Loading...
02-619OR�GiNAL RESOLUTION Presented Refesed To � Council File # O � - `\e+ Green Sheet # 113745 Committee Date �� 1 BE IT RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul hereby certifies and approves the July 2, 2002 2 decisions of the Legislative Aearing Officer on Properiy Code Enforcement Appeals for the following 3 addresses: 4 Progertv Appealed PAUL, MINNESOTA Ap elo lant 5 665 Snelling Avenue North (I,aid over from 5-14-02) Kathryn Nelson 6 Decision: Appeal denied on letter dated April 15, 2002, regazding the rainleader ordinance. 7 8 657 Fourth Street East Virguva Hebert 9 Decision: Faling fee will be refunded because the appeliant has withdrawn this appeal. 10 448 Bidwell Street Robert Pilz I 1 Decision: Appeal granted on the nonconforming doors on the following condifions: 1) If the nonconforming 12 doors ever need to be replaced, they wiil be replaced with conforming fire rated door assemblies; 2) The 13 building will otherwise be maintained in compliance with ali applicable codes and ordinances. 14 1591 Christie Place 15 (Appeal is withdtawn.) 16 17 18 19 20 21 Patricia Eckert 345 St. Peter Street Michael Boyd for Rice Pazk Properties Decision: Appeal granted on trash chutes. When it is practical under construcfion, a fire sprinkler system will be added to the chutes as required. Alsq when it is practicai, a fire sprinkler system can be added to the chutes on individual floors. If there is a fire in this chute and the chute is found to constitute a hazard, this matter will be revisited. All other matters are denied on the June 10, 2002, Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List. 22 2097 Mazshall Avenue Zachery Coelius 23 Decision; Appeal denied on Summary Abatement Order and Conection Order dated 3une 10, 2002. 24 977 Fuiler Avenue (Laid over from 4-30-02) Cherie Eula Johnson 25 Decision: Laid over to the August 27, 2002, Properiy Code Enforcement meeting. 26 27 484 Temperance Street Michael S. Ertz; Northstar Fire Protection 28 for Sherman Associates 29 Decision: Appeal denied on penalty fee invoice dated Apri130, 2002. Crreen Sheet # 113745 Ol -��°� Yeas i3a s Absent Blakey ✓� � Coleman � Harris � Benanav � Reiter � Bostrom �, Lantry � 8 Adopted 1 9 10 Adoprion 11 By: 12 Approved 13 By: Requested by Department of: By: Form Approved by City Attorney � 2 d by Mayor for Submission to Council o�-�.�°� DFPARTMENT/OFFICElCDUNCIL DATEIxR1ATED � City Council Offices Ju� z zooz GREEN SHEET No 1137(�5 COMAC7 PFRSON 8 PFIONE InIWUDah NMlawas Gerry Strathman, 266-8560 oE..rtme+.o.�a'roR ancwcz MUST BE ON COIIDICII AGESIDA BY (D0.T� �lSSicN NUMBFAFOR C11Y�TTOPIEY CIIYCLFAK ROIR111G �� A1A11CW.fERNCFiOn. ❑qiR11q11LfFrtv/At:tTC ❑ WIVORI�RI144RiAM� ❑ TOTAL # OF SIGNATURE PAGES (CL1P ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE) C710N RFAUESTED . " Approving the July 2, 2002, decisions of the Legislative Hearing Officer on Property Code Enforcement Appeals for Che following addresses: 665 Snelling Avenue North, 657 Fourth Street East, 448 Bidwell Street, 1591 Christie Place, 345 St. Peter Street, 2097 Marshall Avenue, 977 Fuller Avenue, and 484 Temperance Street. ECOMMENDATION Approve (A) or Rejeet (R) VERSONALSERVICE CONTItACfS MUSTANSWERTHE POLLOWING QUESiIONS: 1. tlesfffisCer'.+oM�meVeiVKKkedUntlMeCqRiBC[fofthisdepaRRl2fd? PLANNING COMMISSION YES NO CIB CAMMITfEE 2. F�s thie persoNfirtn e.rer be� a cdy employce� CIVIL SERVICE CAMMISSION YES NO 3. �oes tfxs persoNfiim possess a sidll not nonnallYP� bY any arreM dty emdoyee? YES � 4. is this persoMnn a tergetetl ventlo�'7 YES NO E�in all Yes answers on sepaiate sheet arM attach W Dreen sheet INITIATING PROBIEM ISSUE. WPORTUNIN (Who. What, When. Whe'e. WhY) ADVANTAGESIFAPPROVED CeOIXIC� ��CC�T �'e�P!'d�f � � P� o � 4�1lC DISADVANTAGESIFAPPROVED DISADVANrAGES IF NOT APPROVED TOTAL AMOUNT OF TRANSACTION f COS7/REVENUE BUDGETED (CIRCLE ON� YES NO PUNOING SOURCE ACTNITY NUMBER FlNANCNL INFORMATION (IXPWN) �Z--t �,. NOTES OF THE PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMFiNT MEETING Tuesday, 3uly 2, 2002 Room 330 Courthouse Gerry Strathman, Legislative Hearing Officer STAFF PRESENT: Cbris Cahill, Fire Prevention; Pat Cahanes, Public Works-Sewer Utility; Kristine Kujala, Ramsey County Tas Forfeited Lands; Tom LeClair, License, Inspections, Environmental Protecfion (LIEP); Mike Morehead, Code Enforcement; Michael Urmann, Fire Prevention 2097 Marshall Avenne (No one appeared to represent the properiy.) Gerry Strathman denied the appeal. (Note: the appeliant arrived late; this matter was discussed later in the meeting.} 665 Snelling Avenue North (Laid over from 5-14-Q2) (No one appeared to represent the property.) Pat Cahanes reported he met Steve Nelson at the property as Mr. Strattunan's suggested at the last legislative hearing. They went over several options. One was to run the rainleader through the connected house and out the back. Mr. Nelson did not want to do that because there is a conference room there. The other oprion is to reroof and connect to the storm sewer. He also gave Mr. Nelson paperwork to apply for low interest loans that the Sewer Utility is offering for issues such as this. Mr. Cahanes feeis the work can be done in the next two years. Mr. Strathman stated the order reads that the work needs to be done by June 30, 2002. Mr. Cahanes responded the owner was granted an extension to April 14, 2002. He was then sent a letter to disconnect by June 30 or appeal this decision. Gerry Strathman denied the appeal on the letter dated April 15, 2002, regarding the rainleader ordinance. 657 Fourth Street East Mr. Strathman received a ca11 from Rich Singerhouse (Code Enforcement) indicating he had worked out an arraugement with the appellant; therefore, the appeal is being withdrawn. He also requested the appellant's filing fee be refunded. Gerry Strathman stated the filing fee will be refunded at the inspector's request because the appellant has withdrawn this appeal. �Z �c1 PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTES of July 2, 2002 Page 2 448 Bidwell 5treet (I3o one appeazed to represent the property.) Mike Urmann reported he spoke to the appellant a week ago on the telephone. The appellant has agreed to withdraw the appeal on the tank and the basement door if we will grant the appeal on the 20 minute rated doors. Mr. Urmann has no objection to an appeal on the door as long as it is pending compliance with a11 other orders outstanding. Gerry Strathman granted the appeal on the nonconforming doors on the following conditions: 1; If the nonconforming doors ever need to be replaced, they will be replaced with conforming fire rated door assemblies; 2) The building will otherwise be maintained in compliance with ail applicable codes and ordinances. 1591 Christie Place (No one appeazed to represent the property.) Tom LeClair reported the permit was taken last week. The inspection took place Friday. The work has been completed. (The appeal is withdrawn as there is nothing to appeal.) 345 St. Peter Street Michael Boyd, representing Rice Park Properties, the managing company. They would like to taik about two items on the deficiency list. Item 1. Floor #11 - Remove obstrucfion to the Fire sprinkler head or contact a licensed fire sprinkler contractor to provide code compliant coverage. Any sprinkler work must be done by a licensed contractor under permit. - Mr. Boyd stated this is an office floor with ceiling unit sprinklers. There is a drop below ceiling on a soffit with an egg crate situation in it. It allows for the free flow of the water out of the sprinkler head and allows the water to go to the entire floor. It would hit the egg crates and then drop down from the egg crates. Mr. Boyd does not think it would hinder the water from getting to �nere it should go. Mr. Strathman asked how far does it drop. Mr. Boyd responded approximately 18 inches. It comes down on the sides and there is a decorative egg crate ceiling structure that would allow light through. All the lights and fixtures aze above the egg crate ceiling, which are one inch squares. Item 2. All trash chutes of 3 floors or more are required to be sprinkled. - Mr. Boyd stated this trash chute has been in the building since the building was built in 1981. It runs from the C� c PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTES of July 2, 2002 Page 3 25th floor and terminates in the loading dock. This is the first time this issue has been raised by Fire Prevention. (Michael Urmann submitted photographs to Mr. StratUman.) Mr. Urmanu stated the photographs show the obsiructions. The sprinkler system has covezs so it cannot be visible to the public. He does not tlunk the sprinkler head would drop clear to allow the sprinkler head to function in the case of a fire. Mr. Strathman asked how far the sprinkler head drops to be activated. Chris Cahill responded up to two inches depending on the model. The sprinkler standard specifically addresses this issue and plainly says the open grid ceilings shall not be installed in these sprinklers. There are some exceptions, but this situation is not neaz these exceptions. Also, the sprinkler standard does limit what can put within an 38 inch zone of the sprinkler deflector because it does not take much to create a shadow. On the floor, there would be a wide gap in the sprinlcler coverage. Mr. Suathman asked is the installation of this false ceiling recent. Mr. Boyd responded the ceiling may haue been instalied in 1994. The ceiling has not been noted in past inspection reports. The City has come through every two years. Mr. Strathman asked are there pemuts for it. Mr. Boyd responded there were permits pulled at the time for the entire reconstruction project on the l lth floor. The entire floor was gutted at one time and then rebuilt. Mr. Stratlunan asked would this have been reviewed by the Fire Department. Mr. Urmann responded that the sprinkler permits would have been inspected, but not the construction permits. Fire Prevention would have only been responsible for the sprinkler permit itself. Mr. Strathman stated it is not obvious to him why the removal of this egg crate ceiling would be a great hardship. Mr. Boyd responded it was the way it was designed. The lighting is there, and it does hide other things. Mr. Cahill stated he just learned of this today: there may be an option of moving the heads below the egg crate ceiling if they are within one foot of the upper ceiling. The sprinkler will go off a little bit siower and be more visible. Mr. Boyd stated the trash chute is used primarily by the condo residents on Floors 21 to 25. On the floors, it is behind a solid core wood door and then also behind a door for the trash, which is a metal door with a locking hinge. He went through two anspections prior to this one, and the only request from Fire Prevention is that the spring loading actually shuts the door and latches. It does create a solid barrier. (Mr. Urmann submitted a copy of the code.) oZC��� PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT NOT'ES of July 2, 2002 Page 4 Mr. Urmann stated the code is sirai�t forwazd that it would be required. Mr. Stratlunan asked about the magnitude of retrofitting a chute like this with sprinkier heads. Mr. Cahill responded it is not easy work. Every other level would require a sprinkler. Mr. Strathman stated the fire hazard is that if a fire began in the chute or a refuse container at the bottom, smoke and fire would go up the chute. Mr. Urmann added anywhere along that line. SometUing could jam inside the chute or a fire from the floor could breach the chute area. It becomes a chimuey: it will draw the heated gases and smoke from the area of the fire right through the building. Mr. Strathman stated both of these matters are troublesome. There are legitimate fire code requirement, yet here is a building that is barely 20 years old that was obviously built with pernuts, subject to City inspections for 20 years, and now the City finds there are hazards. Mr. Strathman asked what he would do if he had to comply with this. Mr. Boyd responded he does not Irnow. Mr. Strathman denied the appeal with respect to the sprinklers in the ceiling. He is convinced that it does consfitute a authentic fire risk. The remedy is straightforward: remove the false ceiling or drop the heads. Compromising the sprinkler system in the eleventh floor of a building is a serious manner. He granted the appeal with respect to the trash chute. If at anytime it is practical to install heads as required, the owner will do so. Also, if there should be a fire in this chute that is found to constitute a danger or hazard, this issue could be revisited. Mr. Cahill stated he would like the decision to include bringing the chute into compliance when it becomes feasible floor by floor. In sununary, Gerry Stratt�man's decision is as follows: Appeai granted on trash chutes. When it is practical under consmtction, a fire sprinkler system will be added to the chutes as required. Also, when it is practical, a fire sprinkler system can be added to the chutes on individual floors. If there is a fire in this chute and the chute is found to constitute a hazard, tlus matter will be revisited. All other matters are denied on the June 10, 2002, Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List. 2097 Marshall Avenue Zachery Coelius appeared and stated he is the operator of the properry and he resides there; his parents own it. He asked can the fee be waived because he does not have title to the property and his parents don't provide for him. He lives on a fixed scholarship. Mr. Strathman responded the only provision for waiving the $25 filing fee is financial hardship of the owner. Mr. Coelius' financial hazdship cannot be taken into consideration. Mr. Coelius stated he has three major issues: oZ cfl�9 PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTES of July 2, 2002 Page 5 1) There is a correcrion order to remove three hoats according to Section 43.03, which says it is a blight. One is pertaining to a boat that has a hole in it. The hole is imperceprible so it is hard to azgue that the hole is a blight. Unless someone is standing three feet from it, a person cannot tell there is a hole in it. 2) There aze two antique wooden boats stored in the back of the lot. He is azguing them on the same basis. If they were hanging on his wall, they would be considered a piece of ariwork. In the backyard, he wonders why they are a blight. They are beautifixl boats. Because he does not haue them in working condition does not mean they are a blight to the neighbarhood. 3) There is an order to remove weeds from his properry. This is under 45.03. The way he understands the rule is he has to abide by the Statute regazding no�ous weeds. He eliminated any no�ous weeds on his properry that he can find. Tf the City decides to order him to remove certain plants, he would like them to cite how those piants should be removed. In answer to questions by Mr. Strathman, Mr. Coelius responded most of the plants are less than 12 inches tall. These are garden areas. The grassy part of the lawn is less than eight inches high. Mr. Coelius stated he was ordered to remove some timber and building materials he stored on the property, which he has done. He tore off a surface of deck pursuant to an order Mr. Morehead gaue him. He now has those decking materials on his properiy. He is in the process of tearing off more of his deck by the deadline they have given him. Mr. Stratlunan suimnarized: Mr. Coelius had building materials he was ordered to remove, and he did. Now, he has new building materials that he intends to remove, but has not yet done that. Mr. Coelius responded yes. These new materials should be out in a couple of weeks. When he puts the new decking materials in, there wili be scraps. He is hoping to have them a11 together, order one trash container, and duxnp it ail in that container as opposed to ordering one container now and one later. Mr. Strathman asked if he putting the items in the yazd. Mr. Coelius responded they are on a piece of concrete patio, but they aze being put where they can be seen by the neighbors. (Mike Morehead showed Mr. Coelius some photographs. He then showed them to Mr. Strathman.) Mr. Morehead stated one boat has a stern that is gone. Another one has boards that haue popped up on the underside of the bow area, These boats suffer from decay and rot. The ordinance does not address boats, but things that have certain useful life spans at times become junk. These two boats aze junk. If they are salvaged at all, at would take a tremendous amount of effort. He gave Mr. Coelius until June 24 to get rid of the two boats. oZ ��� PROPERTY CODE BNFORCEMENT NOTES of July 2, 2042 Page 6 Mr. Strathman asked would these boats be permitted if they were in new condition. Mr. Morehead responded yes. The condition of the object is what the decision is based on in people's backyards. Mr. Morehead stated they inspected a boat rack. In and around the boat rack aze up to seven boats. Some aze on the ground. The newest sticker reads 1994. He could not find registration srickers on the other. He did give Mr. Coelius unril Labor Day to make the boats operable. If they aze not usable as boats anymore, they are junk according to the statute. Mr. Morehead stated he, Andy Dawkins (his successor), and Matt Dornfeld (inspector) met Mr. Coelius at lus property. T`he grass was cut. There are flower beds surrounding the edge of the grass. There was an azea where nothing has been edged. Tall grass is growing in a smali area. There is an informal compost pit where the weeds aze growing. This is an edging or trimming problem. The lawn is in reasonably good shape. As for the building materials, Mr. Morehead stated, this property has been in vazious states of remodeling for a number of years generating a fair number of complaints to Code Enforcement and the Mayor's Compiaint Office. Mr. Coelius was asked to remove some of the materials ripped from the house. If he has added new items, responded Mr. Strathman, it would not be covered by this order. The order was for a specific pile of lumber to be gone. If he is creating other scrap luxnber, that would be subject to new orders. Mr. Coelius said he is taking the deck apart, stacking the parts on a concrete patio, and intends to remove them in a few weeks. Mr. Strathman asked is that practice congruent with City requirements. Mr. Morehead responded if Mr. Coelius keeps on top of it and removes demolition materials in a reasonably short time. The problem is that some of this stuff sits for years. He is under orders to repair the soffit and facia. The deck needs repairs. He has a court order deadiine on other things. This house has been a problem far some time. It is listed as one of the chronic problem properties in the City. Mr. Coelius has been asked to be treated informa pauperus, but in Pvlr. Morehead's discussions with him, he is eager to tell about the huge profits his family has made in the sell of a house in Stiliwater. This family has more than adequate equity to get these problems solved in short nouce. The amount of money the City has spent responding to neighbor complaints about the condition of this house and the activities is absurd. Mr. Coelius stated they are in agreement on the weeds. He will maintain the flower beds. He is not sure where in the law he has to remove the boats. As far the canoes, state law does not require that boats used for hunting need to be registered. One is not operational, and the others are operational. One canoe has a hole in it and will be repaired. Mr. Strathman staxed he will recommend approval of the order and denial of the appeals regarding the suimnary abatement order and correction order dated June 10, 2002. The two boats do not consdtute recreational vehicles, but constitute debris. There is no dispute about the grass. With respect to the canoes, some are in a better state of repair than the two boats. They do oZ ��� PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTES of Ju1y 2, 20�2 Page 7 constitute a visual blight and aze in a deteriorated state. The arder that Mr. Morehead issued allowing him until September 1 to get the canoes repaired is reasonable and appropriate. 977 Fuller Avenue (Laid over from 4-30-02) Richazd Hawke, 2345 Rice Street #165, Roseville, representing Cherie Eula Johnson, appeared and stated Ms. Johnson inherited this properry from her grandmother. The properry has delinquent real estate taxes and deferred maintenance. Ms. Johnson is low income and qualified for his services through SMRI,S (Southern Minnesota Regional Legal Services). Ms. Johnson has obtained estimates for repairs. At the last Legislative Hearing, they were waiting for word of a mortgage application. They also had a backup mortgage waiting. They were denied the first mortgage. The backup mortgage application was on less favorable terms. He has made application to another company and is expecting to get word of pre-approval for Ms. Johnson. In the meantime, Ta�c Forfeited Lands served the 60 days notice of cancellafion. Since then, Mr. Haake has been working on getting financing. The mortgage broker is still optimistic. It would be a hardship far the owner to vacate the properry while they are trying to get this done. At the last hearing, Joel Essling (Code Enforcement) confirmed that they got the hot water heater and hand sink hooked up; therefore, the health issues have been addressed. They are looking for more tnne. Mr. 5trathman asked is the owner stil] living there with children. Mr. Haake responded Ms. Johnson is living there with a teenage minor son and an adult son. Kristine Kujala reported that Ramsey County has proceeded with cancellation of the contract. Ms. Johnson was personally served on June 20 and the cancellation period runs 60 days. The expiration will be August 19. Assuming it is not refinanced and the contract is not brought up to date, asked Mr. Stratlunan, what will happen then. Ms. Kujala responded she will instruct the County Attorney to file a report on August 20 for cancellation of papers, and the properry will revert back to the State of Minnesota. At that tnne, the County wiil manage it. Commander Mike Morehead reported that Joel Essfing is not here today; therefore, he will defer to Mr. Essling's past testimony with a caveat: PvIr. Morehead takes a dim view of a place being occupied when it is condemned. He needs some insurance as to how long this will go on. He does have concems. Mr. Strathman staYed this matter is moving towards closure. If the property is not refinanced and restoration not begun within 50 days, the County will take the property over. Mr. Strathman does not see anything to be gained by forcing the occupants out as long as the inspector has not concluded that this is an unhealthy or dangerous satuation. oz-e�� PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTES of July 2, 2002 Page 8 Mr. Strathmau laid this over to the August 27, 2002, Properry Code Enforcement meeting. At that time, the conclusion should be clear. If Mr. Essling fmds that this is a hazardous situation, he should call this to Mr. Strathman's attention. 484 Temnerance Street (Note: The City Council referred this matter back to the Legislative Hearing Officer.) Michael S. Ertz; Northstar Fire Protection for Sherman Associates, appeared. Mr. Strathman stated he held a Properiy Code Enforcement meeting on June 4 and he did not heaz this case because it was not timely under the ordinance. It went to the City Council, and they refened it back to him. Mr. Ertz stated he is appealing the double permit fee. They submitted the plans, application, and pernut fee in February. It was not until the end of Aprii that they finally got the go ahead to proceed on the project. They did get a fuli permit about two or three weeks ago. In the construction indushy, the proyect moves along. The general contractor does not wait for the sub- contraetors to get started. They submitted the plans in a timely matter back in February. According to Chief Zaccard, his office tries to turn the plans around in about a week. In this case, it took February 11 to Mazch 28 to get a response back from the City. The response was that they reviewed the plans and found four discrepancies in the p1ans. The corrections were made, and the plans resubmitted. The plans came back the second time re}ected for seven new issues. They made the corrections again, resubmitted the plans, and they were rejected a third time far new items. By now, a lot of time has expired, and construction was progressing. They started hanging pipe on a Monday, and it was Monday afternoon that they got a third letter about the plans still needing revisions. They decided to meet on the following day to resolve the issues. It was at that rime that Mr. Ertz asked the inspector Jason Gahm (Fire Prevention) if he should pull his guys offthe job. Mr. Gahm responded that he would call him back. Chris Cahill called back and said that he should pu11 his guys offthe job because they need to take a thorough look at the plans. The third day, they met to talk about the issues, and then he was handed the letter about the double permit fee. Mr. Strathman asked was his crew on the job i to 2 days. Mr. Ertz responded they spent half a day unloading pipe, getting set up, and installing a dozen or two dozen pieces of pipe, which was not noted on the plan review. Mr. Strathman stated the Fire Marshall sent a letter to a111icensed contractors last fall indicaring that was his policy. Mr. Ertz responded he personally did not see it and he was not aware of it. He has done other work since last fall. He would like to think he had a good warking relationship with the fire department. This business has been around for over 30 yeazs. A simple phone ca11 would have helped. C�z �0��1 PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTES of July 2, 2002 Page 9 Mr. Strathu�au stated he sees a letter from the fire deparhnent that he owes $3,000 far a pemut fee. Mz. Cahill responded the company has already paid the first $3,000 for the permit fee. They owe another $3,125 for beginuing conshuction without approval. Mr. Cahill stated they were worldng without a pernut. He concurs with their time line. They continued to submit plans that were not code compliant. They are a state licensed contractor. Their owner is a state registered professional engineer. They have an obiigafion to submit code compliant plans. The City was put in a position to do their quality control and/or their design for this building. Had they submitted code compliant plans the first tnne, they would have had a pernut on Mazch 6 instead of May 3. In the past, the Fire Department has allowed work without a pernvt. In September and December, a letter was sent to all the contractors to make them aware of the new policy. About 95% of plans aze turned over in two weeks. It really has not slowed the departsnent down much. Mr. Strathxnan asked if it was unusual for there to be a number of corrections for a plan. Mr. Cahill responded it is unusual but not an extreme case. Plans are not rejected fot little issues. Plans are rejected if they are unclear. He is being treated like other sprinkler companies. They did do the work, and they were awaze of the fine. Mr. Ertz stated original plans were submitted in Febniaxy. Responses came back on March 6 that the plans were reviewed and only four corrections were necessary. If they had done a thorough plan review at that time, the company could haue made the corrections in a timely manner and the permits would have been issued before the project began. He brought it to their attention that their guys were on the job. He specifically asked them should he pull them off the job. The best that he can tell, it was followed up with the inspector going to the job site, taking photographs, and citing him the neat day. Mr. Strathman stated it seems the Fire Department has established IetCers indicating their policy. Mr. Ertz certainly received notice of the policy. He was also advised that the plans were not acceptable. Despite that notification, he proceeded to do the work. It seems the situation is clear. Mr. Strathman cannot offer a judgement as to whether the penalty is right. He does not know any basis to make it more or less than $3,125. Maybe the Fire Department could haue done things faster, or should have found all the correetions the first time, etc. None of this alters the fact that the business did not have a permit, and the Fire Mazshall said if someone does that there will be a penalty. It is an unfortunate situation. He cannot find fault with the Fire Depaztment on this. Mr. Strathman denied the appeal on the penalty fee invoice dated April 30, 2002. The meeting was adjomned at 2:57 p.m. Eti.il