06/03/2010 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

reviewed. Permitted uses allowed under General Retail Business District include Retail, Service, single family and cluster. The prior business was a service establishment and the new occupant said they were a service establishment as well. The Check cashing business floor plan was submitted in the commissioner's packets to demonstrate an existing interior layout which is required by all occupants. He reviewed that there was a utility room, an office, single bathroom, work space, and two counters that included cabinets and electrical outlets. The owner advised the inspector that the use of the business would be similar to Office Max or Kinko's. Therefore it was the cities understanding that there would be a coping center in the space. Fast Cash pulled permits prior to erecting walls, cabinets and doing electrical work which Mr. Mitchell reviewed. Comparing the previous tenants' floor plan to the Surf Shops existing as built plans there were counters, cabinets, electrical lines, phone lines, a door and a wall removed without a permit. The only thing that matches the existing plan is the utility room, office and part of the bathroom. Modifications were made to the existing restroom, a second restroom added, electrical power stations for 35 computer stations were installed, wall light fixtures installed, Refrigerator, Microwave, ATM machine, a bottle water dispenser, Soda dispenser, waterlines and drains were all installed without permits. Mr. Mitchell asked what Mr. Grayshaw's first conversation was with Mr. Thorne and he said he advised Mr. Thorne as to what documents were required to be filled out and submitted to the building department to receive an occupancy permit when he first visited the city. However he did not believe he was in the office when the documents were submitted. He visited the site the day after the application was submitted and the floor plan was the same as when it was Fast Cash minus furniture therefore an occupancy permit was issued. On April 13, 2010 he and John Schneider were asked to visit the site and do an occupancy inspection. Upon entering the space he noted the wall and counters were removed and rows of computer stations added. He only observed people sitting at the computers and did not observe coping or faxing machines being used. Mr. Mitchell said after reading the inspectors field notes which noted interior changes and found that no permits had been issued for the interior work he determined that the use had changed to an assembly which requires a conditional use permit. He then issued the letter dated April 15, 2010 to the applicant. Mr. Hartnett asked what year the prior occupancy was and Mr. Grayshaw said it was in 2005. Mr. Hartnett asked about the drawing which showed two bathrooms and Mr. Grayshaw said the drawing the applicant submitted did not have a lot of details shown on the plan. Mr. Hartnett noted that the drawing first submitted showed two bathrooms and the prior tenants drawing did not and Mr. Grayshaw said he only had the applicants drawing when viewing the site for occupancy and there were two bathrooms as the plan showed. There were also counters a wall and doorway when first inspecting the site. Mr. Hartnett said the first plan did not show counters, a wall or doorway either yet there were no issues with occupancy. Mr. Grayshaw said the plan first submitted was to provide an idea as to the size of the space and number of rooms but the plan lacked interior details as it was not a professional architects drawing. N1r. Hartnett questioned if the occupancy visit is to ensure that all building codes are met and Mr. Grayshaw said it was a zoning occupancy inspection not a building code inspection. Mr. Grayshaw was aslced if he would have issued a zoning occupancy certificate if there were plumbing issues and Mr. Grayshaw said he was not a certified plumbing inspector he just makes sure there is hot and cold water and toilets flush but he is not qualified to determine if there are plumbing violations.