Laserfiche WebLink
. , <br /> , ._. � <br /> The applicants have presented two azguxnents. They are as follows as I understand them: <br /> 1) The classification didn't change when Atelier LeSueur occupied the building because <br /> they were not issued a certificate of occupancy. <br /> The City's position is that Atelier LeSueur's architect proposed it as a B-2 occupancy. . <br /> The City classified it as a B-2 occupancy, and it was occupied for over two years as <br /> a B-2 occupancy. The building has been through three occupancy changes since it <br /> was used as an elementary school. To revert back to the original use that last e�sted <br /> prior to 1971 with out updating the building to meet code requirements is in violation <br /> of the building code. <br /> 2) The building should not have been classified as a B-2 occupancy when Atelier <br /> LeSueur occupied the building because it was not just adults in the building but <br /> ' children alsa <br /> The City's position is that it would have been classified as a B-2 regardless if there <br /> were children enrolled with the adults or not,because it was not all children full time. <br /> The Board's role in this matter is to decide if there is a change of occupancy with the proposed , <br /> private school use. It is not the role of the Board to decide if code requirements involved with the <br /> change of use are valid or not. See exhibit G for Building code board of appeals authority and <br /> limita.tions. <br />