no use shall be nor shall any structure be installed, converted, enlarged, reconstructed or structurally altered, except in conformity with the regulations and standards of this title.? Code 14-1B-3.A. The Code further provides that the Low Density Single-Family Residential Zone (RS-5), primarily intended to provide housing opportunities for individual households. The regulations are intended to create, maintain, and promote livable neighborhoods.? To the extent that non?residential uses and structures are permitted in the RS-S zone, they are to be and designed to be compatible with the character, scale, and pattern of the residential development.? Code The proposed structure at 101 Lusk Avenue violates these provisions in one or more of the following ways: a. The properties immediately to the north of the proposed entertainment structure are single family dwellings, early 20th century bungalows with front porches, located at 111 Lusk Avenue and 117 Lusk Avenue, respectively. Each of them are comprised of well-under 1,000 square feet of living area. b. According to the owners, Sandy and Reed Carlson, in one widely published account, live full time in Decorah, Iowa,? and that if they are "going to build a house to tailgate at, it should mimic the [Iowa Hawkeyes? Kinnick] stadium.? ("Couple plans to replicate University of Iowa?s Kinnick Stadium with nearly 7500 square?foot house,? c. Mr. Carlson, describes himself "as a kind of a theme guy," and, so "thought it was a great idea.? d. The structure, according to the Mr. Reed?s own description, "includes touches like pink restrooms to mimic Kinnick Stadium?s famous pink locker room for visiting teams. The home?s ?press box? will be a "bunk room.? e. According to Mr. Carlson, the home's roof be sloped down towards the courtyard to resemble stadium seating." f. in the middle of the entertainment venue will be an "inner courtyard? to "tailgate," a place where, according to Mr. Carlson, "no one else will see us. We?re self- contained.? g. The drawings submitted to the City have been changed from time to time; present drawings continue to depict one set of doors, located at the back of the lot, as the ?owner?s entrance.? The City?s Site Plan Approval Error 5. The City has required, and, has approved, a Site Plan. Site Plan approval by the City is a pre- requisite to the issuance of a Building Permit. The Site Plan, as approved by the City, fails to Appeal to Iowa City Board of Adjustment 101 Lusk Avenue Page 3 conform to a number of minimum design standards of Title 18 of the Code, the only provisions that address Site Plan criteria and review processes. Code 18-3-2. The Site Plan?s deficiencies include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following: a. Drainage. The design of a proposed project must make adequate provision for surface and subsurface drainage to limit the rate of increased runoff of surface water to adjacent and property and so that the project will not substantially and materially increase the natural flow onto adjacent property. Code 18-3-2.A. The proposed building covers nearly the entirety of two adjacent lots with impervious materials on the roof, courtyard and driveway areas. The Site Plan offers no means to control storm water run?off. In fact, no provision is made for the handling of surface water which will rapidly move away from the impervious surfaces (roofs, courtyard, driveways) that will cover almost all of this sloping double-lot. There are no street storm water sewers in the vicinity. Large quantities of storm water run-off will cover public right?of?ways (already subject to erosion) and adjacent private property. b. Fire Safety. A Site Plan must provide for adequate fire protection and other measures to ensure fire safety. Code 18-3-2.C. The narrow paved street (20 feet wide, with curbs), with parking allowed on one side, and the absence of a turn- around point at its dead end, will place the public at risk and prevent reasonable access to, or egress from, this location by fire trucks, ambulances and police cars. The City?s failure to address this issue is particularly notable in light of its decision, only a few years ago, to deny the construction of a residential home on the north end of Woolf Avenue, less than four blocks away because that public right of way did not have a safe place for emergency vehicles to turn around. Woolf Avenue, at that location is wider than Lusk Avenue?s twenty-foot width; there is no parking on either side of Woolf Avenue, whereas parking is allowed on one-side of Lusk Avenue; only low-density use was proposed for the Woolf Avenue project, whereas here, the whole purpose of the proposed building is to high-density entertainment events. c. Erosion and Sedimentation Control. A Site Plan must provide for and comply with standards for erosion and sedimentation control to protect adjoining or surrounding property. The design must achieve the lowest potential for erosion. Code 18-3- 2D. The Site Plan submitted to, and approved by, the City makes no provision for either erosion or sedimentation control. d. Vehicle and Pedestrian Circulation. A Site Plan must be designed to allow for safe and convenient flow of vehicles and the movement of pedestrians. Code 18-3- 2.F. The approved Site Plan makes no such provision and, in fact, the intended use of the property is to attract large numbers of people to an area of the City marked by the intersection of two narrow, dead-end streets (Lusk Avenue and Rowland Court) where parking is already extremely tight and enforced by the City normally, and virtually not-at?all on University of Iowa game and special event occasions. The adjacent streets have sidewalks on only one side (Lusk Ave; Bayard Appeal to Iowa City Board of Adjustment 101 Lusk Avenue Page 4 Street; Lexington Avenue) or not at all (Rowland Court; parts of Bayard Street). Neither the vehicular nor pedestrian infrastructure is prepared for the large crowds that this venue is designed to accommodate. Property owners who, on a daily basis, walk in the neighborhood, including children, will be placed at added risk by the construction of this project. e. The Basis for a Fifteen Foot Front Yard Set-Back is Not Demonstrated. The Code requires a minimum fifteen-foot front-yard set?back of a residential structure in the zone. In established neighborhoods where there are a variety of set-backs used by various residential structures, the Code calls for an averaging of existing set? backs to determine the appropriate set back to use when a new residential structure is built. The City?s file provides no rationale for the fifteen?foot setback that is depicted in the approved Site Plan; no measurements of existing set-backs, for existing homes on both sides of Lusk Avenue no averaging computations are presented. f. Minimum Side Yard Requirements are Ignored. The Code requires a minimum of five feet distance between the outside edge of a structure?s exterior wall and the location of a lot line. CODE The revised Site Plan, approved by the City, shows, at the Northwest Corner of the structure, a five?foot distance to the property line shared with a private property easement. However, the building plans depict a foundation whose buried feet extend outward from the base of the foundation wall. If the documents approved by the City are accurate, the structure will violate the five?foot distance requirement, or, the City intends to except the owners from that obligation for reasons not supported by the Code. Compliance with State and Federal Environmental Regulations is Not Demonstrated. Applicable state and federal laws prohibit the felling of trees with greater than a three-inch diameter after April 1 of each year to protect certain endangered mammal species. See Yet, the Site Plan for 101 Lusk Ave implicitly call for the cutting down of a significant number of mature trees of that size to accommodate the footprint of the structure and impose no limitations upon when that cutting will occur. The City?s Building Permit Approval Was Issued in Error 6. The City?s approval of the owners' Building Permit for a building at 101 Lusk Ave, mischaracterized by the City as a single family residential structure, is in error because building plans do not conform to the minimum requirements of Titles 14 and 16 of the Code. The Zoning Code is intended to achieve specific goals, including: a. To conserve and protect the value of property throughout the city. Code 14-1A- However, Applicants? property values will be diminished by the presence of the entertainment venue that has been planned for construction at 101 Lusk Avenue. Appeal to Iowa City Board of Adjustment 101 Lusk Avenue Page 5 b. To encourage the most appropriate use of land and foster convenient, compatible and efficient relationship among land uses. Code 14-1A-3.B.2. By contrast, the Site Plan makes no provision for storm water drainage (also called storm water runoff) that will be gushing off of the property?s impervious surfaces and either onto the street and public right of way without any stream storm water sewer protection, or onto adjoining private property. Further, Applicants believe that this property?s sanitary sewer is wrongfully and unlawfully tied to, and will cause burdens upon, adjoining property owners, none of whom has been given formal notice of this project and none of whom has granted permission for the use of the properties in this manner. c. Topromote the economic stability of existing and future land uses that are consistent with the comprehensive plan and protect them from intrusions bv incompatible land uses. Code Instead, the proposed structure at 101 Lusk Avenue, one designed to host tailgate parties and to accommodate up to 200 persons per event, is not consistent with the RS-5 low density single?family residential zoning district that characterizes the Manville Heights neighborhood, generally, nor with any of the properties that surround 101 Lusk Avenue. d. To lessen congestion in the streets and promote safe and effective access to property. Code The design of the proposed entertainment venue, located at the far end of a dead end street, is completely antithetical to Code provision. Lusk Avenue is one of the most narrowly?paved streets in all of Manville Heights, if not Iowa City, with a width of 20 feet, six-inch curbs. It has sidewalks on only one side of the public way. it connects to another narrowly-paved dead-end street (Rowland Court). Parking, which is extremely scarce, generally, and on University of Iowa athletic event days, in particular, is permitted on one side of the street, only. Parking restrictions are poorly enforced?if at all?by the City on those days and at those times. Emergency vehicles will not be able to pass safely through this street to attend to calls from the event venue party house. And, if such vehicles do reach that destination, they will not be able to turn around safely and efficiently, placing members of the public at great risk. e. To conserve open space and protect natural, scenic, and historic resources. Although this property may not be subject to the sensitive areas provisions of the Code, the proposed structure at 101 Lusk Avenue poses risks to mature trees and will add to soil erosion and water pollution because no provision has been made for storm water runoff from a large lot that will be nearly entirely covered with impervious materials, ranging from roofing materials to large expanses of paved surfaces, with no place for that water to go except for neighboring properties. Appeal to Iowa City Board of Adjustment 101 Lusk Avenue Page 6 The Proposed Structure Does Not Qualify as a Non-Conforming Use and Does Not Qualify to Have Exceptions to the Code "Grandfathered-ln" 7. The City?s issuance of a Building Permit for the proposed entertainment venue at 101 Lusk Avenue violates the spirit and purpose of many of the Code?s provisions; none of those deviations can be rescued under the guise of so?called Non-Conforming Single-Family Uses because the original home, characterized by some non-conforming uses, was demolished by the owners. Code 14-4E-4. A Non-Conforming Single-Family Use may be restored only when a structure is destroyed or damaged by fire, explosion, act of God, or by a public enemy. Code D. In this instance, the owners demolished an existing home. They may not, now, build upon or extend any non?conforming uses that characterized the prior, much smaller, single family dwelling that they destroyed. For example: a. The absence of street pavement along the entire length of the lot does not conform with and, therefore, violates the Code. Only approximately 40 feet of a 123-foot long property line along Lusk Avenue is paved, and cannot be grandfathered?in as a non-conforming use after the owners demolished the original residential structure. And, at the end of the pavement there is no storm water street sewer. The City states that it has no intention to lengthen the street or to invest in infrastructure. The City has approved a non-conforming use that threatens public health and safety without any finding that the property is entitled to non?conforming status. b. The Code requires the owner of every house or building used for human occupancy, at the owners? expense, to install suitable toilet facilities and to connect such facilities directly to the proper public sanitary sewer. Code 16-3D-5. Here, the absence of an independent sewer line running from the property at 101 Lusk Avenue to the City?s sewer main (instead of hooking onto and traveling under two neighboring lots to the north, before reaching the City sewer main) violates Code and cannot be grandfathered-in as a non-conforming use after the owners demolished the original residential structure. Code c. The Code requires that all storm water, ground water and all other unpolluted water shall be discharged only to such sewers as are specifically designated as storm sewers or to a natural outlet approved by the City. Code 16-3D-7. In this instance, even though the owners of a double lot intend to cover almost all of it with impervious materials, no plans are made for the discharge of the storm water and ground water that will flow from those surfaces. The fact that the owners demolished the prior residential structure precludes them from claiming any right to grandfather earlier practices with respect to storm water run-off. Code cl. Any insufficiency of a front-yard set-back measurement characterizing the prior, demolished home cannot provide a grandfathered?exception to the front-yard set back requirement under the existing Code which calls for a minimum set back equal to or greater than the average set-backs of the other residences on Lusk Avenue 8. The Scope of the Code requires that when any structure is "occupied, converted, enlarged, re-constructed or structurally altered, the regulations and standards of the present Code Appeal to Iowa City Board of Adjustment 101 Lusk Avenue Page 7 must be followed. Code Yet, in approving the Site Plan and in issuing a Building Permit, the City has implicitly and inexplicably ?grandfathered? in the use of non-conforming practices in effect in the early part of the last century, even though the proposed structure is massively larger, and is built for entirely different purposes, than the pre-existing single family dwelling that the owners demolished to accommodate their planned amusement venue. For example: a. The Code requires residential structures to have their own direct access to the City?s sanitary sewers. This proposed entertainment venue violates that provision, apparently the result of a wrongful?grandfathering in of conditions that characterized the prior single family dwelling, built in the early 20th century, before the present owners demolished it. The property at 101 Lusk Avenue is unlawfully connected to, and transverses over the back yards of two adjoining lots (111 Lusk Avenue and 117 Lusk Avenue) without the permission or consent of those owners. The proposed expansive entertainment structure, complete with multiple toilets, urinals and showers, will be hooked to 4" sewer pipes installed in the early 20th century, pipe dimensions normally used to accommodate one residential structure, alone. Although the magnitude of the proposed entertainment structure dwarfs the prior residential home that the owners demolished, the City had wrongfully approved the now-unlawful use of the old residential sewer lines. b. The Code requires a lot upon which a residence is built to have street pavement along the entire front of that lot. Although the easterly lot line for 101 Lusk Avenue extends for 123 feet along the City's right?of?way, but only about one-third (about 40 feet) is a paved surface. The Site Plan documents submitted to, and approved by, the City misrepresent the reality of the street frontage, making it appear as though the City?s entire Lusk Avenue right?of?way is paved to a point beyond the lot?s southeast property corner. Yet, the City makes no commitment to pave the street?let alone install a storm water sewer to capture the significant quantity of drainage that will flow from the impervious roof surfaces and driveway payment that are planned for this entertainment venue. c. The Code requires that a residential structure may not be closer to the street that the average set-back of other residential structures on the same street. Code 14- But, the proposed plans for this structure indicate a fifteen?foot set- back from Lusk Avenue, which appears to be less than the average set?back for the other two residential homes on the same side of the same street and the set-back for the only existing residential structure on the other side of the street. At the very least, nothing in the City?s file for this project indicates that the owners have complied with this averaging requirement. 9. Those who are empowered to interpret and apply provisions of the Iowa City Zoning Code to specific instances are directed by the Code that such provisions "shall be held to be the minimum requirements for the promotion of the public safety, health, convenience, order, prosperity and general welfare? of the citizens of Iowa City. Code In virtually every objected-to instance cited by the Applicants, however, the City has interpreted and Appeal to Iowa City Board of Adjustment 101 Lusk Avenue Page 8 applied the Code in a manner that has minimized requirements for the owners, contrary to the public interest and the spirit of the Code. For example: a. The Code prohibits three-story residential structures in low?density residential neighborhoods to discourage buildings that visually dominate other buildings in the vicinity. Code 14-2A-4.C.1, table However, the drawings submitted by the owners of 101 Lusk Avenue indicate that the structure is three-stories tall. A basketball court located on the lowest level has no ceiling at that level; rather, the ceiling is placed to the top of the next floor?22 feet above the basketball court?s floor surface. Elevation drawings taken from the southerly side of the structure show a wall laid bare by the declining elevation of the lot (the same decline that will result in significant storm water runoff to flow unlawfully into neighboring properties and city right-of-way). b. The Code limits the height of a residential structure to 35 feet . Code 14-2A-4.C.1, table 2A-2. Yet, the drawings approved by the City when issuing a Building Permit indicate that the structure is at least 37.5 feet tall?most visibly measured on the structure?s southerly side. The fully?finished lowest-level, complete with movie theater and basketball court, is completely integrated with the middle floor: the basketball court is two?floors high. Above the second floor are third-floor rooms cast in the role as press box. While the Applicants believe that this is no residential structure?and, on that basis, alone, should not be permitted for construction?the building plans do not meet even the most basic rules applicable to residential structures. c. The Code establishes design standards for single family dwellings that are intended to enhance the oriented character of the neighborhood by preventing blank facades and large expanses of concrete along the street. Code 14-2A-6.A.3. Yet, the approved plans depict the easterly end of the building as nearly 80 linear feet of blank brick wall facade, a surface broken only by one door and two windows. The Proposed Structure Cannot be Approved Under the ?Minor Modifications" Provision of the Code 10. The planned entertainment venue cannot qualify as a residential structure under the so? called "Minor Modification? provisions of the Code. Code That is, no minor modification to the plans would allow it properly to be categorized as a single family residence. Even with minor modifications, the proposed structure would be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or be injurious to other property in the Manville Heights neighborhood, which is properly zoned as RS-S. The Proposed Structure Cannot Qualify Under any Variance 11. Nor can this property qualify for a variance from the RS-5 and other applicable zoning Code provisions. Code The way that building is designed and the project as described in the Site Plan threaten the integrity of the Manville Heights neighborhood and Appeal to Iowa City Board of Adjustment 101 Lusk Avenue Page 9 its presence will substantially adversely affect the uses and values of other properties in the area adjacent to 101 Lusk Avenue. The proposed structure is not in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the RS-S zone. Any uniqueness or hardship to be suffered by the owners as the result of the City?s denial of the intended use of this property resides in the poor judgment of the owners and not in the fair, just, reasonable and efficient application and interpretation of the Code. The Proposed Structure Cannot Qualify as a Special Exception 12. The planned entertainment venue cannot qualify for a special exception to the provisions of the Code. Code Any exception allowing construction of this building at 101 Lusk Avenue will be detrimental and/or endanger the public health, safety, comfort and/or general welfare of those who reside in Manville Heights. Further, such use will injure the enjoyment and use of property in the immediate vicinity and diminish the values of properties in the neighborhood. The proposed building will cause substantial drainage problems in an area of the neighborhood that is without adequate storm sewers and significant erosion on adjacent City and private property already exists. The proposed building will cause significant traffic congestion, dangerous roadway conditions and will preclude emergency vehicles from accessing the property or, once there, from turning around. Remedies desired by Applicants: 0 That the Board of Adjustment over?rule the City?s mis-classification of this proposed project as a single family residential structure and re-classify it according to the function(s) for which it has been designed: an entertainment venue. 0 That the Board of Adjustment make a series of factual findings as to the problems that this structure will pose to the public if it is constructed pursuant to the present Site Plan and Building Permit. 0 That the Board of Adjustment determine that there is no exception for, or variance to, or special accommodation under, the Iowa City Zoning Ordinance that should allow its construction to be approved, or approved as proposed, or with conditions. 0 That any approval of the structure?s Site Plan be stayed. 0 That any approval of the structure?s Building Permit be stayed. Appeal to Iowa City Board of Adjustment 101 Lusk Avenue Page 10 APPLICATION TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPEAL DATE: PROPERTY PARCEL NO. APPEAL PROPERTY ADDRESS: APPEAL PROPERTY ZONE: APPEAL PROPERTY LOT SIZE: APPLICANT: Name: Address: Phone: CONTACT PERSON: Name: Address: Phone: PROPERTY OWNER: Name: Address: Phone: The Board of Adjustment is empowered to hear and decide appeals where it is alleged there is an error in any order, requirement, decision, or determination made by the City Manager or designee in the enforcement of the Zoning Code or of any ordinance adopted pursuant thereto. Please see 1460-3 in the Zoning Code for detailed information on the appeal procedure. Planning staff are available to assist applicants with questions about the appeal process or regulations and standards in the code. Appeals to the Board of Adiustmentshall be filed with the Clerk within a reasonable time good, not to ex 3 lender da 8 after the action a aled from. An appeal from a decision by the Building Inspector to issue a permit shall not be deemed to have been ?led within a reasonable time if such appeal is ?led more than ten (10) business days after construction work pursuant to such permit is observable from adjacent properties of the public right of way or ten (10) days after an alleged violation of the zoning code is similarly observable. [Applicants may appeal an approval or denial of a Certi?cate of Appropriateness from the Historic Preservation Commission within a conservation district by ?ling a letter with the City Clerk within ten(10) business days after a resolution is ?led by the Commission]