Loading...
05-128Council File # �_f � Green Sheet # 3025163 Presented Refened To Committee Date 1 BE IT RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Pau1 hereby certifies and approves the January 18, 2 2Q05, decisions of the Legislative Hearing Officer on Appeals of Letters, Correction Notices, and Conection 3 Orders for the following addresses: 4 Pro�ertv Ap eD aled Appellant 5 200Q Dayton Avenue John Lieberherr 6 Decision: Laid over to the January 25, 2005, Legislative Hearing. 7 726 Selbv Avenue Rick Tgo 8 Decision: Appeal denied on letter from LIEP dated December 14, 2004. 9 10 Ii l2 3 4 5 Yeas Na s Absent Benanau 1 / Bostrom � Harris � Aelgen ri Lanhy ;� Montgomery ✓ Thune f/ Requested by Department of: IC Form Approved by City Attorney Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council i Adopted by Council: Date _��C�/J1dl��ds B y' Adoption Certified by Councii Secretary BY� /Jir�� 4ii/lS4s� RESOLUTION CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA � ' �� � � 1 � �. ��i�"■ � __ S �..d� �,_�� � Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet � �� �g co -caw,�;+ Contad Person 8 Phune: Marcia Moermorrcf 266-8560 Be on Councii Agenda by (Date): Total # of SignaWre Pages Date initiated: 0&FEB-05 �► Asslgn Number For Routing Order Green Sheet NO; 3025163 0 ci 1 uncil De arhnentDirector 2 uk 3 4 5 (Ciip Afl Locatia�s for Signature) Approving the January 18, 2005, decisions of ffie Legisla6ve Hearing Officer on Appeals of L,�tters, Correcrion Notices, and Correction Otders for 2000 Dayton Avenue and 726 Selby Avenue. idations: Approve (A) or R Planning Commission CIB Committee Civil Service Commission 1. Has this persoNfirm ever worked under a contract for this departmenY? Yes No 2. Has this persoNfirm ever been a city emptoyee? Yes No 3. Does this personffirtn possess a skill not nortnally possassed by any' cur2nt city employee? Yes No Expiain ail yes answers on separate sheet and attach to green sheet Initiating Probfem, issues, OppoRunity (4Vho, What, When, Where, Why): AdvanWges If Approved: DisadvanWpes If Approvetl: Disativantages If Not Approved: Transaction: FundinS� Source: CosNRevenue Budgeted; ; � Actnrit�+Number: " Gounci{ Re�ga�cn Cer�tee �ES � g .20U5 Financiai InformaGon: (Exptain) - �- �2� �, '. CITY OF SAINT PAUL s:s:°.ss., _ OFFICE OF THB CITY COUNCIL LEGISLATIVE FIEARIlVG REPORT TO: Councilmembers � FROM: Marcia Moermond, Legislative Hearing Officer ��/ SUBJECT: Appeal of Rick Igo (Historic Renovations, Inc.) of Building Permit Denial for 726 Selby Avenue DATE: Tuesday, February 8, 2005 On Tuesday January 18, 2005, I conducted a Legislative Hearing on the appeal of Mr. Rick Igo (Histaric Renovations, Inc.) of Building Permit Denial for 726 Selby Avenue. On December 10, 2004, Mr. Igo applied for a building permit to construct a mixed use building with a store front on the first floor and residential apartmenYs on the second floor. This application was denied as staff indicated a site plan review was necRSSary for this permit to be issued. After consulting with Mr. Brian Alton, his attorney, Mr. Igo applied for a building perntit for the foundation only, and Mr. Alton suggested several conditions which could be attached to permit, potentially alleviating some of the staff's concerns over issuance of the permit. Staff denied this permit request as well. On December 23, 2004, Mr. Igo appealed the denial of the building permit on several grounds. Specificaily, he did not concur that a site plan was needed for the foundation alone or that easements for properties to the east and west of the site were necessary. Mr. Igo also stated in the hearing that he believed his application for a building permit was denied based on a vendetta against him by a City staff member. Lastly, despite his lack of a building permit, Mr. Igo went ahead with his work on the site. On December 20, 2004, Inspector Jon Hegner of License, Inspections, and Environmental Protection (LIEP) issued a stop work order and instructed Mr. Igo that he needed to get the required permits within seven days. Based on testimony in the hearing and a review of relevant documents, I ask the Council to ratify my decision to deny the appeal of Mr. Igo. A site plan review is required by the Legislative Code for both the building permit for the entire project and for the footing and foundation alone. With respect to the easements, City staff were right to require documentation that Mr. Igo either owned or had easements on any of the properties affected by the project. Finally, for the record, this decision does not afFect the ability of the LIEP to impose double fees for the building permits. a Rick Igo Mr. Brian Alton, McClay-Alton, PLLP, 951 Grand Ave, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55105 John Hardwick, Wendy Lane, LIEP CITY HALL THIRD FLOOR 15 WEST KELLOGG BOULEVARD SAIlVT PAUL, MINNESOTA 55102-1615 � AA-ADA-EEO Employu T��� �S �Z�S NOTES OF TE� LEGISLATNE HEARING LETTERS OF DEFICIENCY, CORRECTION NOTICES, AND CORRECTION ORDERS Tuesday, January 18, 2005 Room 330 City Hall, I S Kellogg Boulevazd West Marcia Moermond, Legislative Hearing Officer The hearing was called to order at 132 p.m. STAFF PRESENT: Wendy Lane, Office of License, Inspections, Environmental Protection (I-IEP) Appeal uf Deficiency List at 20Q0 Davton Avenue. Mazcia Moermond laid over this matter to January 25 per a request from Fire Department staff. Appeal of letter at 726 Selbv Avenue. R9ck Igo, owner, appeared. Wendy Lane, Zoning Manager, gave Ms. Moermond a document and said she is representing John Hardwick (LIEP) who is on an extended leave. She had someone take photographs on Friday. (These photographs were shown to Ms. Moermond and Mr. Igo.) According to Mr. Hardwick's written testimony, Mr. Igo came in on December 10 to appiy for a building permit to conshuct a mixed-use building with commercial on the first floor and resldential apartments on the second floor. His building permit was denied. He changed the permit to a footing and foundation permit, and that was denied because the site had not gone through a site plan review process. In the site plan review process, an application is received and staff from departments meet with the applicant and go tluough the code requirements for the different departments, so the applicant can get the requirements for everykhing at one time. A site plan is required per Section 61.402. Note that the Planning Commission has delegated the authority to staff. They can take it back if it is a complicated controversial project. Ms. Lane read the City's definition of "major thoroughfare." A minor arterial is defined as a major thoroughfaze. It is LIEP's contention that a site plan review was necessary. Mr. Igo has submitted an application for a site plan review, went through the site plan review process, met with City staff on January 4, and received a list of all the comments from that meeting. Plans and additional details will haue to be submitted before the site plan can be approved. Once tha additional site plan is approved, they can issue the building pernut. One of Mr. Igo's concerns is that he was leaving town and he wanted to get this arranged before he left. It is LIEP's opinion that they cannot grant waivers from the code just because someone is out of town. That is the reason they denied the construction permit. Mr. Igo stated the biggest problem was that 3ohn Hardwick said the building cannot be built within six feet of the property line. Mr. Igo and Mr. Hardwick had numerous conversafions about that. Mr. Hardwick only read part of the code. The whole code reads that if there is an C�'j-CZ..�'6 NOTES OF TI� LBGISLA'TNE HEARING FOR JANtJARY 18, 2005 Page 2 agreement with the neighboring properry, it can be built on that property line. Mr. Hardwick said that he was done dealing with Mr. Igo. Mr. Igo faYed the code to Tom Beach (I,IEP) who said that he understood. The only thing that needs to be done for the site plan approval is to specify the size of the shrubs. (Ms. Moermond took a few minutes to read the paperwork she just received.) Ms. Moermond stated it looks like more than just the plants. It looks like Mr. Igo had to explain the easement. Mr. Igo responded that an easement is needed according to Code 66.431E, which he read: No side or reaz yazds aze required along the interior lot lines of the district, except as otherwise specified...Sade and reaz yazds of at least six (6) feet shall be required when a business district adjoins a side yard in an adjacent residence district. These setback requirements from interior lot lines shall be waived when an easement agreement is recorded as to the affected properties. Proof of such recarded easement shall be provided at the rime of application for a building permit. Mr. Igo stated that he has not made an application to build a building at this point. Ms. Moermond responded she understood that he was appealing the denial of the building pernut. Mr. Igo responded that he has a letter from Mr. Hardwick dated December 14, 2004, to Brian Alton, Mr. Igo's attorney, responding to an e-maii in which Mr. Igo is requesting a building pernut. Mr. Igo has not applied for a pernut to build a building; he had applied for a permit to install footing and foundation only. (Mr. Igo showed that the ink is different in one portion of the document.) The change is because of an argument with Mr. Hardwick. If he cannot build a building, said Mr. Igo, he will put a fence azound the property. He is not trying to pu11 a permit for the entire building. He is just trying to put in a foundation and footing. Mr. Hardwick falsely said that he was pulling a permit for the entire building and then altered it to say something else. Ms. Moermond asked is there anything else. Mr. Igo responded that he would like to address the whole thing. (He passed out a packet of materials.) Mr. Igo stated he would like to go step by step thtough the deniais. The code was not foilowed properly. In his letter, he is objecting to 61.02 of the Legislative Code, the grading and erecrion of any development. He has not graded the property nor erected an}�thing. His object is to put footing and foundation in the ground. He explained this to Mr. Hardwick that he would put the foundation in now, come back later to do the site plan, and then appiy for a building pernut. He and Mr. Hazdwick have been fighting since 1947 because of an appeal at that time. He objects to Selby being called a major tk�oroughfare. Abutting means having a common boundary, a relationship, at a common properiy line, street, or alley. His foundafion is 38 feet behind the sidewalk. In reality, according to the code, Line 131, it is adjacent with or without contact. His foundation does not abut a majar thoroug�fare. a5-�zg NOTES OF TF� LEGISLATIVE HEAIZING FOR JANUARY 18, 2005 Page 3 Mr. Igo continued: Mr. Hardwick's neat point in his written statement is the appiicant is proposing a two story building with residential units on the second floor, storage on the first floor, and storage building is not aliowed in S-2. Mr. Igo stated he never proposed a new building on this site. This is in addition to an existing building. The use of this buiiding is allowed in B-2 zoning. (Mr. Igo read some zoning lot codes). Ae did not need to combine the lots and does not need to have a party wall. All the objections do not coincide with the code. Why would a foundation be considered part of a building, asked Mr. Igo. No other definition includes founda"on. The architect has finished with the building plan. At this point, Mr. Igo put the foundarion in the ground in December because it was going into frost. By putting the foundation into the ground, they did not put the City into a posiuon where the City was required to give hun a permit. He owned the site in 1987. He discussed this project with the neighbars and they are in favor of it. He is putting up privacy fences. He sat down with the Zoning Department with the site pian and walked through the entire process. He lrnew what he had to do. Every element for the building is on semi trailers. His intent since 1987 was he would build it when he had the cash. If this stands, Mr. Igo wiil get a double fee. The code allows a foundation to go into the ground that he site planned. Ms. Moermond asked how far along is the foundation. Mr. Igo responded the foundation is complete and up to grade. The footings are in. Frost blankets are covering the entire site so it does not freeze. He is able to build on that side during the winter. If he was not able to put in the foundation, it would cost him up to $10,000 more to bust through the frost in the ground. He made an agreement in 2002 that he would build on that site. Nowhere in the code does it state that a foundation cannot be put in without a site plan approval. They say that for the expansion of gross square footage, site plan approval is needed. The foundation does not expand the gross square footage. If the appeals come down and he loses, the City can have him jackhammer the fooring, and he can't build a building there. He is hying to be a good citizen and putting up a building that has an$800,000 value. He is building three high value condos. He has renovated hundreds of building and done a quality job on each one. Ms. Lane staxed that footing and foundation permit is a building permit. It is considered a permit like a construction of a buiiding. The foundation can be done with the same pernut as the construction of the building or it can be done separately if the applicant wishes to phase it in; however, they generaliy know what is going on top of it. The State building code administrative rule says that construction has to include plans to show how it meets all the code requirements. One af the things reviewed is that the footing and foundation is sufficient to hold up the building that will be on top of it; that is one of the reasons they aze put together, although they can be put apart. LIEP does not want to say later that it has to be tom out, so it can meet the requirement of the code. This is to avoid future problems. Also, the definifion of "abut" needs to be clarified. LIEP's interpretation is this property abuts the street: the common property line abuts ihe street aud is right next to it, even thougJi the building is set back from the property line. �S--�2g NOTES OF T`HE LEGISLATIVE HEARING FOR JAIVLTARY 18, 2005 Page 4 (Ms. Lane submitted a copy of the code.) Ms. Moermond stated she has a lot of new materials that she has been presented with, and she would like more time to go through them. She will send Mr. Igo a letter with her decision. Mr. Igo requested a copy of the site plan documents he was not privy to. (These documents were given to Mr. Tgo after the meeting adjourned.) Mr. Igo asked was there anything in the site plan saying that his project is denied. Ms. Lane responded it says it is approved provided he submit additional pians showing changes, inciuding the easement. As for footing and foundation in the building permit, said Ms. Lane, when she says they are sepazated out, it is usually for large projects when they know the building is allowed at that site and they have structural plans for the building. It is the detailed plans they are still finalizing-mechanical, electrical, piumbing-then LIEP will issue a footing and foundation permit. This is when they know what is on top will work. As for the building inspector removing the foundation if the application is denied, Ms. Lane does not have the answer to that. It would be up to the building inspector. The buiiding inspector has not inspected the footings. Mr. Igo stated he bought the buiiding plans to Mr. Hardwick for the foundation and the structural wark. All the issues Ms. Lane discussed were addressed. The hearing was adjourned at 2:28 p.m. Note: Ms. Moermond denied the appeal on the letter from the Office of LIEP dated Aecember 13, 2004. rrn Council File # h5 - hta�' Green Sheet # 3025163 RESOLUTION CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA Presented Referred To Committee Date � 1 BE TT RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul hereby certifies and approves the January 18, 2 2005, decisions of the Legislative Hearing Officer on Appeals of Letters, Correction Notices, and Correction 3 Orders for the following addresses: 4 Properiy Ap_pealed Appellant 5 2000 Dayton Avenue John Lieberherr 6 Decision: Laid over to the January 25, 2005, Legislative Hearing. 7 726 Selby Avenue Rick Igo 8 Becision: Appeal denied on letter from LIEP dated December 14, 2004. 9 1� 11 12 13 14 i5 Yeas Na s Absent Benanav �/ Bostrom � Hanis � Helgen .i Lantry ;� Montgomery � Thune � Requested by Deparhnent of: � Form Approved by City Attomey Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council 6 Adopted by Council: Date � / �� BY� 7 Adoption 8 By: � 3 Approved by ) By: _L Council Secretary �/���n , Date: �' �� � Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet � OS-1`2-g Departrnent/office/eouncil: Date Initiated: co -���;, b&FEB Green Sheet NO: 3025163 Contact Person 8 Pha�e: Marcia Mcertnond 266-8566 Be on Councif Agenda by (Date): Total # of SignaWre Pages �/ Assign Num6er For Routing Order 0 0o cil 1 oa 't De a evtDirector 2 i Clerk 3 4 5 iClip AII Locations for Signature) Approving the January 18, 2005, decisions of the Izgisiative Hearing Oflicer on Appeals of Letters, Correction Notices, and Correcrion Orders for 2�00 Dayton Avenue and 726 Selby Avenue. Pianning Commission 1. Has this personlfirtn ever worked under a contract for ihis tlepartment? CIB Committee Yes No Civil Service Commission 2. Has this perso�rtn ever been a city employee? Yes No 3. Does this personlfirtn possess a skill not normatly possessed by any' current city employee? Yes No Explain all yes answers on separate sheet and attach to green sheet Initiating Probiem, Issues, Opportuniry (Who, What, When,lNhere, Why): AdvantageslfApproved: Disadvantages If Approved: Oisadvantages If Not Approved: Trensaction: Fundinsl Source: CosURevenue Budgeted: Z ActivitV Namtier: - Council Re�arch Ce�tef FEB �} g •2005 Financial lnfarmation: (Explain) ��` d5- �Z� � �; CITY OF SAINT PAUL .. ;3ii`:�i� - OFFICE OF THE CITY COUNCIL LEGISLATIVE HEARING REPORT TO: Councilmembers � FROM: Marcia Moermond, Legislative Hearing Officer �� SUBJECT: Appeal of Rick Igo (Historic Renovations, Inc.) of Building Permit Deniai for 726 Selby Avenue DATE: Tuesday, February S, 2005 On Tuesday January 18, 2005, I conducted a Legislative Heazing on the appeal of Mr. Rick Igo (Historic Renovations, Inc.) of Building Permit Denial for 726 Selby Avenue. On December 10, 2004, Mr. Igo applied for a building permit to construct a mixed use building with a store front on the first floor and residential apartments on the second floor. This application was denied as staff indicated a site plan review was necessary for this permit to be issued. After consulting with Mr. Brian Alton, his attorney, Mr. Igo applied for a buiiding permit for the foundation only, and Mr. Alton suggested several conditions which could be attached to permit, potentially alleviating some of the staffls concems over issuance of the permit. Staff denied this permlt request as well. On December 23, 2004, Mr. Igo appealed the denial of the building permit on several grounds. Specifically, he did not concur that a site plan was needed for the foundation alone or that easements for properties to the east and west of the site were necessary. Mr. Igo also stated in the hearing that he believed his application far a building permit was denied based on a vendetta against him by a City staff member. Lastly, despite his lack of a building permit, Mr. Igo went ahead with his work on the site. On December 20, 2004, Inspector Jon Hegner of License, Inspections, and Environmental Protection (LIEP) issued a stop work order and instructed Mr. Igo that he needed to get the required permits within seven days. Based on testimony in the hearing and a review of relevant documents, I ask the Council to ratify my decision to deny the appeal of Mr. Igo. A site plan review is required by the Legislative Code for both the building permit for the entire project and for the footing and foundation alone. With respect to the easeraents, City staff were right to require documentation that Mt Igo either owned or had easements on any of the properties affected by the proj ect. Finally, for the record, this decision does not affect the ability of the LIEP to impose double fees for the building permits. c: Rick Igo Mr. Brian Alton, McClay-Alton, PLLP, 951 Grand Ave., Saint Paul, Minnesota 55105 John Hardwick, Wendy Lane, LIEP CITY HALL 'I'HIRD FLOOR 15 WEST KELLOGG BOULEVARD SAINT PAUL, MIIVNESOTA 55102-I615 � AA-ADA-EEO Employer ���� O� �Z£� NOTES OF TI� LEGISLATIVE HEARING LETTERS OF DEFICIENCY, CORRECTION NOTTCES, AND CORRECTION ORDERS Tuesday, Januazy 18, 2005 Room 330 City Ha11, 15 Kellogg Boulevard West Marcia Moermond, Legislative Heariug Officer The hearing was calied to order at 132 p.m. STAFF PRESENT: Wendy Lane, Office of License, Inspections, Environmental Protection ��P) Appeal of Deficiency List at 2000 Davton Avenue. Marcia Moermond laid over this matter to January 25 per a request from Fire Department staff. Appeal of letter at 726 Selbv Avenue. Rick Igo, owner, appeared. Wendy Lane, Zoning Manager, gave Ms. Moermond a document and said she is representing John Hazdwick (LIEP) who is on an extended leave. She had someone take photo�aphs on Friday. (These photographs were shown to Ms. Moermond and Mr. Igo.) According to Mr. Hardwick's written testimony, Mr. Igo came in on December 10 to appiy for a building permit to construct a mixed-use building with commercial on the first floor and residential apartments on the second floor. His building permit was denied. He changed the pernut to a footing and foundation permit, and that was denied because the site had not gone through a site plan review process. In the site plan review process, an application is received and staff from departments meet with the applicant and go through the code requirements for the different departments, so the applicant can get the requirements for everything at one tnne. A site plan is required per Section 61.402. Note that the Planning Commission has delegated the authority to staf£ They can take it back if it is a complicated controversial project. Ms. Lane read the City's definition of "major thoroughfare." A minor arterial is defined as a major thoroughfare. It is LIEP's contention that a site plan review was necessary. Mr. Igo has submitted an application for a site plan review, went through the site plan review process, met with City staff on January 4, and received a list of all the comments from that meeting. Plans and additional details wi11 have to be submitted before the site plan can be approved. Once the additional site plan is approved, they can issue the building permit. One of Mr. Igds concerns is that he was leaving town and he wanted to get this arranged before he left. It is LIEP's opinion that they cannot grant waivers from the code just because someone is out of town. That is the reason they denied the construction permit. Mr. Igo stated the biggest problem was that John Hardwick said the building cannot be built within six feet of the property line. Mr. Igo and Mr. Hardwick had numerous conversations about that. Mr. Hardwick only read part of the code. The whole code reads that if there is an t�-� NOTES OF T'HE LEGISLATIVE HEAR.ING FOR JANC_JARY 18, 2005 Page 2 agreement with the neighboring property, it can be built on that property line. Mr. Hardwick said that he was done dealing with Mr. Igo. Ivlr. Igo faYed the code to Tom Beach (LIEP) who said that he understood. The only thing that needs to be done for the site plan approval is to specify the size of the shrubs. (Ms. Moermond took a few minutes to read the paperwork she just received.) Ms. Moermond stated it looks like more than just the plants. It looks like NIr. Igo had to explain the easement. Mr. Igo responded that an easement is needed according to Code 66.431 E, which he read: No side or reaz yards aze required along the interior lot lines of the district, except as otherwise specified...Side and reaz yards of at least six (6) feet shall be required when a business district adjoins a side yard in an adjacent residence district. These setback requirements from interior lot lines shall be waived when an easement agreement is recorded as to the affected properties. Proof of such recorded easement shall be provided at the time of application for a building permit. Mr. Igo stated that he has not made an application to build a building at this point. Ms. Moermond responded she understood that he was appealing the denial of the building pernut. Mr. Igo responded that he has a letter from Mr. Hardwick dated December 14, 2004, to Brian Alton, Mr. Igo's attorney, responding to an e-mail in which Mr. Igo is requesting a building pernut. Mr. Igo has not applied for a permit to buiid a building; he had applied for a permit to install footing and foundation only. {Mr. Igo showed that the ink is different in one portion of the docutnent.) The change is because of an argument with Mr. Hardwick. If he cannot build a building, said Mr. Igo, he will put a fence around the properly. He is not trying to pull a permit for the entire building. He is just trying to put in a foundation and footing. Mr. Hudwick falsely said that he was pulling a pernut for the entire building and then aitered it to say something else. Ms. Moermond asked is there anything eise. Mr. Igo responded that he would like to address the whole thing. (He passed out a packet of materials.) Mr. Igo stated he would like to go step by step through the denials. The code was not followed properly. in his letter, he is objecting to 61.02 of the Legislative Code, the grading and erection of any development. He has not graded the property nor erected anything. His object is to put footing and foundation in the ground. He explained this to Mr. Hardwick that he would put the foundation in now, come back later to do the site plan, and then apply for a building permit. He and Mr. Hardwick have been fighting since 1997 because of an appeal at that rime. He objects to Selby being called a major thoroughfaze. Abutting means hauing a common boundary, a relationship, at a common property line, street, or alley. His foundation is 38 feet behind the sidewalk. In reality, according to the code, Line 131, it is adjacent with or without contact. His foundarion does not abut a major thoroughfare. �-�� NOT'ES OF T�IE LEGISLATIVE HEARING FOR JANUARY 18, 2005 Page 3 Mr. Igo continued: Mr. Hazdwick's next point in his written statement is the applicant is propos9ng a two story building with residential units on the second floor, storage on the first floor, and storage building is not allowed in B-2. Mr. Igo stated he never proposed a new building on ttus site. This is in addition to an existing building. The use of this building is ailowed in B-2 zoning. (Mr. Igo read some zoning lot codes). He did not need to combine the lots and does not need to have a pariy wall. All the objections do not coincide with the code. Why would a foundafion be considered part of a building, asked Mr. Igo. No other definition inciudes foundation. The architect has finished with the building plan. At this point, Mr. Igo put the foundafion in the ground in December because it was going into frost. By putting the foundation into the ground, they did not put the City into a position where the City was required to give him a pernut. He owned the site in 1987. He discussed this project with the neighbors and they are in favor of it. He is putting up privacy fences. He sat down with the Zoning Department with the site plan and walked through the entire process. He knew what he had to do. Every element for the buiiding is on semi trailers. His intent since 1987 was he would build it when he had the cash. If this stands, Mr. Igo will get a doubie fee. The code allows a foundation to go into the gtound that he site planned. Ms. Moermond asked how faz along is the foundation. Mr. Igo responded the foundation is complete and up to grade. The footings are in. Frost blankets are covering the enrire site so it does not freeze. He is able to build on that side during the winter. If he was not able to put in the foundation, it would cost him up to $10,000 more to bust through the frost in the ground. He made an agreement in 2002 that he would build on that site. Nowhere in the code does it state that a foundation cannot be put in without a site plan approval. They say that for the expansion of gross square footage, site plan approval is needed. The foundation does not expand the gross square footage. If the appeais come down and he loses, the City can haue him jackhammer the footing, and he can't build a building there. He is trying to be a good citizen and putting up a building that has an$800,000 value. He is building three high value condos. He has renovated hundreds of building and done a quality job on each one. Ms. Lane stated that footing and foundation permit is a building pernut. It is considered a permit like a construction of a building. The foundation can be done with the same permit as the construction of the building or it can be done separately if the applicant wishes to phase it in; however, they generaily lrnow what is going on top of it The State building code administrative rule says that conshucfion has to include plans to show how it meets all the code requirements. One of the things reviewed is that the footing and foundation is sufficient to hold up the building that wi11 be on top of it; that is one of the reasons they aze put together, although they can be put apart. LIEP does not want to say later that it has to be torn out, so it can meet the requirement of the code. This is to avoid future problems. Also, the definition of "abuY' needs to be clarified. LIEP's interpretation is this property abuts the street the common properry line abuts the street and is right next to it, even though the building is set back from the property line. � S--�Z.B NO`I`ES OF'TI� LEGISLATIVE HEARiNG FQR JANLJARY 18, 20Q5 Page 4 (Ms. Lane submitted a copy of the code.) Ms. Moermond stated she has a lot of new materials that she has been presented with, and she would like more time to go through them. She will send Mr. Igo a letter with her decision. Mr. Igo requested a copy of the site plan documents he was not privy to. (These docuxnents were given to Mr. Igo after the meeting adjourned.) Mr. Igo asked was there anything in the site plan saying that his project is denied. Ms. Lane responded it says it is approved provided he submit additional plans showing changes, including the easement. As for footing and foundation in the building pernut, said Ms. Lane, when she says they are separated out, it is usually for lazge projects when they know the building is allowed at that site and they have sriuctural plans for the building. It is the detailed plans they aze still finalizing-mechanical, eleetrical, plumbing-then LIEP will issue a footing and foundation permit. This is when they lmow what is on top will wark. As for the building inspector removing the foundation if the application is denied, Ms. Lane does not have the answer to that. It would be up to the building inspector. The building inspectar has not inspected the footings. Mr. Igo stated he bought the buiiding plans to Nfr. Hardwick for the foundarion and the structural work. All the issues Ms. Lane discussed were addressed. The hearing was adjourned at 228 p.m. Note: Ms. Moermond denied the appeal on the letter from the Office of LLEP dated December 13, 2004. rrn