Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-25-1997 Planning Commission Minutes• MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING HELD JUNE 25,1997 ROLL The Orono Board of Appeals met on the above date with the following members serving on the Board: Maureen Bellows, Loren Kohnen and Ken Roelofs. The following represented City staff: Building Official Lyle Oman, Public Services Director Greg Gappa and Recorder Lin Vee. The meeting was called to order by Building Official Lyle Oman at 5:03 p.m. Oman explained that the applicant is appealing the City's position that the proposed private school use is a change in occupancy classification from B -2 to E -1. The new use and change in classification requires compliance with the current Building Code. He noted the building has always been used as a school but under different occupancy classifications. The proposed use would bring it back to an E -1 classification, possibly E -2, depending on the number of people in the building. Bellows asked if the matter had been before Council. Oman responded that Council had approved an amended conditional use permit. The applicant, Martin Schneider, explained his position and views of the issue. When the occupancy issue was before the Planning Commission, they referred it to Council. When Council approved the • CUP, they suggested the Board of Appeals would be the proper authority to determine the occupancy classification. Schneider referred to the packets of information presented to the Board members. He believes the Old Hill School has always been an E -1 occupancy and has never changed. Three criteria will be satisfied to support his position: 1. City documents. 2. Facts of the actual use. 3. Code. He has owned the building since 1989 with the following occupants in the building: 1989 -1990 - Leased to Art Center of Minnetonka 1990 -1993 - Leased to Kid's Art Studio and American Dance Center 1993 -1994 - Leased to Atelier LeSueur Art School 1994 -1996 - Owned by Atelier LeSueur Art School under Contract for Deed 1997 - Default on Contract for Deed by Atelier LeSueur and building reverted to Schneider's ownership He noted Oman's chronology of occupancy differed in 1989 -1994, listing the use as a Residential Day Care. • • MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING HELD JUNE 25, 1997 Schneider referred to the resolutions granting a conditional use permit in 1994 and 1997. Page 2 of Document #1, 5 -9 -94 (Resolution No. 3424 ) confirms his chronology of use. 116. ... the Art Center of Minnesota leased the facility from the new owner for ... continuing use of the facility for art... 7. From the later part of 1990 through the present, the facility has served as a licensed day care and a dance school." Schneider stated he would show that the building was not used as a licensed day care but that there were children at the dance school. Document #2, 5 -27 -92 (Resolution No. 3908) reaffirms the chronology and states the facility has never been used as a residential dwelling. Schneider continued with occupancy issues and his Agenda WORKING FROM PRESENT TO PAST to support his position that the Hill School has always been an E -1 occupancy and the occupancy classification never changed. 1. ATELIER LESUEUR NEVER REQUESTED NOR OCCUPIED BUILDING AS B -2 (CITY PRESENTED TO CODE BOARD AS B -2 ? ?) DOCUMENTS #3 AND #4 • - Document #3, a memo from Lyle Oman and Bruce Vang to Jeanne Mabusth dated April 18, 1994, states "The new use is classified as a B -2 occupancy which is different than the previous school use (an E occupancy) and the day care use (an R occupancy)." A letter from the architect, Jennifer Yoos, dated June 13, 1997 indicates that discussions held with Oman always included children and they never made the request to change the building occupancy to a B -2 classification. In a letter dated November 8, 1994 from Jennifer Yoos to Atelier LeSueur, she indicates a "preliminary study" suggested B -2 occupancy. This study was done in response to a City request. However, in April of the same year the City had already classified the use as B -2. Schneider was still the owner and was never contacted about how the building was being used. In August of 1995, Oman responds to Atelier LeSueur noting a preliminary review had been done. •2 0 MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING HELD JUNE 25,1997 In a letter dated March 14, 1996, Oman states, "One of the conditions for approval was to comply with building code items related to the change in occupancy classification." Schneider stated his point in presenting these documents was to show the occupancy classification was still in ongoing negotiation stages. Schneider referred to Document #4, a letter from Todd Mohagen, an architect at Mohagen Architects, Ltd. indicating there had never been a certificate of occupancy issued for a change in use, therefore, the Old Hill Schools would be an E occupancy. In a letter dated June 13, 1997, Architect Russell Salon stated he had participated in adult classes and was on the Board of Directors for Atelier LeSueur. He had observed children's illustration classes being taught on a full -time basis. The chief instructor for the children's art classes at Atelier LeSueur was Kim • Alleman- Beaty. She states that children's classes were held week nights from 4:00 p.m. - 7:30 p.m. (3 -5 evenings a week), Saturdays from 9:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m. and a summer program from 9:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m. daily. Schneider noted the threshold for E occupancy is 12 hours or more a week or 4 hours in one day for children under the 12th grade. Another past instructor, Mike Coyle, states in a letter dated June 16, 1997 that "these classes used the building in excess of 12 hours per week during the fall of 1993 to the fall of 1996." In a letter dated June 18, 1997, past Board Member Patricia Allar states that "during the period of occupancy at the Old School House in Orono children's classes were being offered on a full time basis." Marcia Haggerty, a teacher and student from 1980 -1988, states "There were always children's classes going on every year at the Ateliers where Annette LeSueur oversaw and/or taught classes." Schneider reiterated that previous documents have shown the B -2 classification was proposed by the City, not the architect. • . MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING HELD JUNE 25, 1997 The goal of Document #4 was to demonstrate that the actual occupancy of the building would fall under an E -2 occupancy. 2. KID'S ART STUDIO /AMERICAN DANCE WAS NEVER LICENSED DAY CARE OR DAY CARE (CITY PRESENT TO CODE BOARD AS R -3 ?) DOCUMENT #5 Document #5 includes a letter from Carol Wald stating she has been involved with the Old Hill School House for many years. She was an instructor and president of Kid's Art Studio that had about 40 students. It was never a day care and has housed children for educational purposes. Referring to a Letter of Policies for the Kid's Art Studio, Paragraph 3 states "We ask that you pay by the month. This will identify us properly in the eyes of the government. Otherwise we would appear to resemble a day -care type set -up and we wish to be identified as an Art Studio." Schneider noted that Oman omitted the fact that there was a dance center. A • brochure and schedule from the American Dance Center held at the Old Hill School House included in the packet. 0 Schneider noted Carol Wald was present and would answer any questions the Board had. There were none at this time. 3. 18 ?? - 1989 OCCUPANCY HAS BEEN DOCUMENTED BY CITY RECORDS AS E (CITY PRESENTED TO CODE BOARD AS F -2 ? ?) DOCUMENT #6 A memo from Lyle Oman and Bruce Vang provides a chronology of use of the building to Jeanne Mabusth. Oman makes the occupancy classification stating "The new use is classified as a B -2 occupancy which is different than the previous school use (an E occupancy) and the day care use (an R occupancy)." In another memo dated May 21, 1997, Oman notes "The original school was an E -1 occupancy." Secondly, he indicates the day care is an E -3 occupancy which is different than listed previously. Thirdly, Oman states "The Atelier LeSueur school was proposed as a B -2 occupancy by the applicant's architect. 4 0 MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING HELD JUNE 25,1997 The building permit included in Document #6 lists the UBC Occupancy as an E. Schneider stated the occupancy has been documented in these City records as E occupancy. 4. THE SUPPORT OF OUR POSITION FROM ACTUAL UBC CODE DOCUMENT #7 Section 3401 states "Any change in the use or occupancy of any existing building or structure shall comply with the provisions of Section 109 and 3405 of this code." Oman also refers to this code in his Agenda. Section 3405 states "No change in the character of occupancy of a building shall be made without a certificate of occupancy, as required in Section 109 of this code." Section 109 states "No building or structure shall be used or occupied, and no change in the existing occupancy classification of a building or structure or portion thereof shall be made until the building official has issued a certificate of occupancy ... " Schneider noted no certificate of occupancy had ever been issued. Section 109.3 notes the building official has the authority to issue a temporary certificate of occupancy stating "If the building official finds that no substantial hazard will result from occupancy of any building or portion thereof before the same is completed, a temporary certificate of occupancy may be issued for the use of a portion or portions of a building or structure prior to the completion of the entire building or structure. ". Schneider stated that the fire escape had been attached and the exiting requirements were met, although the handicap access was not completed. He felt there was opportunity to issue a temporary certificate of occupancy. In summary, Schneider stated the documents the City has on file support the E occupancy classification, including the conditional use permits in 1994 and 1997 and the last building permit issued 8/13/96. He added that facts show the building was used by children on a full -time basis. Finally, the code supports his position since the building official is required to issue a certificate of occupancy before a change in classification can occur. •5 • MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING HELD JUNE 25,1997 Schneider contacted Duane Grace, past member of the Minnesota Building Code and currently a full - time building official for 4 cities and the State Fair Building Official, for reference information. Grace agreed with Schneider that the building should be an E occupancy. If there was a change of occupancy, most likely there would be work required by the building code to have the occupancy approved. In 1976 the handicap code would have required a handicap access and inspections would be required. A certificate of occupancy could not be issued if the work had not been completed and therefore, the occupancy would not change. Bellows asked Grace if he thought the building, as it stands, was safe for young children to occupy on a full -time basis. Grace responded it was no worse than many of the existing public schools in Minnesota. Bellows asked if a formal code report had been done. Schneider confirmed that one had not been done. He added the Board's role in this matter is to decide if there is a change of occupancy with the proposed private school use, not to decide if the code requirements involved with the change of use are valid or not. • _ Bellows commented on the letters m 1976 classifying the occupancy as F 2 by Mr. Alan Olson. She felt a certificate of occupancy could have been issued at that time for the F -2 classification. She also felt that the safety of children is an underlying issue. Grace interjected that the Board of Appeals could only rule on one item - if Oman's interpretation of the building code for occupancy is correct. He agrees there are some conditions which need to be corrected but that is not the purpose of the Board. Grace did not think a certificate of occupancy could have been issued for F -2 as the handicap access was not done. Schneider added that Exhibit B -18, a letter from Building Official Olson dated September 27, 1976, indicates items which need to be corrected or completed prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Kohnen responded that a certificate of occupancy could not be issued because the requirements were never met. It is the building official who has the authority to classify the occupancy use. Schneider indicated that Oman has done two separate code reviews and classified the occupancy as E on both occasions. Oman responded that it was an error on his part. Kohnen asked if the State Fire Marshall had reviewed the building. Schneider confirmed that he had • not. Kohnen did not feel the second floor outside exit would qualify as a second exit for children. Schneider added a wide stairway goes down to the front door. 0 • MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING HELD JUNE 25, 1997 Bellows noted the Kid's Art Studio currently occupies the first floor and the Environmental School is set up on the second floor. Erickson, parent and co- founder of the Environmental School, responded that the City was aware that the Environmental School was setting up and they had Council permission. Schneider stated he was willing to comply with the code work. Kohnen asked why there was a problem with the occupancy change. Schneider replied that the building, as it stands, is not required by code to be sprinkled. However, the City of Orono has adopted a special provision of the code that would require sprinkling, regardless of the UBC requirements. Schneider noted there have been no changes to the building and it has been in consistent occupancy. The biggest issue is if the City requires the building to be sprinkled there is no City water. The only alternative is to try to fit 3 -4,000 gallons of water in the building in a tank that is 7' x 25' which is impossible to do. Schneider is willing to bring the building up to code in terms of proper exiting and use of the building. The basement will not be used. Bellows noted that education was probably the only use for the building but the current conditions • make her nervous. Many times it has been mentioned to bring the building up to code yet it has never happened, which is why no certificate of occupancy has been issued. Once again the owner says he will bring the building up to code. She was unsure if he would be able to afford to do so. Kohnen felt the occupancy had not changed from the F -3 classification. Schneider responded that since 1989 he has relied on documents from the City listing the use as E -2. He has never been cited for any code violations. Atelier LeSueur failed to provide ramps which it was required to do. He did not think it was fair to make the statement that no one has ever brought the building up to code. Oman commented that there are other facilities in the City that have water tanks to address the sprinkler requirement such as a marina, church, day care and golf course maintenance building. Schneider stated the criteria was not met in 1976 for a change in occupancy. He added that a change in occupancy triggers much more restrictive requirements. Bellows noted Section 3401 states "provided such continued use is not dangerous to life." She felt the point of the sprinkler was because the building is a potential fire hazard. Two vulnerable populations are children and those hospitalized which is why restrictions for those groups are more stringent. Grace stated that other parts of the state would allow him to build similar wood structures without • sprinkler systems. 7 • MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING HELD JUNE 25,1997 Schneider asked what would satisfy the Board. Kohnen responded that was not the charge of the Board. Bellows confirmed there were no certificate of occupancies on file. Kohnen felt the closest thing to a certificate of occupancy was Al Olson's determination of F -2 classification and the intent to issue a certificate of occupancy. He added that the lives of children is a very important issue. Erickson commented that the children in the Lake Minnetonka Environmental School have a choice of whether to be there or not. All the parents have been through the building and none have mentioned any fire hazards or the building being unsafe. There are five exits for two floors. Each classroom has a direct exit to the outside. There will only be 7 -8 children in the Art Studio at one time and the parents make the choice to have them attend class. Bellows asked how many students were in the Environmental School. Erickson responded there were 13 currently, with projections of 20. • Sherokee Ilse, parent and founder of the Environmental School, stated that parents have commented that they feel safer with a child in the Hill School than the Orono Middle School or High School because of the long corridors and masses of people. She added the Sojourn program in Spring Park uses an early detection fire system which met the code of the State Fire Marshall and City and did not need a sprinkler system. Bellows was unsure how the Environmental School got to the point it has. She had talked with Ilse and suggested the Environmental School hire someone to do a code search on the building. City Planner Liz Van Zomeren concurred. Erickson responded that the Environmental School would be leasing the building from Schneider. Many architects have looked at the building. Yoos indicated she had met all the requirements Oman had asked for, which included attaching the fire escape in the back. Bellows felt if a code review had been done, she would look more favorably on the situation. The whole purpose of having occupancy regulations is for life safety. Grace stated before he could do a code review he would have to know what the occupancy is of the building. To him, the records show the building is an E occupancy, and technically Schneider doesn't have to do anything. The Fire Marshall is the one who determines if there is a threat to life safety, not the building official. • . MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING HELD JUNE 25,1997 Bellows felt the occupancy was closest to F -2 because that is where the most work has been done. Kohnen asked how Schneider found out there was a change of occupancy. Schneider responded that he applied for a conditional use permit which triggered the upgrade. He had met with Oman on site and talked with City staff on several occasions and there always seemed to be confusion about what had to be done. Oman responded that he had told him the first thing to do was have an architect review the building, and he would approve or disapprove their findings. Schneider added that originally they were going to go off the plans on file at the City and would only be required to provide handicap accessibility. The occupant load did not require an elevator. Bellows asked about early use of the building. Oman responded that City records show it was used as a public school prior to 1971 and was a C -1 occupancy (would be E occupancy by today's code). Schneider noted there were no cooking facilities, lab facilities or open flame situations produced in the building or by school usage. It is well exited and windowed. They are adaptable about how the building is used and where the teaching should be done. From the 1994 CUP, a handicap ramp and handicap toilet rails remain to be completed. Oman noted that a full report had not been received from the architect. Bellows referred to the April 5, 1976 letter from Alan Olson to Betty Chandler stating the schedule will allow the building to be classified as Occupancy Group F -2 with a B -3 assembly room on the second floor, with construction proceeding toward this end. A second basement exit was the only major item yet to be completed. Schneider was unsure what they were referring to and explained there was one exit that goes directly to the outside from the basement and the other is a stairway to the first floor. Bellows asked about the code in 1976. Schneider responded that a certificate of occupancy had to be issued. He noted that a certificate of occupancy had been issued to 2240 North Shore Drive, Minnetonka Art Center, in 1978 for a completed project. Bellows noted that there had to be someone who followed through to see that a certificate of occupancy was actually issued and may not just automatically happen. A friend of Schneider's, Greg Rye, commented that he has worked with City government for 15 years. He did not feel Schneider should be held responsible for improvements not completed by previous owners. The City is ultimately responsible for the enforcement of code requirements. He felt the issues could be resolved in a positive way. The building official can check to be sure improvements are completed. Schneider stated he had never been contacted about any violations of the conditional use permits or . in operations. Oman responded that a residential day care does not require a license. 9 0 MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING HELD JUNE 25,1997 Oman stated he felt it was his duty to enforce the current code and believes there is a change in use and occupancy classification. Bellows asked what the sprinkler system would cost. Schneider responded about $40,000. The limitation is the 7' x 25' tank. The foundation is about 2' of rock. Oman noted that there are residences on Bohns Point Road and Bracketts Point with underground water tanks. Bellows asked what causes the need for a sprinkler. Schneider responded it was 8,500 square feet or two stories. They have two stories even though they are well below the 8,500 square feet. Neal Webber stated he called the State about the occupancy classification. They responded that they would look at the most recent use and apply simple logic. The State had told Oman they would classify it as E occupancy and continue on that basis. Webber felt it should be an E occupancy as that is what the building was designed for. Kohnen noted that in 1976 Mr. Olson was ready to approve an F -3 occupancy and that is where he feels it should be. When there is a question, the occupancy stays in the lowest classification. • Schneider noted the documentation of recent years was in error on 3 or 4 different occasions yet the Board would accept information from 1976. Bellows explained that Mr. Olson's information in 1976 came closest to issuing a certificate of occupancy as F -2 occupancy. Schneider asked if they wanted the building used as a school, as a house or bulldozed. It has always been used as a school. Rye asked if there was a "to -do" list. Oman responded there was not. Without a change in classification, they don't have to do any building improvements. Roelofs asked how the building would be classified today if none of the past records existed. Oman responded it would be an E occupancy, determined by the building official. Bellows stated that twice in the history of the building the intent was to change the classification. The B -2 classification was used for Atelier LeSueur because rooms were used for educational purposes beyond the 12th grade with less than 50 occupants in a room. Schneider responded the B -2 classification was a suggestion from Oman. The fact is that children were being taught there for more than 12 hours a week or 4 hours in a day which is the threshold. B -2 is adult education only but Atelier LeSueur also taught children. He did not feel the building was ever occupied as a B -2 use as there was always mixed education. 10 • MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING HELD JUNE 25,1997 Bellows questioned the E occupancy classification on the building permit. Oman responded it was an error as he had not researched the file completely. A previous building permit was issued as an R -3. He stated that most of the permits he issues fall under that classification and he made an error writing in the code on his review worksheet. Schneider added that in the zoning reviews of 1994 and 1997, the classification was an E occupancy. He referred to a memo dated April 18, 1994 from Lyle Oman and Bruce Vang. Oman responded that prior to the day care use, the original occupancy was educational and classified with a different code at that time. Schneider noted that F -3 is never mentioned. He did not feel the City documents in his Document Package #6 could be relied on. Kohnen asked Oman why he used the B -2 classification. Oman responded that, in his understanding, the E occupancy is for full -time educational purposes while B occupancy is more of a business -type use where there are classes for adults and children for short periods of time. B -2 use is more for profit. Schneider noted that their classes were non - profit. He reiterated the code for E occupancy includes when children are present for 12 or more hours per week or 4 or more days per week. Oman noted • there were students beyond the 12th grade in classes. Schneider agreed. Oman explained that, in his mind, he would consider that a B -2 use. The building code says "Every building whether existing or hereafter erected, shall be classified by the building official according to its use and character." Bellows asked how the Minnetonka Art Center is classified. Oman was not sure and would have to do some research. Grace commented that he could complete the code search if it was an E occupancy and forward a report to the architect, as required with E occupancies. Ilse commented that there was no summer school at the Environmental School but they were having open houses. Erickson added that at a recent Council meeting, the Mayor had directed City staff to expedite this matter. Bellows asked if there was any alternative to the sprinkler. Oman responded that the code doesn't give any leeway. Bellows explained that the B -2 use is the intermittent use by children and adults as an educational facility and is different from the proposed E -2 use. Schneider responded that he has shown that an E -2 use existed while it was classified as B -2. • 11 • MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING HELD JUNE 25,1997 Grace asked if the use was considered B -2 or F -2. Bellows responded the point is that it is not E -1. She noted in one part of the code, the building official could determine the occupancy, but in another place, a certificate of occupancy was required. Kohnen stated that he believed F -2 was the correct classification. Mr. Olson made that determination and intended to issue a certificate of occupancy. Roelofs stated the building can be characterized by its current use by the authority of the building official. The sprinkler system then becomes an issue. He had a problem with the statement that if it remains with the original usage, nothing needs to be done. He stated there is definitely a difference in the character of the way it is used, and therefore should be brought up to code. At the same time, he would sympathize with the owner regarding the sprinkler system. Because of the discrepancy in the past use, it would be justifiable to reclassify the building for today's use and move forward. Rye commented that there are opportunities to preserve the building and look for ways to collaborate with the City for educational purposes. • Erickson stated classes were supposed to begin. Schneider has not received any income for 6 months or more. The Environmental School has some things to do but they need to sub - lease. They were supposed to start on the 23rd. Bellows noted there were children in the building that day doing art. Oman was unaware of the use. Roelofs asked how they could move into the School without a certificate of occupancy. Erickson responded they were told by the City they could move into the building and hold open houses. Oman responded that the Council had overstepped their bounds in allowing its use. Kohnen noted the only reason for having a building official is to watch out for the health and safety of the public. The code was not developed to consider economics. Bellows noted income was derived from the Kid's Art Studio. Erickson stated the Environmental School would be paying as well as soon as they are in. They planned to start some tutoring and summer school classes but that had to be put on hold. A parent of the school stated they don't have a couple month to wait for a decision as they must plan for teachers and a place for the school. Kohnen moved, Bellows seconded, to reaffirm Lyle Oman's change in occupancy classification from B -2 or F -2. • Erickson asked if the decision could be tabled. 12 9 MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING HELD JUNE 25,1997 Grace suggested rather than tabling their decision that the Board take some time for consultation. Kohnen stated that he based his decision on Mr. Olson's classification. Roelofs stated he was unsure about supporting the B -2 classification but feels the occupancy should be reclassified as there have been definite changes in the character of use. By the change in use, it gets reclassified. If it can't be reclassified that way, he would agree with B -2 and the need to reclassify. Bellows noted it is a fact that the use has changed over the years. There was a phase of elementary education and adult education but was not continuous. There have been shifts in use. She would also look at the intent. Roelofs reiterated that he felt it should be reclassified and hoped there would be a way to work out the sprinkler system issue. Oman informed the Board that the City has reduced the amount of water supply necessary because of the response time of the Fire Department. Another option would be to look for a repeal of the code that requires the sprinkler from Council. • Bellows asked if Oman could grant any period of time to pursue options. Oman stated there was no option to allow E occupancy without a sprinkler system. Once the code is adopted, it must be enforced. Council does not have the authority to grant exceptions to the code. Kohnen asked how Oman felt about the code. Oman responded it should remain in place. There are volunteer fire departments with large public areas to cover for response time. Bellows asked if they could occupy the building if they didn't use or closed off the second floor. Oman responded they could if Schneider reduced the building to one story. Schneider felt all three Board members were arriving at the same conclusion for different reasons. He has studied the issue thoroughly and there are no alternatives. The City Council can't grant exemptions and the building official must enforce the code if there is a change in use. Erickson asked if they could get a temporary certificate of occupancy until they can work out a solution for the school. If the vote is for a change in occupancy classification, the Kid's Art Studio has no place else to go and the Environmental School has no other options. Schneider asked if students were allowed to be in the high school even though it is not sprinkled. Oman responded they had not asked for a change in occupancy use. Schneider noted that there are three triggers for upgrading including new construction, remodeling or a change in occupancy. The school has done remodeling so he questioned why they had not been required to add a sprinkler system. Oman responded that the new Link caused two other buildings to be sprinkled. 13 • MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING HELD JUNE 25, 1997 Ilse asked about the State's response. Oman responded that a State Code Consultant gave his opinion. Webber added that the State asked what is the real use of the building. Following that logic, the State (Scott McClellan) told both Oman and himself that they would classify the building as an E occupancy. Grace suggested the Board make their decision and give it to them in writing with a copy to the State. Oman noted the State can uphold or reverse the decision of the Board. Webber added that the State's opinion took into consideration the size of the building (50'x 30') and the exits. A vote was taken to affirm the reclassification of occupancy use for the building located at 2180 North Shore Drive. Ayes 3, nays 0. ADJOURNMENT The Board of Appeals adjourned at 7:14 p.m. • Lyle O , Building Official is 14