12/17/07 City Council Presentations

Save the Castle Intro - Judy Friend
Save the Castle Part 2 - Neva Schroder
Save the Castle Part 3 - Bill Schroder
Save the Castle Closing - Tamara Finocchiaro

Pythian Castle
was originally built by the Knights of Pythias in 1913.
They built this structure as an Orphanage and
senior citizens home for their parents.
For extra safety for children and elderly people,
this building was designed to be fire proof
(and is actually listed as such in the City of Springfield's assessors book)
It is constructed of two feet think solid stone exterior walls,
concrete floors, ceilings and roof and
the interior walls are made of fireproof block called Pyrobar
covered with plaster.
It is trully one of the most fireproof structure in Springfield.

It was taken over by the US Military in 1942
to create the officers service club for O'Reilly General Hospital,
a facility treating men injured in World War II. The US Military
at the time did not take over this building because it was unsafe,
they chose to use this building because it was the safest building.
They occupied the building until 1980, than they leased it to OACAC
until 1993 when it was sold to a private citizen as excess and surplus.
We purchased the building in 2003. The entire block was rezoned
Government/Institution in 1995. Private residence and private ownership was grandfathered in at that time.

After a few months of clean up and renovation, we requested from the city permission to use the ballroom as a ballroom and the theater as a theater
for the purpose of general assembly. As we were told, we had to write a letter stating our intended use of the building in order to get our license,
so we did. In September, we were told our intended uses were not covered in our zoning, we had to rezone the property to Planned Development.
We contested this request as we bought a building built and designed for our intended use. Furthermore, all of the activities we intended to use the building for were all done here before and were listed in our zoning. Switching to Planned Development would limit the use to only those activities we planned to do. Subsequent buyers were limited to our exact business. Our arguements were dismissed and we were forced to rezone.

The request to rezone the property was a mistake by the City of Springfield.
And, now after three years of trying to get a final plan approved in the Planned Development process, we realize it was a tactic
for them to prevent our business from opening. They converted
the property from historic and existing to never been occupied.
For more details on this please go to the "Zoning" page.

TIMELINE
Requested business Application Information, 6/04
Submitted Intended Use Letter for review, 8/04
Told uses not allowed in G/I zoning, need to rezone to PD, 9/04
Submit Planned Development Application, 11/04
Received Administrative Review Committee Comments (ARC), 11/29/04
Planning & Zoning Public Hearing, 1/6/05
Revised Sketch Plan submitted to Planning & Zoning, 1/11/05
Planning & Zoning approval of Planned Development, 1/20/05
City Council Meeting - Public Hearing, 2/7/05
City Council Meeting - Second Reading, 2/22/05
* City Walk Thru - agreed to the following:
Only theater would need sprinklering and only if capacity exceed 300,
agreed to keep capacity below 300 people. Approved for food if catered in.
No on-site food preparation. See all issues reappear 12/6/05 and 2/2/06.
Redevelopment Team Report, 3/31/05 - Realize city does not recognize
our private fire hydrant and it is not on city maps.
Fire Hydrant Flow Test, 5/19/05
Exit Light Walk Thru with Architect, 7/18/05
Update Exit Lights, 8/05
Business License Application rejection memo, 10/21/05
Construction Documents submitted for permitting & ARC, 11/10/05
Install Fire Extinquishers, finally got location requirements, 12/05
Plan Review Comments (sent to architect only), 12/6/05
Received cease letter due to non-response to 12/6/05 letter, 1/20/06
Meeting with Chris Straw to discuss phase 1 requirements, 1/21/06
agreed to the following:
install front handrail -within one month
install drive apron - within two months
Complete driveway and parking - six months
Insist on inspection of exit signs and extinquishers
never granted permits
Apply for Administrative Subdivision, 1/26/06
(allegedly should have been done during PD process)
Certificate of Approval of Administrative Subdivision, 1/31/06
ARC Comments to 1/31/06 mtg (not given to Me or my Architect), 2/2/06
Architect receives ARC 2/2/06 Comments via fax, 2/6/06
Resubmit plans addressing Plan Review 12/6/05 comments, 2/7/06
Landmarks Board Hearing regarding front handrail, design approved, 3/1/06
Received Plan Review Comments on plans submitted 11/10/05, 5/2/06
Received ARC comments from 2/21/06 submittal, 6/12/06
refused hydrant flow test from 6/05, no quantitative reason supplied
Resubmit plans to ARC comments dated 6/12/06, 8/22/06
Received via fax fire requirements, 8/28/06
requesting max 26' wide drive when min of 20' would suffice, all neighbors only have 18', now demand sprinkler in theater previously agreed not needed.
ARC comments received to 8/22/06 submittal, 9/1/06
Had serious water main break, 1/07
requested to add new hydrant while repairing water line, hydrant permit refused.
Dug up hydrant to prove I had an eight inch line.
Resubmit plans to Plan Review comments dated 5/2/06, 3/5/07
Resubmit plans to ARC comments dated 9/1/06, 3/7/07
Cease operations letter, 5/2/07
Receive Plan Review comments to 3/5/07 submittal, 5/8/07
Survey of property, 5/31/07
Nicest you have made no effort letter to comply, 8/9/07
Resubmit deadline 8/27/07, resubmitted 8/23/07.
ARC meeting, 9/4/07
ARC comments received from 9/4/07 mtg, 9/7/07
Plan Review comments received for plans submitted 11/10/05
Call from City Attorney, Carl Yenis, 10/15/07
Meeting with City Attorneys, Carl Yenis & Tom Rykowski, 10/17/07
Fire Marshal (Epps/Basham), City Attorney (Carl Yenis) Inspection, 10/18/07
Informed city finally changed policy to recognize private fire hydrants.
All I have to do is paint mine red instead of green. So simple. Yet, turns out to be a lie. My neighbors, Evangel University, have had same flowing private hydrants all along.
Fire marshal (Epps) Code Compliance (Cecelia Copeland) Inspection, 10/30/07
Received Inspection letter requirements, 11/2/07 (deadline 11/5/07)
Received Interim Use aggrement letter, 11/5/08
Refuse to sign non-negotiable agreement,
voluntarily shut down to complete list
Second fire hydrant permit request denied, 11/6/07
Electrical permit for exit lights denied, 11/14/07
Order self-luminous exit lights, 11/14/07
Reinspection request denied, 11/15/07
Submit letter to US Military requesting access to my second hydrant blocked
by 9/11 fencing in lieu of installing a new hydrant, 11/16/07
Shut down as dangerous building, 11/16/07
Formal easement of record not found for implied easement used since 1954, 11/16/07
Submit request for formal easement to Assemblies of God, 11/19/07

ISSUES OF CONCERN:

1) Width of driveway. They kept requesting 26' wide, when a code requires
20'. All my neighbors only have 18' wide ones. We wanted 20' to allow more room for parking, something we really need. City request Fire Apparatus road under IFC section 503.1.1 this is only required for every facility, building or portion of a a building hereafter constructed or moved into on within the jurisdiction. Does not apply to existing structures.

2) Fire Hydrants. They keep demanding I put in new fire hydrants simply
because they refuse to recognize the ones I have. All the hydrants on our block are private and not listed on the public fire hydrant map. In their world, they don't exist. They also refuse to hook up to private fire hydrants nor will they provide public ones. So they demand I put in a new hydrant that they refuse to use or recognize. I suggested they simply do with private
hydrants they do with cars, list as private on their map and require us to
have them tested annually. Simple answer to a rediculous situation. In
January 2007, the city has finally changed the laws to recognize private
hydrants with annual testing required which turned out to be a lie. The city has accepted private hydrants with the same flow all along on my immediate neighbor's property. To this day we are still trying to get approval and recognition of that which exists. In addition, my second hydrant is located on my neighbors property as we used to be one, since 9/11, they have put up a
fence. I must either get permission to use theirs or put in another one. I
have been denied my permit to put in the second one so we are in the
process of getting permission from my neighbors.

3) Water runoff. Since we can't agree on the size of the roads, we can't
calculate or agree on the amount of new impervious surface area. In this
area, you have two choices, pay money or "Buyout" to city for not putting
in new water detention areas or put in water detention areas. We all
agreed to a buyout since the beginning and run the water in the natural direction, but during this whole process they
just keep bouncing back and forth between the two, saying after plans are
approved they will review the buyout option but it is not guaranteed. I
could care less either way. What could be so bad about putting in a new
detention pond? My road is being ruined by my neighbors water runoff not
mine. Technically, it is illegal for my neighbors to dump their water onto
my property but that is the situation. I prefer to simply route their
water at my expense and be done with it. Natural drainage goes to the storm drain put in 1984. Technically, if we were not a new subdivision, non of this would even be up for discussion.

4) Planned Use: They keep asking what my plans are for my use which are clearly stated in our business plan, planned development application, not to mention on our web site. They made me rezone because of my intended uses. This should not be a question. Turns out they have to claim I am changing the use of the building because it is the only viable reason they can impose 2006 IBC regulations.

5) Capacity. They want to limit me to 60 people. By code
and the type of building I have, my capacity should be 600. We have chosen to self-limit the capacity to 300, after that we would have to sprinkler the building for additional capacity. Their limitation was set by existing parking spaces. Absolutely nothing to do with building safety and by refusing a permit for new road and parking blocking an increase of capacity based on this limitation.

6) Drive apron. More minor than most issues. But, it should be noted I am
required to put in one 46 feet wide tapered to 40', 18' depth. Twice the width of my new drive. All my neighbors simply go to the end of the sidewalk, 4' depth and none aprons wider than 20'. Rational width would be 26' tapered to 20' (width of drive). I did get a permit for this but it
can't be put in as we are going over a storm drain with a concrete depth
over 6'. They are researching whether or not it is strong enough to carry
heavy trucks. Even though my neighbors aprons go over the same sidewalk, they can't determine if it is strong enough for me.

7) Easement: A big issue that came up in this last year. They will not grant any approval or any capacity until I have an easment from my neighbors. There is a stretch of drive on our East side that all four surrounding
businesses have used since 1954. It is our only access to the back of the
building. Unless we get permission to keep using something that has been
used in such a manner for over 50 years we can't even get a permit for
electrical work to add new exit signs. We are in the process of getting
this easement. If our neighbors somehow can come up with a law that
overwrites the 10 year use implied easement law, we will have to build a road next to a road.

8) Due process: Until recently we have been able to operate because we we in due process and we had done nothing to slow the process, it simply is a long and arduous one. As well as an impossible one to overcome. We are sure if we get the easement, there will be another requirement we simply don't even know about right now.

We have made no structural changes to the building, nor requested and tax
credits or grants. We are using a building as it was designed and built. All we have done is ask permission which we have not been granted.