Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBuilding Board of Appeals 1990 Minutes r •,• ! OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS •.rLLRK of the U I: .-- '44 RUG 29 8M 9 26 BUILDING BOARD OF APPE AUGUST 14, 1990 The regular meeting of the City of Lansing Building Board of Appeals was held on Tuesday, August 14, 1990, in the Building Safety Division Conference Room, 119 North Washington Square Annex, Lower Level , Lansing Michigan. Chairman Richard Stuckman called the meeting to order at 2:02 p.m. The following members were present and constituted a quorum: Members Present: Richard Stuckman, Chairman Richard Jones , Vice Chairman Frank Throop, Member Randall Kamm, Member Joe Wilcox, Member Staff Present Jack Nelson, Recording Secretary Robert O'Brien, Fire Marshal There was no modification to the agenda. On a motion by Mr. Jones, supported by Mr. Throop, the minutes of the July 10, 1990, Board meeting were approved. OLD BUSINESS: Appeal #90-009 - 221 N. Washington This appeal was tabled from the July 10, 1990, meeting to afford Michigan Bell sufficient time to gather additional technical informa- tion for the Board. The appeal addresses the proposed remodeling of the 6th floor of the Michigan Bell Telephone building for office use. This remodeling has triggered High-Rise requirements contained in Section 1807 of the U.B.C. Michigan Bell has taken exception to the Department' s position and requests relief from the Board. Those in attendance representing Michigan Bell were as follows: Darell Loy, Assistant Manger, Building Planner - Michigan Bell George Reynolds, Manager, Service Continuity Team - Michigan Bell Al Goudreau, A. I .A. - Goudreau/Wakely Architects Building Board of _,peals Minutes 8/14/90 Page 2 Mr. Goudreau addressed the Board and presented a proposal which requested a modification of the City of Lansing Uniform Building Code to permit the acceptance of Appendix Chapter 1, Division 2 of the 1985 Uniform Building Code, Life Safety Requirements for Existing High-Rise Buildings" , in lieu of Section 1807 of the 1988 Uniform Building Code. Mr. Goudreau stated that over a period of time the proposal , if approved, will result in a facility that is fully compliant with the Uniform Building Code requirements for existing high-rise build- ings. Second, the building will also be compliant with six of eight Subsec- tions under 1807 of the 1988 Uniform Building Code which are as follows: (D) Smoke Detection Systems (E) Alarm and Communication Systems (F) Central Control Station (H) Elevators (I) Standby Power, Light and Emergency Systems (J) Exits Mr. Goudreau also stated that the existing building is currently equipped with standby power which can provide power to smoke detection systems, alarm and communication systems , elevators, essential power and lighting to exit corridors and exit stair towers , thus , making the building complaint with 1807 of the 1988 Uniform Building Code. Mr. Goudreau also stated that application of existing high rise requirements under the 1988 U.B.C. would be for the 6th Floor only and would address fire safety concerns in a small portion of the building. Michigan Bell ' s proposal would enhance fire safety in the entire building. Mr. Darell Loy addressed the Board and stated that Mr. George Reynolds was attending the meeting in order to answer any technical questions the Board may have on the ramifications of water from a fire suppres- sion system contaminating the sensitive telephone equipment. Mr. Loy also stated that his consultant has applied the existing building requirements of Chapter 32 of the State Building Code to this building. The analysis suggests that if the building had achieved a sufficient point total not to require total fire suppres- sion. Mr. Loy reiterated that Michigan Bell is aware that the methodology is not a part of the U.B.C. , however, is submitted only as a tool for fire safety evaluation. Building Board of --peals Minutes 8/14/90 Page 3 Chairman Stuckman requested input from Staff. Mr. O'Brien stated that he felt comfortable with -the proposal . Mr. Nelson stated that the proposal achieved more than the narrow scope of triggering 1807 on one floor. General discussion ensued. After discussion, Mr. Throop moved that the proposal be accepted by the Board with the following conditions: 1. That the Building Board of Appeals retain jurisdic- tion on this case. 2. The schedule of implementation as referenced under Item #2 be revieweJ and approved by the Board. Motion seconded by Mr. Jones. The Chairman asked for discussion. Mr. Nelson requested the following editorial changes in the document: Item #2 - Change "adoption" to acceptance. Item A - Change "1985" tc 1988. Chairman Stuckman stated tha-: since Michigan Bell had not had an opportunity to review the d- fferences between the 1985 and 1988 Uniform Building Code, "Life .,afety Requirements for Existing High- Rise Buildings" , that they bE afforded additional time for review. Mr. Goudreau stated that a review of the code would be performed and a new proposal would be submitted which would incorporate the requested changes. Chairman Stuckman directed ! taff to coordinate the redraft with Michigan Bell . Chairman Stuckman asked for the Question. Motion carried unanimous- ly. The Building Board of Appeals does hereby resolve to accept the following proposal in lieu of application of the 1988 Edition of the U.B.C. Request is hereby made to modify the City of Lansing Uniform Building Code to permit the following: (a) Acceptance of Appendix - Chapter 1, Division II of the 1988 Uniform Building Code, "Life Safety Requirements for Existing High-Rise Buildings" , in lieu of Section 1807 of the 1988 Uniform Building Code. Building Board of ,ppeals Minutes 8/14/90 Page 4 The entire building shall be made to conform with the following requirements of Appendix - Chapter 1, Division II of the 1988 Uniform Building Code, "Life Safety Requirements for Existing High-Rise Buildings" within the following parameters: 1. The owner will complete within six months of accep- tance of Appendix - Chapter 1, Division II , the requirements of Subsection (27) Fire Drills. 2. The owner will submit within six months of accep- tance of Appendix - Chapter 1, Division II, the intended method(s) of bringing the entire building into compliance with Subsection (2) Automatic Sprinklers; (8) Shaft Enclosure Opening Protection; 12 Stair Shaft Ventilation; 16 Exit Corridor Construction; 19 Exit Corridor Dead Ends. 3. The existing building is currently compliant with Appendix - Chapter 1, Division 11, in the following Subsections, (7) Vertical Shaft Enclosures; (10) Automatic Elevator Recall System; 11 Unlocked Stairway Doors; 15 Exit Stairways; (20) Interior Finish; 21 Exit Stairway Illumination; (22) Exit Corridor Illumination; 23 Exit Stairway Exit Signs ; and 24 Exitway Exit Signs. 4. Within one year of adoption of Appendix - Chapter 1 , Division II, the owner shall bring the entire building into compliance with the following Sub- sections, (14) Posting of Elevators , (17) Exit Corridor Openings , 18 Exit Corridor Door Closers, and 25 Emergency Plan, and 26 Posting of Emergency P an and Exit Plan. 5. Within two years of acceptance of Appendix - Chapter 1 , Division II the owner shall bring the entire building into compliance with Subsection (3) Fire Department communication_ System, and (6) Occupant and Voice Notification System. In addition, this system will be compliant with Section 1807 of the 1988 Uniform Building Code, relative to smoke detec- tion, voice alarm system, public address system, fire department communication system, and central control station. NOTE: The above scenario represents the modified version which has been drafted by Michigan Bell and approved by the Building Safety Division. Note that the following Sections have been deleted from the Appendix - Chapter pages 819-823 of the U.B.C. 1988. Building Board of eals Minutes 8/14/90 Page 5 Item 7#5 - Manual Fire Alarm System Item #12 - Elevator Shaft Ventilation Item #9 - Manual Shut-off of HVAC Systems In support of this decision The Board makes the following findings of fact: 1. The Appendix Chapter(s) for existing high-rise buildings have not been adopted by the City of Lansing. The use of this document lends a reasonable approach which addresses existing buildings. NEW BUSINESS: Appeal #90-015 _ 2800 N. Grand River An application for appeal has been filed by Mr. Todd Kessler of D.L. Kessler Construction Company on behalf of Mr. Dan Gorman, Owner. The appeal seeks relief from Section 3305(g) of the Lansing Uniform Building Code, as amended. The applicant is currently constructing a 11,999 sq. ft. retail grocery store at 2800 N. Grand River Avenue. The minimum Construction Type of the building is V-N Combustible, the actual Construction Type is II-N. The Use Group classification is Group B, Division 2, Retail Sales. The entire building is protected by an automatic fire suppression system. Those in attendance representing Mr. Dan Gorman were Darell Kessler, Kessler Construction, and Paul Barbour, Architect. Mr. Paul Barbour addressed the Board. Mr. Barbour described the building and stated that the building is fully sprinkled and is of non-combustible construction. Mr. Barbour represented that if the building were constructed in Delta Township or under State jurisdic- tion, the rated corridor for the second exit would not be necessary. It was also stated that modifications to the building were necessary in order to accommodate changes in equipment. Mr. Jones stated that he did not feel that the situation was particu- larly hazardous since the corridor was only 21 ' in length. Further- more, the building is sprinkled and of non-combustible construction. It was also stated that if the building was classified as an office, fire suppression coupled with smoke detection would meet the code. Mr. Wilcox stated that the record showed that the Architect was notified of the deficiency in the plan review. The plans were amended but not followed. Building Board of eals Minutes 8/14/90 Page 6 After general discussion Mr. Jones moved that the variance be granted. The motion died for lack of support. Mr. Wilcox moved that the motion be denied, supported by Mr. Kamm. Chairman Stuckman asked for discussion on the motion. Mr. Jones requested alternatives under which the variance could be granted. Mr. Wilcox stated that a proposal which afforded the same degree of safety should be submitted by the applicant. He also stated that he would be willing to review such a proposal . Chairman Stuckman asked for the Question. Motion carried, 3 yeas (Kamm, Wilcox, and Throop) ; 1 nay, (Jones) . Appeal denied. Appeal #90-016 - 808 Barnes Avenue An application for appeal has been filed by Mr. Joseph O'Leary on behalf of Rev. Kenneth J. Povish, Bishop of Lansing. The appeal seeks relief from Table 5-A of the Lansing Uniform Building Code, 1988 Edition, as amended. The building was previously utilized as a convent. Table 5-A states that the fire resistance of exterior walls is one hour when less than 5 ' to the property line and openings are not permitted less than 5' from the line. The building is being converted to offices. Table 5-A requires that the wall be one-hour construction when less than 20' to the property line and all openings in the exterior wall shall be protected when less than 10' to property line. Second, the applicant is requesting authority to use the second floor for offices which only has one means of egress. Mr. Joe O'Leary addressed the Board and stated that the Church is requesting the Board to waive the requirement that the windows be protected and that a second exit be provided. The very limited use of this building will not create as much fire hazard as the previous use since there will be no cooking. Second, only three people will utilize the second floor and it will be limited to office use. Mr. O'Leary also stated that the next door neighbor, the Aboods, have no objection to the variance. After general discussion Mr. Wilcox moved that both variances be granted with the condition that the variance is valid for only as long as the Church has ownership and the use is not intensified. Motion supported by Mr. Jones. Building Board of peals Minutes 8/14/90 Page 7 Chairman Stuckman asked for discussion on the motion. Mr. Nelson requested that the approval be conditioned upon posting the second floor for a maximum occupant load of 9. Mr. O'Brien requested that the approveal be conditioned upon the installation of monitored smoke detection which serves the entire building. Chairman Stuckman asked if Mr. Wilcox would amend his motion to incorporate these two points , and also asked if Mr. Jones would support the amendment? Mr. Wilcox moved to mend his motion, Mr. Jones supported the motion. Voting on the amendment, motion carried. Voting on main motion, motion carried. Variance granted. In support of this motion the board makes the following findings of fact: 1. The proposed use, though a change in use group, is less intense. 2. The second floor will be limited to an occupant load of nine persons which is allowed for one exit by Chapter 33 of the U.B.C. 3. The smoke detection system will provide an early warning system and will equate with code compliance. Appeal #90-017 - 1401 E. Miller Road An application for appeal has been filed by Mr. Barry Wood, A. I .A. of Stein, Hinkle, Dawe, Wood and Johnson, on behalf of Continental Cablevision of Michigan. The appeal , if granted, would aulthorize the use of an automatic egress control device on one of the exit doors in the lobby of the proposed building. Section 3304(e) of the U.B.C. authorizes the use of special egress control devices on exit doors in offices only when the building is protected throughout by an approved automatic sprinkler system and an approved automatic smoke detection system. The device shall also conform to the following excerpt from the Uniform Building Code, Chapter 3304(e) . Mr. James Aubuchon, A. I .A. , represented the building's owner. Mr. Aubuchon stated that the egress control device is located on the second exit of the front office lobby. The calculated occupant Building Board of eals Minutes 8/14/90 Page 8 load exceeds 50, however, the anticipated number of people is only 15-20. An automatic smoke detection system would be provided in the front office/lobby to deactivate the egress control system. A second means of egress out the front is not possible due to the topography of the site. Mr. Stuckman asked for comments from Staff. Mr. O'Brien and Mr. Nelson voiced concern over locking one of the required exits. Mr. Jones moved that the variance be denied stating that there are otherways to enforce security. Security risks do not out-weigh fire safety concerns. Motion supported by Mr. Throop. Motion carried unanimously. Appeal #90-018 - 2140 Mint Road An application for appeal has been filed by Mr. Carl Schmidt on behalf of AIRCO Gases. The variance, if granted, will authorize the construction of a cylinder-filling building which does not comply with the following requirements of the U.F.C. 1988 Edition and U.F.C. 1985 Edition. "Explosion Venting of Structure" 1. Section 910 U.B.C. 1988, and Section 8.301Q U.F.C. 1985 2. Emergency Lighting 3313 U.B.C. 3. Exiting 3320 U.B.C. 1988 Those in attendance representing AIRCO were Carl Schmidt, Regional Production Engineer, AIRCO Gases , and Don Hartwick of Rother and Hartick. Mr. Schmidt addressed the Board and stated that Airco Gases is a nationwide manufacturer and distributor of compressed gas products and has served the Lansing area for over 50 years. Their current location is at 2140 Mint Road in Lansing, which has been safely operated since moving there in 1975. Among the gases distributed from this location is hydrogen. Their largest customers for this product include the Board of Water and Light, Michigan State University, and Federal Mogul , who relies on hydrogen to supply the automotive industry with specialty products. Hydrogen is currently shipped to the site from other AIRCO locations where the cylinders are filled. Variance ttl : Explosion Venting As a supplement to the Uniform Building Code, it is desired to design the building using the recommendations of the N.F.P.A. through the following codes: Building Board of gals Minutes 8/14/90 Page 9 NFPA 50A: Standard for Gaseous Hydrogen Systems at Consumer Sites. NFPA 68: Guide for Venting of Deflagrations. Explosion venting is a common method of relieving the overpressures that develop within an enclosure when a combustible mixture of gas or dust is inadvertently burned. During this burning, the products of combustion expand rapidly and can cause significant damage to weak structural components of the enclosure. To prevent the catastrophic failure of the structure under these conditions, one or more elements of the enclosure are specifically designed to fail at low overpressures. The openings that result are sized to relieve the expanding gases. NFPA 50A Paragraph 4.2.3. addresses the topic of explosion venting for separate buildings that house gaseous hydrogen systems and it gives specific requirements for systems with less than 15,000 cubic feet of hydrogen. For buildings that contain over this amount, it refers to NFPA 68. The proposed building will house more than 15,000 cubic feet of hydrogen in compressed gas cylinders and process piping, therefore, NFPA 68 was consulted for guidance. The following definitions are taken from NFPA 68: Deflagration: Propagation of a combustion zone at a velocity that is ess than the speed of sound in the unreacted medium. Detonation: Propagation of a combustion zone at a velocity that is greater than the speed of sound in the unreacted medium. Explosion: The bursting or rupture of an enclosure or a container due to the development of internal pressure from a deflagration. NFPA 68, Chapter 4, is entitled "Venting of Deflagrations in Low- Strength Enclosures" . This chapter addresses the explosion venting requirements for rooms and buildings in which a deflagration may be possible due to the presence of combustible mixtures of flammable gas or dusts. Within this chapter, an equation is presented which allows the user to calculate the recommended vent area given the following information: Internal surface area of the enclosure Vent release pressure Fuel characteristic for the combustible product The first of these is based on the building size, the second can be found in the Uniform Building Code Section 910 and the third is found in Table 4-3 of NFPA 68. Building Board of r eals Minutes 8/14/90 Page 10 NFPA 68 fails to provide a fuel characteristic for hydrogen gas but specifically addresses it in paragraph 4-3.3.2. In summary, hydrogen is a fast-burning gas and very high rates of combustion as well as detonations have been observed in actual practice. It states that no recommendations can presently be given for fast-burning gases and that even if a detonation does not occur, it may not be possible to vent a deflagration involving hydrogen. The Uniform Building Code, Section 910, provides guidance with regard to explosion venting. It gives specific requirements for deflagra- tions and for very small detonations (less than 2.0 grams TNT equiva- lent) . For situations where detonations are considered likely, it calls for the use of protective devices or systems and implies that they would be in lieu of explosion venting. The Code, however, does not provide specific information on the types of devices or system that should be implemented. It is proposed that the explosion venting requirement be waived due to the tendency of combustible hydrogen gas mixtures to detonate rather than deflagrate. In addition, it is proposed that protective devices serve to prevent detonation from occurring instead of providing after-the-fact protection of the surrounding exposures. The following are the features proposed to prevent the accumulation of combustible mixtures within the building. 1. Continuous, non-recirculating ventilation 2. A multipoint combustible gas monitoring system 3. Dilution ventilation 4. Process termination actions 5. Audible alarms It is desired to upgrade the site to include hydrogen gas cylinder filling, a well established and safe practice that AIRCO has followed for years without incident. In the process of developing a suitable installation, applicable standards were reviewed with both Building and Fire Department Officials. They have recommended that further review be conducted through the Board of Appeals in order to define the requirements for the cylinder filling building. Liquified hydrogen is to be stored on-site in an approved vessel , pumped and expanded into hydrogen gas. The gaseous hydrogen will be pressurized into Department of Transporation approved containers for shipment off-site. The process of filling cylinders maintains the gas within the piping and the cylinders at all times. Releases of the gas is considered an abnormal condition. The issue at hand is the design features for a separate building, dedicated for filling hydrogen gas cylinders . Building Board of P^neals Minutes 8/14/90 Page 11 Mr. Schmidt then explained the second variance and submitted the following information: Variance #2: Exit Illumination Uniform Building Code Section 3313 specifies that exit illumination is required for our proposed building. This implies that special illumination is required 'at the exit as a supplement to the normal illumination provided. It is requested that supplemental lighting fixtures not be required at the exit because the normal lighting will provide the 1 foot-candle intensity at floor level . After discussion it was the consensus of the Board that exit illumina- tion could be provided from the on-premise wiring systems. The occupant load of the structure did not require exit signage. Based upon this discussion, the applicant withdrew this portion of the variance. Mr. Schmidt explained the third variance: Variance #3: Exits in Group H Occupancies Uniform Building Code Section 3320 addresses the number of exits required for Group H Occupancies. Our proposed building will be classified Group H, Division 2 because of the flammable gas. The Code indicates that buildings in excess of 200 square feet be serviced by at least two exits. It is understood that the reason for requiring multiple exits in any enclosure is to provide the occupants with an alternative means of egress in the event of a fire hazard blocking their path to the primary exit. It is requested that only one exit be required for the proposed building because the structure will be non-flammable construction and the equipment and hardware within the building will be metal . After discussion, Mr. Jones moved that Variance #1 and #3 be approved contingent upon compliance with the following: 1 . The building shall have a continuous , non-recirculating ventila- tion system. 2. A Multi-point combustible gas monitoring system shall be installed. 3. Dilution ventilation shall be provided. 4. Process termination actions shall be instituted. 5. Audible alarms shall be provided. Motion supported by Mr. Throop. Motion carried. Building Board of "repeals Minutes 8/14/90 Page 12 In support of this decision, the Board makes the following findings of fact: I . Explosion venting will not be feasible in this building if a detonation occurs. It is more prudent to provide mechanisms for detection and prevention. 2. The conditions required by the Board will ensure that the operation complies with the intent and purpose of the code. 3. The Report which was submitted by Mr. Schmidt entitled "Report. To Supplement Request For Variance" shall be part of the record and is hereby referenced as Findings of Fact. There being no other business before the Board and no public comment, Mr. Kamm moved to adjourn the meeting; supported by Mr. Throop. Meeting adjourned at 4:57 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, ark Nelson ry JAN/mmr Minutes Approved On ANOZING R K OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS of the BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS '90 RUG P� 5 01 JULY 10, 1990 The regular meeting of the City of Lansing, Building Board of Appeals , was held on Tuesday, July 10, 1990, in the Building Safety Division Conference Room, 119 N. Washington Square Annex, Lower Level , Lansing, Michigan. Chairman Richard Stuckman called the meeting to order at 1:35 p.m. The following members were present and constituted a quorum: Members Present Richard Stuckman, Chairman Richard Jones, Vice Chairman Frank Throop, Member Randall Kamm, Member Joe Wilcox, Member Staff Present Jack Nelson, Secretary Robert O'Brien, Fire Marshal Ralph Goff, Chief Mechanical Inspector James Kzeski , Director of Building Safety There was no modification to the agenda. On a motion by Mr. Jones, supported by Mr. Throop, the minutes of May 8, 1990, were approved as printed. OLD BUSINESS: None NEW BUSINESS: Board Review - Cost Allocation Study The City of Lansing has retained D.M.G. Public Sector Consultants to perform a study of the City' s fee structure in order to determine if the current fee structure covers program costs. William Maxwell , Manager of D.M.G. Public Sector Consultants, presented the cost allocation study to the Board and apprised them of the proposed fee increases. The purpose of the presentation was to afford an opportunity to the various city boards to submit comments and recommendations to the Mayor prior to forwarding the study to City Council for approval . Building Board c ippeals Minutes July 10, 1990 Page 2 After hearing the presentation, the Board Members made the following comments. 1. At issue is the question - To what degree does general taxation subsidize programs? After review of the cost allocation study it would appear that 100% cost recovery is being proposed. It is the general con- census of the Board that the proposed increases are excessive and the Board supports the Departments fee increase proposal rather than that of the Consultant. 2. The Appeals Board acts as a pressure relief valve for Building Code enforcement. The fee should not be the basis for detering the filing of an appeal . The Board would support a dual fee system which requires a minimal fee for appeals which pertain to single-family residences and a separate fee for other pro- jects. 3. Fees should be somewhat consistent with those charged in adjoin- ing municipalities. This would promote development with the City. 4. Plan review functions of the Planning, Traffic, Fire Prevention, and Public Service Departments should be part of the Plan Review Fee not the Building Permit Fee. Appeal #90-008 - Network Technologies Corp. , 431 S. Capitol An application for appeal has been filed by Mr. Fredric McLaughlin, Architect, on behalf of the Building Owner, Mr. Stanely Kasuda. The Applicant seeks relief from Section 3303(a) of the U.B.C. 1988 Edition which states that the second story shall be provided with not less than two exits when the occupant load for the story is 10 or less. Mr. McLaughlin explained the request to the Board and stated that the second floor has approximately 780 square feet of area. However, the east and west second floor is isolated from each other by a common wall . An addition of 480 square feet will be added to the west portion of the second floor which is currently 480 square feet in area, for a total area of 960 square feet. The east portion of the second floor is 300 square feet and will not be altered. The total square footage of the two tenant spaces on the second floor will be 1,260 square feet. The calculated occupant load for the second floor is 13 persons. Currently, two exits are provided for the story, however, the tenant spaces are divided by a wall which precludes the use of the second exit by either tenant. Building Board of .,ppeals Minutes July 10, 1990 Page 3 Chairman Stuckman asked for staff comments. Mr. O'Brien recommended that smoke detection be installed in the Building. Mr. Wilcox moved to authorize the variance subject to the following conditions: 1. Smoke detection shall be installed in the building. 2. A rated access panel would be authorized in the wall . The panel is not to have any hardware other than a key lock. 3. The existing lath and plaster wall will be accepted as a one-hour separation wall . The motion was supported by Mr. Throop, and passed unanimously. In support of this decision, the Board made the following findings of fact: 1. Each individual tenant space has a calculated occupant load of less than 10 persons and is services by an independent exit. 2. The smoke detection system will afford an early warning system for the building tenants in case of fire. 3. The Board feels that the intent of Section 3303(a) has not been compromised. Appeal #90-009 - Michigan Bell Telephone Co. , 221 N. Washington Sq. An application for appeal has been filed by Mr. Darell Loy on behalf of Michigan Bell Telephone Company. Michigan Bell Telephone Company has apprised the Department that they propose to remodel the 6th floor of the Michigan Bell building for office use. In response to this information, the Building Safety and Fire Protection Bureau has notified Michigan Bell that alteration to the 6th floor will trigger compliance with the 1807 High-rise requirements. The Building Safety Divisions ' position is based upon Section 104 of the Uniform Building Code which states that areas altered shall comply with current Building Code require- ments. Michigan Bell has taken exception to the requirement and has requested a variance from the Building Code. Mr. Darell Loy addressed the Board and stated that in lieu of compliance with Section 1807 of the U.B.C. 1988 Edition, Michigan Bell seeks authority to utilize Appendix 1-B, Part 2.2(a) of the Uniform Building Code 1985 Edition (see attachment #1 dated June 5, 1990) . Mr. Loy stated that the Bell building is equipped with a smoke Building Board o, .,ppeals Minutes July 10, 1990 Page 4 detection system. Second, the building is concrete which reduces the possibility of a fire. Third, the building is occupied 24 hours a day, so any fire would be detected immediately. Mr. Loy also stated that Michigan Bell does not want the possibility of water damage to the telephone equipment which would be a possibility with the sprinkler system. Mr. O'Brien, Fire Marshal , stated if a fire did occur the Fire Department would utilize water to extinguish the fire, and that less water would be expended from the sprinkler system since the fire would have been contained or completely extinguished with the sprinkler system. After hearing the testimony, Mr. Jones moved to table the request until the August 10, 1990, meeting in order for the applicant to submit documentation which would support the appeal . Motion supported by Mr. Throop. Motion carried unanimously. Appeal #90-010 - Wal-Mart Properties, Inc. , 340 E. Edgewood An application for appeal has been filed by M. Bradley Gaskin on behalf of Wal-Mart Properties. The appeal seeks relief from Section 1716.5 of the U.B.C. which states that two exits shall be provided from a mezzanine when two exits are required by Table 33-A. Mr. Richard Misanhimer, Construction Manager, stated that the 1,420 sq. ft. mezzanine was originally constructed for storage, therefore, it was not constructed with two exits. They are proposing to use the mezzanine for an employee breakroom and tele-marketing. They would limit the occupant load of the area to under 50 persons which would only require one exit. Mr. Stuckman asked for staff comments. Mr. Nelson recommended that the mezzanine be divided by a wall in order to restrict the use of the area. The representative from Wal-Mart stated that they would have no objection to the condition of a wall . Mr. Jones moved that the variance request be granted, motion supported by Mr. Wilcox. Mr. Throop moved to amend the original motion to require that a partition be constructed between the office and breakroom. The amended motion was supported by Mr. Kamm. Motion carried. The members then voted on the main motion which passed unanimously. Building Board of Nppeals Minutes July 10, 1990 Page 5 In support of this decision the Board makes the following findings of fact. 1. The occupant load of the mezzanine will be restricted to 50 persons. 2. The mezzanine will be subdivided in order to limit the occupant load in the lunch room. Appeal #90-011 - O'Leary Paint, 415 Baker An application for appeal has been filed by Mr. David O'Leary on behalf of O'Leary Paint Company. The applicant seeks relief from Section 905(b) of the Uniform Building Code and Sectin 79.804 of the 1985 U.F.C. The variance request, if granted, would authorize the Paint Mix Room to have four air changes per hour rather than six air changes which are required by the 1988 U.B.C. , and the 1985 U.F.C. . Chairman Stuckman notified the Board that he would abstain from voting due to a conflict of interest. Mr. Stuckman stated that his firm designed the facility. Elgin Clark of Clark, Trombley, Randers, addressed the Board and stated that less than 10% of the volume of paint which is mixed is flammable. Also, each. mixing vat has a mechanical exhaust on it. Mr. O'Leary stated that oil based paints will soon be outlawed and the mix operation will be 100% latex. The plant only produces four batches of oil based paint per month for a total of 2,000 gallons . Chairman Stuckman asked staff for comments. The staff had no objec- tion. Mr. Ralph Goff, Chief Mechanical Inspector, stated that in his opinion the exhaust system on the vat coupled with the Mechanical system for the room is sufficient to evacuate the mix room. Mr. Nelson stated that initial review of the project was under the 1985 Edition of the U.B.C. which only required four air changes. Mr. Kamm moved that the appeal be granted subject to the receipt of a report from the engineering firm that the existing mechanical system will change the air every 15 minutes. This was supported by Mr. Wilcox. Motion carried. In support of this decision, the Board made the following findings of fact: Building Board c ppeals Minutes July 10, 1990 Page 6 1. A very low volume of oil based paint will be mixed in the facility and it appears that the amounts of oil based paints mixed in the future will be negligible. 2. The Engineer, Mr. Elgin Clark, will certify that the mechanical system will produce four changes of air per hour in accordance with the provisions of the 1985 U.B.C. Appeal #90-012 - Robert Hill , 5939 Rolfe An application for appeal has been filed by Mr. Robert Hill , licensed residential contractor, on behalf of the homeowner, Mr. Jon Hill . The applicant seeks relief from Table 32.B(1) of the U.B.C. 1988 Edition which requires that Type 15# roll felt be applied to the roof prior to shingle installation. Mr. Hill addressed the board and stated that a mistake was made in not applying the felt. Mr. Hill stated that the shingle supplier had informed him that the felt was not required. Mr. Hill further stated that this was the first time that he had worked in Lansing and was not aware of the requirement. Mr. Wilcox stated that as a licensed contractor Mr. Hill should have known that both National building codes require felt. After discussion, Mr. Jones moved, supported by Mr. Kamm, that the appeal be granted. Motion carried with Mr. Wilcox voting nay on the motion. In support of this decision, the Board make the following findings of fact: 1. The owner shall submit a letter which attests to acknowledgement of the code violation. 2. The felt, although necessary to prevent roof leaks, will not affect the health and safety of the occupants. Appeal #90-13 - Marketing Resource Group, Inc. , 225 S. Washington Sq. An application for appeal has been filed by Mr. Thomas Shield's tenant. The applicant seeks relief from Section 1703 and 3802 of the U.B.C. 1988 Edition and Table 9-4 of the Lansing Uniform Plumbing Code. The variance, if authorized, would delete the necessity of a urinal in the mens toilet room, a one-hour separation between the basement and first floor, and a fire suppression system in< the basement. Building Board kppeals Minutes July 10, 1990 Page 7 Mr. Shields stated that he is the owner of Marketing Resource Group, a small marketing and public relations firm. He stated that he was notified by the City that Building Code regulations would add an additional 15,000 cost to the project. Mr. Shields submitted the following arguments in support of his appeal . "Item 1 - Fire Code requiring basements over 1 ,500 square feet to have drywalled ceilings , sprinkler system and fire door. " 1. "While we plan on installing a fire door, the base- ment in question is just 1,555 sq. ft. - or 55 sq. ft. over the code's limit. " 2. "The basement will not be used as a work area and the following costs to install the drywall ceiling and sprinklers could jeopardize the entire project. " "The cost estimates are: Drywall Ceiling $3-4,000 Sprinkler System $2-2,500 (Could possibly require a new 2" I .D. water main from the Baord of Water and Light) New Water Main $2-4,000 Remove and reinstall $1-2,500 Light fixtures, removal and disposal of old plumbing Approximately Total Cost $10,000 3. "The entire building is very well constructed and already equipped with fire/security sensors through- out the building. " 4. "As my business continues to grow, our long-term plan would be to completely re-renovate the basement into office space which would include the addition of a new stairway in the middle of the floor. This expansion and renovation would cause us to completely tear down and rebuild the entire ceiling and sprinkler system at a later date. " "Item 2 - Barrier Free design requiring an additional restroom to accommodate one urinal . " 1. "The building already has two restrooms , one is barrier-free and is located on the first floor and the other is located on the second floor. " Building Board of appeals Minutes July 10, 1990 Page 8 2. "The logical location of a required additional rest- room is next to the existing barrier-free restroom. The additional space that this restroom requires would eliminate much needed office space to meet the demands of expansion. " 3. "Because of the location of the restroom, which is located on a concrete floor (no basement or crawl space) , the additional cost could be as high as $3-5,000. " 4. "We currently have only 8 full-time employees and are planning to expand to 13 or 14 when we move into our new space. We feel that the two existing restrooms are more than adequate, and the building of an additional urinal is not needed. " After discussion, Mr. Jones moved, and supported by Mr. Wilcox, to grant the appeal provided a hardwired smoke detection system in the building. Motion carried. In support of this decision, the Board made the following findings of fact: 1. The basement only exceeds the trigger for fire suppression by 55 sq. ft. 2. The basement ceiling contains plumbing and mechanical which will cause difficulty in installation of a drywall ceiling. It is felt that a smoke detection system will equate with the drywall ceiling. 3. The actual occupant load of the building is 14 persons. The Plumbing Code authorizes one uni-sex toilet room if the occupant load does not exceed 15 persons. Appeal #90-014 - HIMONT Advanced Materials , 2835 Alliance An application for appeal has been filed by Mr. James Brown on behalf of HIMONT Advanced Materials. The appeal seeks relief from Chapter 52 of the U.B.C. 1988 Edition which limits the coverage of CCI plastics to a maximum aggregate area of 33% of the floor area of the space sheltered. Second, Major Industries Guardian Roof Panel has not been approved via an ICBO Research Report. Mr. Brown addressed the Board and stated that the roof system meets Class A roofing test requirements as evidenced by the test report conducted by Warnock Hersey International . Second, the building is Building Board o ppeals Minutes July 10, 1990 Page 9 protected by an automatic fire protection system, and has a smoke detection system. Mr. Brown also stated that the building exceeds minimum requirements for number of exits and exit widths. Chairman Stuckman asked for staff recommendations. Mr. Nelson stated that the Department had no ojbection to the variance if a dedicated fire suppression system was installed in the corridor which was directed toward the roof panels. Also, a smoke detection system is recommended in the corridor. Mr. Brown stated that plans have been amended to include smoke detection and fire suppression in the corridor. Mr. Throop moved to grant the appeal . The motion was supported by Mr. Jones. Motion carried. In support of this decision, the Board makes the following findings of fact: 1. The purpose of Chapter 52 is to limit the amount of combustibles in a noncombustible building. In this case the roof will be protected by a sprinkler system. A smoke detection system will also be provided to give the occupants advanced warning of a fire. 2. The roofing system meets Class A roofing requirements. 3. The building exceeds minimum code requirements in the following areas: Automatic Fire Suppression Smoke Detectors Number of Exits Exit Widths There being no other business before the Board and no public comment, Mr. Kamm moved to adjourn the meeting; supported by Mr. Jones. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 5:22 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Ja k A. Nelson Se retary Minutes Approved On: OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS of the BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS May 9, 1989 The regular meeting of the City of Lansing, Building Board of Appeals was held on Tuesday, May 9, 1989, at 2:00 p.m. in the Building Safety Division, 119 N. Washington Square Annex, Lower Level , Lansing Michigan. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Richard Stuckman at 3:00 p.m. with the roll call showing the following members present: Members Present: Richard Stuckman, Chairman Frank Throop, Member Randall Kamm, Member ca 0 Members Absent: rn Richard Jones C Staff Present: cn rn cn Jack Nelson, Chief Plan Review Analyst Robert O'Brien, Fire Marshal c: On a motion by Mr. Throop, supported by Mr. Kamm, the minutes o the January 17, 1989, special meeting were approved as printed. OLD BUSINESS: None NEW BUSINESS: Appeal #89-003: Chirstman Company An application for appeal was filed by Mr. Larry Macklin of the Christman Company, 221 South Grand Avenue, Lansing, Michigan. The appeal request was made to construct an 8' high fence conforming to Section 4407(c) of the Uniform Building Code, 1985 Edition as a means of pedestrian protection. The fence would be constructed from the Northwest corner of the Black and Tan Bar, then East 88' , a distance of 6' from the bar. The fence would create an exitway to Grand Avenue for the required exit from the bar. Section 4407(a) of the Lansing Uniform Building Code requires a fence and canopy since the subject area is within the sphere of influence of the proposed grand tower. Building Board of Appeals Minutes May 9, 1989 Page 2 Mr. Macklin presented his case stating that the operating hours of the bar are 10:00 a.m. - 2:00 a .m. from the small bar located in the front of the building, and 9:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m. for the large assembly area located in the rear of the bar. Mr. Macklin stated that the occupants who would exit through the two North exits would do so primarily during periods when no construction is in progress, thus posing no danger of falling objects to pedestrians. Further discussion on the topic substantiated that the northwest exit door which opened on to the unprotected area was. a required exit for the smaller front bar which had a calculated occupant load of 92. After continued discussion, Mr. Kamm moved that a variance be granted from Section 4407(c) of the Lansing Uniform Building Code. The variance will allow the use of 8' high opaque fence for use as pedestrian protection along the North side of the building except the Northwest exit shall be protected from the exit discharge to Grand Avenue a sufficient distance to discharge occupants outside of the sphere of influence. Motion seconded by Mr. Throop. Motion carried unanimously. In support of this variance the Board makes the following findings of fact: The entire length of the exit need not have a canopy since the second exit (the Northeast) exit will only be utilized during non-working hours. This variance is predicated upon compliance with the following condi- tions: 1. The construction of the pedestrian protection shall comply with Chapter 44 of the Uniform Building Code. 2. The enclosed portion of the pedestrian protection shall be lighted. 3. Should the hours of operation of the Black and Tan change such that the Northeast exit is utilized during construction hours, a protective canopy shall be constructed immediately. 4. The applicant shall submit written confirmation of the hours of operation of the Black and Tan. Building Board of Appeals Minutes May 9, 1989 Page 3 Appeal #89-004 An application for appeal was filed by Daniel R. Johnson of Hobbs and Black Associates, Inc. , 100 N. State Street, Ann Arbor, Michigan. The appeal was filed on behalf of Gentilozzi Real Estate. The nature of the request concerned how the separation between the exterior wall of the proposed Grand Tower and the property line would be measured. Section 1803(b) of the Building Code requires that the separation distance be measured from the exterior wall of a building to the adjacent properlty line or center line of a public way. The Grand Tower is apparently being constructed on a parcel of property which was purchased from the City of Lansing and has an irrevocable life-time lease for public access through the property. Consequently, a question has risen as to whether the distance for protection of openings on the North and South wall should be measured to the property line, or the center of the easement. After considerable discussion, Mr. Throop moved that action on the case be tabled until the next Board meeting in order to provide time for the consummation of the written agreements between the concerned parties. Upon completion of the following items the appeal will be granted. Second, that the Board of Appeals recommend that language be drafted as a part of the agreement between the parties which would define the public access easement as not adversely effecting the construc- tion of the Grand Tower Building; that is to say for purposes of construction the City would not treat the easement as a public way. Third, that Gentilozzi Real Estate grant an easement to the Black and Tan Restaurant/Bar, which is located directly South of the proposed Grand Tower, to allow ingress/egress across the property line. Fourth, that in the future, buildings which are constructed on parcels adjoining the site to the North and South shall comply with Building Code Requirements for set-back from the property line and shall not be allowed to utilize the easement as a credit for compliance with Building Code requirements. Motion seconded by Mr. Kamm, motion carried unanimously. In support of this decision the Board make the following findings of fact: A public way is normally located outside of a public property. In this case the easement is located inside Building Board of Appeals Minutes May 9, 1989 Page 4 the applicants property. Consequently, it is the Boards holding that the distance for protection of openings shall be measured from the building fact to the property line and not -to the center of easement. If the conditions which are recommended by the Board are integrated into the agreement, it will ensure that building set-backs in accordance with the Uniform Building Code will be maintained. Upon satisfactory completion of the conditions of the recommended agreement, the Building Board of Appeals will formally grant the appeal . It was moved by Mr. Kamm, seconded by Mr. Throop to adjourn. Motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 5:12 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ack A. Nelson ecretary Minutes Approved On: OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS of the BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS February 20, 1990 The regular meeting of the City of Lansing, Building Board of Appeals was held on Tuesday, February 20, 1990 , at 2:00 p.m. in the Building Safety Division Conference Room, 119 North Washington Square, Lower Level , Lansing, Michigan. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Richard Stuckman at 2:04 p.m. with a roll call showing the following members present: Members Present: Richard Stuckman, President Richard Jones, Vice President Frank Throop, Member Randall Kamm, Member Joe Wilcox, Member Staff Present: James W. Kzeski , Director of Building Safety Jack Nelson, Recording Secretary Dennis George, Fire Inspector On a motion by Mr. Jones , supported by Mr. Throop, the minutes of December 12, 1989, were approved. The following appeals were addressed by the Board: Appeal #90-001 : Hawaiian Paradise The subject of the hearing was the consideration of a request from Mr. Glenn C. Harr, Vice President, Hawaiian Paradise, Suite #133, 1900 South Cedar Street (old Walter French Junior High) . Mr. Harr requested authorization to allow the use of the existing kitchen in the facility for a catering business. Hawaiian Paradise has occupied the facility for approximately 12 months. The business is currently licensed by the Michigan Department of Agriculture to operate a seafood repackaging operation. Fresh fish and seafood is flown to Michigan and repackaged to deliver to accounts in the mid-Michigan area. The business also sells tropical flowers, kona coffee and macadamia nuts. Ch Z Wd - 6T M 06, ONISNVI '00211 Building Board of Appeals Minutes February 20, 1990 Page 2 Mr. Harr stated that he would like to expand the operation to include catering . The operation would not include any type of equipment that would produce excessive heat or produce grease-laden vapors. A convection oven is currently utilized for baking. Hawaiian Paradise also prepares fruit and vegetable trays with main course entrees that are either baked or grilled on-site with charcoal grills. The only purpose of the exhaust vents to on system would be to pull heat from the kitchen area. The Buiding Safety Division presented the following information: The existing kichen does not comply with current Mechanical and Building Code requirements as follows: Kitchen Ventilation System (U.M.C. 1988 Edition, pg. 133) Section 2002 (a) (b) (c) (d) (f) and (e) Hood System (U.M.C. 1988 Edition) 2003 (b) (c) (g) Building Code Violations Table 5-A, 504(c) , 4306(J) Chairman Stuckman requested comments from the Fire Prevention Bureau. Dennis George, Fire Inspector, stated that the Fire Prevention Bureau had no objection to the variance as along as the corridor which leads to the exterior court is not used as a means of egress for the building. After discussion, Mr. Jones moved, supported by Mr. Wilcox, to approve this case. The approval is subject to the following condi- tions. 1. The main corridor within the building which leads to this tenant space and to the court shall not be used as means of egress for the building. 2. The variance is only issued to Hawaiian Paradise for their use only and is not transferable. 3. Tenant shall not use a deep fryer or grill , or any other type of equipment that would produce excessive heat or grease build- up in the ventilation system. 4. The tenant shall authorize the Fire Prevention Bureau and the Building Safety Division to perform unannounced periodic inspec- tions of the tenant space. Building Board of Appeals Minutes February 20, 1990 Page 3 In support of this decision the Board makes the following findings of fact: 1. The corridor system which the unprotected duct passes through will not be utilized as a means of egress for the building. 2. The tenant will not be authorized to use the hood system for any quipment which produces excessive heat or discharges grease-laden vapors. 3. The Fire Prevention and Building Safety Divisions will monitor the facility on a periodic basis to ensure continued compliance. Appeal r'90-002: Dale Goodrich, Lansing Reinvestment An Application for variance has been filed by Mr. Dale Goodrich, 209 Church Street, Potterville, Michigan, on behalf of Lansing Reinvestment. The applicant seeks relief from the enforcing officer' s field correction notice which required that bedroom egress windows comply with Section 1204 of the Uniform Building Code. Mr. Goodrich stated that a Building Permit was acquired on November 30, 1989, for interior remodeling and siding of an existing single family residence at 228 Hill Street. The value of the alteration was approximately $10,000.00. All windows in the house were replaced with a vinyl replacement windows which were installed in the existing window openings. On or about January 4, 1990, Mr. Jon Wadsworth, Building Inspector, conducted an inspection and noted that the bedroom windows did not comply with Building Code requirements. Mr. Goodrich also stated that his appeal has been amended to request a variance for the northwest bedroom only. The windows in the rest of the bedrooms have been changed. The net clear opening of the window in question is 29" wide by 23" in height. The code requires a net clear width of 20" and height of 24" and a clear opening of at least 5.7 sq. ft. In this case the net opening is 4.63 sq. ft. Chairman Stuckman requested staff comments: Dennis George, Fire Inspector, stated that 'the primary reason for the net clear opening is to afford sufficient clear area for a fireman to enter the bedroom with equipment. Inspector George indicated that the window dimension would not prevent a fireman from entering the building through the window. Building Board of Appeals Minutes February 20, 1990 Page 4 After discussion, Mr. Throop moved, supported by Mr. Jones, to approve the variance for the window in the northwest bedroom only. Motion carried unanimously. In support of this decision, the Board makes the following findings of fact: 1. The window area and clear height will not, in the Boards opinion, adversely effect fire fighting rescue. 2. The net clear height requirement is 24" . The appeal request a variance of only 1" in height and 1. 1 sq. ft. in area. The Board feels that the variance request is the minimum necessary to alleviate the situation. 3. The window installed was in the existing opening and no framing was necessary to accommodate the new window. Appeal #90-003 : Victor Office Center An Application for a variance was filed by Mr. Peter Holtz, Architect, Victor Design, on behalf of Gentilozzi Real Estate and Management Company, One Michigan Avenue, Suite 200, Lansing, Michigan. The request, if granted, would allow the use of fusible link devise to mount window blinds on the west side of the new Victor—Office Building which is locacted on the Northwest corner of Ottawa and North Washington Square. The Building Board of Appeals previsouly addressed a request by this Applicant on December 13, 1988. The Applicant at that time requested the use of unrated glazing in the west wall of the Victor building. Protected openings would have been required due to the proximity of the building to the property line. The Board granted the variance, but predicated its approval upon compliance with several conditions . Condition #3 stated that " . . . curtain rods, blinds or other window treatments shall not be positioned to adversely effect the sprinklers which were required to protect the glazing. " The Applicant now wants to install window blinds on the windows with the fusible link system. Since this request effects a previous board action, the Department is requesting disposition by the Board. Mr. Holtz presented the case to the Board stating that a similar appeal was granted by the Building Board of Appeals for the City of East Lansing. Mr. Holtz also stated that the fusible links ar UL rated to hold up to 20# and release at 135° . In the event of a fire these links would break the blinds, and in total would drop away from the window before the sprinklers were actuated. This system would allow the same degree of protection while allowing tenants to install window treatment for privacy and cooling from the afternoon west sun. Building Board oL Appeals Minutes February 20 , 1990 Page 5 Chairman Stuckman requested staff comments: Inspector Dennis George stated that the sprinkler heads which protect the glazing are quick response heads which could discharge prior to the release of the fusible links for the blinds. There is a time factor delay on the fusible link which does not occur on the sprinkler. If the blinds did not fall , the windows would not be cooled by the sprinkler system. This scenario would be critical if we had an exterior fire exposure from the Ingham Building. After discussion, Mr. Throop, supported by Mr. Kamm, moved that the request be denied. Motion carried unanimously. In support of this decision the Board makes the following findings of fact: 1. It is imperative that there are no obstructions which will adversely affect the quick response sprinklers and their ability to cool and protect the exterior wall glazing on the west side of the building. The Applicant did not substantiate that the proposed system would function under fire conditions to the degree necessary to authorize the variance. 2. The issuance of the variance may substantially deviate from performance required by the code in relation to fire safety and protection of the exterior glazing since the blinds may impede the sprinkler system. " TABLED APPEALS: Appeal #89-004: Grand Tower On May 9, 1989, the Board tabled Appeal #89-004 in order to afford time to the City of Lansing and Gentilozzi Real Estate to consumate a written agreement between the parties, concerning the conveyance of property for the construction of the Grand Tower Office building. The Board had stated that the variance would be approved if the following conditions were complied with. The Board of Appeals recommended that language be drafted as a part of the agreement between the parties which would define the public access easement as not adversely effecting the construction of the Grand Tower building; that is to say for purposes of construction the City would not treat the easement as a public way. Second, Gentilozzi Real Estate grant an easement to the Black and Tan Restaurant/Bar, which is located directly South of the proposed Grand Tower, to allow ingress/egress across. the property line. Building Board of Appeals Minutes February 20, 1990 Page 6 Third, that in the future, buildings which are constructed on parcels adjoining the site to the North and South shall comply with Building Code requirements for set-back from the property line and shall not be allowed to utilize the easement as a credit for compliance with Building Code requirements. At the meeting the final terms of the property settlement were reviewed and approved on a motion by Mr. Throop, supported by Mr. Jones. Motion carried unanimously. Appeal #89-005: Main Street Day Care (Reconsideration Request) The subject of the hearing was a variance request from the Main Street Child Care Facility located at 1715 W. Main Street. The purpose of the request is to seek authority from the Building Board of Appeals to utilize the second floor of the building for day care purposes. Section 802(c) of the Uniform Building Code, 1988 Edition, requires that day care shall not be located above the first story unless the building is totally fire suppressed. This case was previously denied by the Board in December, 1989. The Applicant has amended the request and seeks a rehearing on the case. The Applicant is proposing to install smoke detectors on the first floor of the building and install sprinklers in the exit cor"ridors also on the first floor, and sprinkle the entire second floor. This proposal deviates from the original proposal in that fire suppression is now proposed in the first floor exit corridors. Mr. Russell Hinkle, Architect, Stein, Hinkle, Dawe, Wood and Johnson, presented the case on behalf of the day care center. Mr. Hinkle represented that the first floor was remodeled two years ago and requiring a sprinkler system on the first floor would adversely effect the existing construction as well as disrupt the operation. Mr. Hinkle also stated that the second floor would be utilized for latch key programs , consequently, the children occupying the area are of sufficient age to negotiate the stairshaft. Mr. James Kzeski presented the position of the Building Safety Division. He stated that there are several positive attributes of the building which may be viewed as equating with the requirement for total fire suppression. Those items which exceed minimum code requirements are as follows: Building Board of Appeals Minutes February 20, 1990 Page 7 A smoke detection system would be installed in the entire building. The building exceeds the minimum construction type. A rated fire separation will be provided between the floors. The second floor is provided with three independent exits and the second floor will be utilized for latch key children only (2nd, 3rd, and 4th graders) . Dennis George, Fire Inspector, voiced his objection to the proposal indicating that fire suppression requirements cannot be traded for other code items. After discussion Mr. Throop moved, supported by Mr. Jones , that the variance be approved as requested. Motion carried unanimously. The variance is subject to compliance with the following conditions: 1. The entire second floor, all corridors and stairshafts shall be equipped with a fire suppression system installed in compliance with N.F.P.A. requirements. The system shall be installed by a licensed sprinkler installer. Plan shall be approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. 2. The mechanical shafts which are utilized as an air plenum shall be sealed at the floor system with an assembly which will afford a one-hour fire-resistant barrier. 3. Only latch key children will be authorized to occupy the-second floor, e.g. 2nd, 3rd, 4th grade or older. This decision is based upon the following findings of fact: 1. All class rooms on the first floor, except one, has direct exiting to the outside. Second, the second floor has three stairshafts which exit directly to the exterior of the building. These attributes will ensure safe and expeditious exiting from the building. 2. The construction of the building exceeds the minimum construc- tion type. The increase in fire resistance will equate favorably with the lack of fire suppression on the first floor class rooms. 3. The variance approval will limit the age of children on the second floor to those capable of exiting the building without continued supervision. OTHER BUSINESS: The Board was requested to review proposed changes in the fee schedule for the Building Safety Division. Building Board of Appeals Minutes February 20, 1990 Page 8 After discussion, Mr. Jones moved to approve the proposed changes in the fee schedule. Motion supported by Mr. Throop. Motion carried unanimously. It was moved by Randall Kamm, supported by Mr. Wilcox to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adourned at 4:18 p.m. Respectfully submitted, eording lson Secretary Minutes approved on OFFICIAL pROCEEDINGS Of the DING BOARD OF APPEALS gUl 199D guildin9 Appeals April 10, Board of Safety pivision Mich an. of the City °f Canln the BuildLansing, lg 1990ton uare, at meeting ril 10, Sq Stuckman The held on Tuesday119p N. Washing Ria d tituted a was Room Chairmancons Conference order by resent alled to Were P ting T he me he f 11 Wing members T 2_p5 p'm• quorum T ` nt ers PreSe Stuckman, Preside dent Memb Ares RAchard Bones , Vice 915 Richard hroop, Member o— Frank Kamm, Member 3oedaAA Wilcox, Member Staff present: Fire Recording Secretary by Mr• d O t piBrien, motion y� Gary Brydges, Acting the agendas °OnFebrua rare 1990, ti on °f the mi nut had been no ere Was no modlbycMr• Jonas, at there Th Supportedlt Was note th Thro°P,approved. by the Board: Were ameeting. Board appeals Were addressed The following Side Deli the tenant, thets,de 1g$g p-004: West ented a of its APPeaI #9 resent andal ng eSecti0W0uld requAr Washington apP Code which at 22p S. space used Gordon FTheo aPPlaca P m guildin9 located feet of P the De IA -. On' Structure 000 square ant Spaces °tenant Edition of the om the ba5emn Ludes pprOX�mateltw°� SeParate tfhe adjacent fr t and being Westside Dell The basf or Storage, them He Stated mostly of matter d the t floor, one the building, an firs formation on Barr is Barry, s place• new inform er and that ut presente e some ey Ros abo t to eXPit e, a new a air ce S1 Was tune At that. tine, Barry• pia ° be Mr• t the lease twee place is ow tropr1etor °fbeavacatin9hebasement into s c Wha p basement would likely be d from Would be Building Boai of Appeals Minutes 4/10/90 Page 2 Mr. Fineout was not able to say at this time when the space would be vacated, nor when the .stairs would be erected. Mr. Fineout said he would provide a letter to the Building Safety Division expressing a definite time of installation for the new stairs. Mr. Stuckman suggested that since the Applicant was now willing to install the second stairway, there was no need for an appeal . However, there was the question of when the stairs would be done. A motion was made by Mr. Throop, supported by Mr. Wilcox that the appeal be tabled until the next meeting. This would allow approx- imately 30 days to get a letter to the Building Safety Division. Occupancy of the first floor and basement could continue during that period. If the need for an appeal was still evident at the next meeting it could be acted upon at that time; otherwise the appeal would be withdrawn. Motion carried unanimously. Appeal #90-005: 462 E. Edgewood, Retail "B" Mr. Michael Meldrun, MMA Associates, was present and represented RAMCO - Lansing Associates. The appeal related to the termination of an area separation wall with an adjacent canopy overhang. The requirement for the two-hour area separation wall was the result of an agreement between the separate owner/developers of the Edgewood Center complex. Mr. Meldrum explained the situation and the basis for the appeal . He stated that the store front would lose nearly half of its glass exposure if required to comply with Section 505(e) of the Uniform Building Code, 1988 Edition. This would lessen the desirability of the space and make it difficult to lease. Mr. Meldrum stated that polished wire glass , which would be an acceptable alternative to a solid wall , would take from four to six months to get and is very expensive. Discussion of the matter centered on whether there was actually a need for the appeal . It appeared that Section 505(e) (2) of the Code was being complied with as shown on the drawings , and that the requirements in the Exception under Section 505(e) (2) should not have been invoked. The reasoning for this was that the area separa- tion wall extended beyond the outer edge of the canopy projection. The Exception would only be applied where an area separation wall terminated at the intersection of an exterior wall with a canopy projecting beyond that point. Since it was unclear as to why this part of Section 505 was called out during the plan review process , it was suggested that Mr. O'Brien and Mr. Brydges discuss the matter with Jack Nelson upon his return from vacation. Building Boara of Appeals Minutes 4/10/90 Page 3 It was moved by Mr. Jones, supported by Mr. Throop, that the appeal be tabled for one week following the forthcoming dicussion with Mr. Nelson. If there is indeed no need for an appeal , it will be ,automatically withdrawn. If, in fact, the appeal is required, a special meeting will be set for the Board on Tuesday, April 17, 1990, to hear the matter again. Motion carried unanimously. There being no other business before the Board, and no public comment, Mr. Throop moved the meeting be adjourned, supported by Mr. Wilcox. Meeting adourned at 3:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, c Gary rydges, Acting Recording Secretary Mintues approved on OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS of the BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS May 8, 1990 The regular meeting of the City of Lansing, Building Board of Appeals was held on Tuesday, May 8, 1990, in the Building Safety Conference Room, 119 N. Washington Square, Lansing, Michigan. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Richard Stuckman at 2:03 p.m. The following members were present and constituted a quorum: Members Present: Richard Stuckman, President Richard Jones , Vice-President Frank Throop, Member Randall Kamm, Member Members Absent: Joe Wilcox, .Member Staff Present: Jack Nelson, Recording Secretary Robert O'Brien, Fire Marshal Randy Eberbach, Code Compliance Officer There were no modifications to the agenda. On a motion by Mr. Jones , supported by Mr. Throop, the minutes of the April 10, 1990, were approved as printed. The following cases were addressed by the Board. Chairman Stuckman explained the rules of procedure to the first applicant. OLD BUSINESS: Appeal #90-004: Westside Deli , 220 S. Washington This appeal was tabled at the April 10, 1990, meeting in order to afford the applicant time to acquire a letter from the building's owner which delineates a timetable for the installation of the stairway. It was the Boards opinion that if the stairway was installed with dispatach, the -appeal could be withdrawn. On April 30, 1990, the Department received a letter from the building 's owner. The letter , stated that the lease for Barry's Tz ONISNV7 Building Board of Appeals Minutes May 8, 1990 Page 2 Place would not expire until October 31, 1991. Second, it was stated that he wanted to proceed with the variance request and not install the second stairshaft. Mr. Rosenberg cited the fact that total remodeling of 220 S. Washington was only 25% of the square footage of the entire building. The basement is currently sprinkled and has hard wired smoke detectors. Mr. Mark Fineout was present and represented the owner, Mr. Sidney Rosenberg. The applicant is appealing Section 3303(a) of the 1988 Edition of the Uniform Building Code which requires two exits from basement areas which are utilized for storage and exceeds 300 square feet. The basement is approximatley 7,000 square feet and is utilized for storage. The storage area underlies two separate tenant spaces on the first floor; one being Westside Deli . The adjacent tenant is Barry's Place. Mr. Fineout stated that the owner is requesting a variance from installing the stairway. Chairman Stuckman asked for the .position of the Fire Prevention Bureau. Robert O'Brien stated that the size of the basement, coupled with its use, would necessitate two exits. The Board had general discussion concerning the case. Mr. Throop moved to deny the appeal , motion supported by Mr. Jones. Motion carried unanimously. In support of this decision the Board makes the following findings of fact: 1. The area of the basement poses a potential hazard to occupants which utilize the area for storage. The distance from remote areas of the basement to the one stairshaft could adversely affect safety exiting under fire conditions. It is the Boards decision to require that the second exit be installed within 60 days from the date of this meeting. NEW BUSINESS: Appeal #90-006: Rodney Smith, 2035 Moffitt An Application for variance has been filed by Mr. Rodney Smith for his residence. The request, if granted, would allow the use of a bedroom and sitting room in the basement of his residence with a ceiling height of 7 '0". Section 1207(a) , Ceiling Heights, of the 1988 U.B.C. , states that habitable space shall have a ceiling height of not less than 7'6". Building Boar , of Appeals Minutes May 8, 1990 Page 3 Mr. Smith was not in attendance at the meeting. However, the Board felt that the case could be addressed without the applicants presence. According to the Departments records, the violation was noted by Mr. Robert Graham, Building Inspector, while performing an inspection of a garage on the same site. The applicant represented to Mr. Graham that he was not aware that a permit was required for the alteration. After discussion it was moved by Mr. Jones, supported by Mr. Kamm that the request be approved. Motion carried unanimously. In support of this decision, the Board makes the following findings of fact. 1. The ceiling height exception does not adversely affect the health, safety and welfare of the occupants. 2. As a condition for approval , smoke detection will be required in accordance with Chapter 12 of the U.B.C. 1988 Edition. Appeal #90-007: Hall-Springtree Associates, 3029 Beau Jardin Dr. An Application for appeal was filed by Mr. Scott Kenney on behalf of Hall=Springtree Association, 3029 Beau Jardin Dr. , Lansing, Michigan. The application, if approved, would allow the continued use of guardrails on exterior balconies at Springtree Apartments which are 30" in height. Second, the management takes exception to the instal- lation of handrails on the primary entrance stairways. On or about November 15, 1989, Randall Eberbach, Code Compliance Officer, issued a Correction Notice for several buildings at the Springtree Complex which is located on Beau Jardin Dr. The violation notice was issued pursuant to the requirements of Section 1460.20(2) (J) of the Title Six Housing Code, City of Lansing. Mr. Eberbach declared the buildings to be substandard since no handrails were provided on the primary entrance stairways and since the guard- rails on the exterior balconies are 30" in height. The applicant contends that the buildings were constructed between 1968 and 1971. At the time of construction, and the issuance of the Occupancy Permit, there were no handrails leading to the entrance of the building. The entrances have not been altered since construc- tion and the property has been subject to annual inspections through- out its history. At no time was the complex cited for lack of handrails. Building Board of Appeals Minutes May 8, 1990 Page 4 Second, in 1987, the applicant began an extensive plan to repair all balconies at the request of the Building Safety Division. The work involved replacement of rotted structural members, replacement of rotted decking and addition of vertical supports as necessary. It is the applicants position that several thousand dollars has been expended to repair the balconies under the supervision of the Building Safety Division, and at no time did the Building Inspector require alteration to the guardrail . According to the Department's file, the building permits issued to Springtree Apartments were for repair work per the requirements of Section 104(d) of the Building Code (U.B.C. 1988 Edition) . Since the work was only repair and maintenance, the Building Inspector did not require the replacement of the existing iron railing. Randy Eberbach, Code Compliance Officer for the City of Lansing, Building Safety Division, explained the City's rental inspection program. Mr. Eberbach stated that the program requires that all rental dwellings be inspected on a two year cycle. Scott Kenney, Springtree Apartments Representative, stated that management has spent thousands of dollars to improve the safety as well as the esthetics of the balconies under the supervision of the Lansing -Building Safety Division. He did not feel that 'it is justifiable to spend additional money to install new guardrails on the balconies, and handrails on the entry stairways. Chairman Stuckman stated that a condition exists that allows a potential hazard that must be corrected. It is, however, unfortunate that enforcement did not occur earlier. After general discussion, it was moved by Mr. Jones, supported by Mr. Throop to deny the appeal . The guardrails on the decks and the handrail at the primary entrances shall be installed in accordance with the following schedule: Handrails and guardrails shall be installed in accordance with the requirements of the U.B.C. 1988 Edition for the following buildings in the year indicated. 1990 1. 2900 Beau Jardin 3. 2814 Beau Jardin 2. 2910 Beau Jardin 4. 2800 Beau Jardin 1991 1. 4904 Bell Chase 4. 2911 E. Jolly 2. 4924 Bell Chase 5. 4905 Dunckle 3. 2901 E. Jolly 6. 4925 Dunkle Building Boars ,f Appeals Minutes May 8, 1990 Page 5 1992 (By July 1) 1. 3101 Beau Jardin 2. 3021 Beau Jardin 3. 3027 Beau Jardin Motion carried unanimously. In support of this decision, the Board makes the following findings of fact: I . According to the record, the housing units in questions were constructed between 1968 and 1971. The buildings were apparently constructed under the requirements of the 1967 Building Code. Section 1714 of the code states that guardrails shall be not less than 36" in height. A review of the 1964 and 1970 Codes also represent that guardrail heights were consistent with the 1965 Code and at no time were 30" rails authorized around decks or porches. 2. A code review of the requirements for exterior handrails was also researched. It was determined that handrails were a code requirement at the time the units were constructed. 3. A potentially hazardous situation exsists on the site which must be corrected even though it appears that the violation was not cited by the City of Lansing, Building Safety Division. There being no other business before the Board, and no public comment. Mr. Jones moved the meeting be adjourned, supported by Mr. Kamm. Motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 3:07 p.m. Respectfully sub itte , ck A. Nelson S cretary Minutes Approved On: