Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBuilding Board of Appeals 1992 Minutes " Revised 12/15/92 OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS of the BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS Tuesday, November 10, 1992 The meeting was called to order by Chairman Richard Stuckman at 2:04 p.m. The roll call showed the following members present: MEMBERS PRESENT: Richard Stuckman, Chairman Richard Jones, Vice Chairman Joseph Wilcox Roger Donaldson Randy Kamm C^ STAFF PRESENT: Jack Nelson, Recording Secretary Jim Ballard, Fire Marshal Mr. Jones moved to approve the minutes of the October 13, 1992, meeting; with the following changes: Bottom of Page 4, correct spelling of the work "fruition." Page 5, heading of Appeal #92-028, correct the spelling of the word "Tisdale." OLD BUSINESS: Appeal 92-028 — 523 Tisdale Avenue, Joseph & Linda Robiadek An application for appeal was filed by Joseph and Linda Robiadek, 10930 Columbia Rd. , Eaton Rapids, Michigan. The appeal seeks relief from Section 1460.20(a)(2) of the Lansing Uniform Housing Code in order to utilized the second story of the rental property located at 523 Tisdale for a sleeping room and play room. The ceiling height of the bedroom measured at the 316" width is 614". The Owner, Joseph Robiadek, attended the meeting and stated that the bedroom is 17 '4" x 12' . The window in the bedroom is 34" x 28" and is a double hung style. The stairway to the bedroom has been reconstructed to current code requirements. Mr. Jones moved to grant the appeal subject to the installation of a hard wired smoke detector in the bedroom. Motion supported by Mr. Wilcox. Motion carried unanimously. In support of this decision the Board makes the following finding of fact: The size, configuration and height of the bedroom will allow smoke accumulation in the room and consequently will allow adequate time for exiting. Building Board of —p peals Minutes 11/10/92 Page 2 NEW BUSINESS: Appeal #92-031 — 4620 Stafford, Adams Mechanical An application for appeal has been filed by John L. Adams, Mechanical Contractor. On September 3, 1992, Mr. Ralph Goff, Chief Mechanical Inspector, inspected 4620 Stafford for the replacement of a furnace. Upon inspection seven code violations of the Uniform Mechanical Code were in evidence. The applicant is aggrieved and seeks a modification or reversal of the enforcing officer' s decision. Mr. John Adams, Mechanical Contractor, Louise Thomlinson, and Thelma VanDerwolde, the owners of the building were in attendance. Mr. Adams submitted a written document which delineated the arguments in support of the appeal, marked exhibit "A", and is considered as part of the hearing record. Mr. Goff, Chief Mechanical Inspector, submitted a copy of the written violation notice dated September 11, 1992, which was issued to Mr. Adams. The violation notice is'marked as exhibit "B", and shall be made a part of the hearing record. Mr. Stuckman stated that there are seven alleged violations. Each violation will be addressed in seratum according to the violation notice. Alleged Violation #1 The opening to the crawl space is 21 x 36. Section 709 of the Uniform Mechanical Code requires a minimum opening of 30 x 30. Mr. Adams stated that the terminology in the Mechanical Code requires a 30 x 30 passage way to afford adequate area to remove the furnace, and not a 30 x 30 scuttle. Mr. Goff disagreed with Mr. Adams ' interpretation, but stated that he would have no objection to the size of the current access opening if the owner' s submitted a letter of no objection. The owner' s purported that they have no objection to the submission of a letter. Alleged Violation #2 The working space in front of the furnace is 13 3/4". Section 505 of the Uniform Mechanical Code requires no less than 30". Mr. Adams stated that the furnace has a small 72" high retaining wall 13Z" from the front of the furnace to keep dirt from falling down into the furnace area. There is a main support pole approximately 36" in front of the furnace. If this area were to be dug out it would cause the footing to become loose and unstable. The furnace requires 12" clearance to remove the blower assembly. The manufacturer' s requirer:ient is 6" of clearance from combustibles. Therefore, the furnace is completely serviceable and no logical reason exists to remove the retaining wall, thus allowing dirt to fall into the furnace area. Alleged Violation ,'-3 building hoard of Appeals Minutes 11/10/92 Page 3 Vent connector material is single wall pipe for approximately 5". Section 915(a) of the Uniform Mechanical Code does not allow single wall pipe to pass through a crawl space. Mr. Adams stated that this violation will be corrected. Alleged Violation #4 Vent connector at connection to the chimney liner does not have 4" per foot rise as required by Section 915(D) , of the Uniform Mechanical Code. Mr. Adams stated that this violation will be corrected. Alleged Violation #5 The crawl space has not been provided with combustion air as required by Chapter 6 of the Uniform Mechanical Code, and manufacturer' s instructions. Mr. Goff stated that the area of the crawl space is approximately 1,300 cubic feet; 3,750 C.F.M. is required for the subject area. Alleged Violation #6 Ducts have not been insulated as required by Section 1005 and Table 10—D of the Uniform Mechanical Code. Also, check manufacturer' s instructions for clearance Of insulation to earth below ducts. Mr. Adams stated that the crawl space is a conditioned space and, consequently, does not require insulation; three heat runs have been installed. Mr. Goff stated that the crawl space is uninsulated, consequently adding conditioned air to the space would not be energy conscious. Alleged Violation #7 The manufacturer' s installation instructions require that the manifold pressure be adjusted, the temperature rise be set, and the heat anticipator setting must be adjusted. Mr. Adams stated that he would comply with this item. Mr. Goff stated that he has no objection to the issuance of a variance for the unresolved code violations of 1, 2, 5 and 6 provided the current owner is aware of the issues and has no objections to the variances. Mr. Goff also stated that combustion air will not be required if the crawl space is provided with heat runs. The violations in question do not cause a dangerous situation, but are, in part, related to energy concerns. Mr. Kamm moved that official action on the case be tabled until the Decmeber 8, 1992, meeting to afford the owner adequate time to draft a letter of no objection. Upon receipt of the letter the Board will approve items 1, 2, 5 and 6. Motion supported by Mr. Wilcox. Motion carried unanimously. Building Board of „ppeals 11/10/92 Page 4 Cases 92-032 and 92-033 will be addressed together. Appeal #92-032 - 1801 Bassett, Atmosphere Annealing An application for appeal has been filed by Mr. Todd Callaway of Economides Associates Architects. The application has been filed on behalf of Atmosphere Annealing Company and seeks relief from Section 3802 of the Uniform Building Code. The variance, if granted, would authorize the construction of a 45 x 22 (990 sq. ft. ) addition to Atmosphere Annealing located at 1801 Bassett. On Monday, August 24, 1992, I reviewed a set of construction documents and apprised the architect that the building area has met its maximum area for its construction type. Consequently, the Department could not issue the building permit. In like manner, the addition was of Type V-N construction and the existing building was Type II-N. The Department apprised the architect that a permit could be issued if the construction type of the addition was changed to II-N, the addition was sprinkled, and a long range capitol improvement plan was submitted which would delineate a time schedule for suppression of the building. The building owner has rejected this and seeks a reversal and/or modification of the enforcing officer' s decision. Appeal #92-033 - 209 W. Mt. Hope, Atmosphere Annealing An application for appeal has been filed by Mr. Todd Callaway of Economides Associates Architects. The application has been filed on behalf of Atmosphere Annealing Company and seeks relief from Section 3802 of the Uniform Building Code, 1991 Edition pertaining to fire suppression. On Tuesday, August 4, 1992, I performed a plan review for a proposed 1 ,200 sq. foot addition to Atmosphere Annealing. At that time I apprised the architect that the building was too large for the construction type. My position was based upon the fact that the existing building was 81,000 square feet, was not sprinkled, and no perimeter increases were authorized. The Department notified the architect that the building permit would be issued if the following conditions were met: 1 . The construction type must be changed to II-N. 2. The addition must be sprinkled. 3. A capitol improvement plan must be submitted which delineates a time table for suppression of the entire building. The owner has rejected this Department' s position and requests a reversal or modification of the enforcing officer' s decision. Mr. Callaway, representing the Architect Dimitrois Economides, and Kevin Day, representing Atmosphere Annealing, were in attendance. Mr. Callaway gave the board the following information: Bassett Street Facility Building Board of -ppeals 11/10/92 Page 5 Area: 45,000 sq. ft. Addition "A": Truck Dock/Storage - 4,300 sq. ft. Addition "B": Office/Lounge Proposed Construction Type: II-N Proposal: Construct three area separation walls to reduce area of building. The location of three walls will still not comply with area requirements of U.B.C. Mt. Hope Facility Area: 280,000 sq. ft. Addition: 1,200 sq. ft. - Lounge Employment: 75 persons Mr. Ballard stated that a fire alarm system should be installed in both facilities. Mr. Nelson stated that Section 3804 of the 1991 U.B.C. authorizes permissible sprinkler omission. It would appear that the facility would comply with Subsection (b) . Spinkler omissions are authorized only when approved by the Fire Department and the Building Official. Mr. Donaldson moved to grant appeals 92-032 and 92-033 subject to approval of a proposal by the Fire Marshal and the Building Safety Division; motion supported by Mr. Kamm. Motion carried unanimously. In support of this decision the Board makes the following findings of fact: 1. Section 3804 of the U.B.C. authorizes specific sprinkler omissions with concurrence of the building official and Fire Department. It is the Board's opinion that the proposal complies with the criteria delineated in Section 3804. 2. The Building/Fire Department' s have been ordered to require an alarm system in order to increase fire safety in the facility. Appeal #92-034 - 903 N. Pine, Krisztian/Terry An application for appeal was filed by Christine Krisztian and Kenneth Terry. The application seeks relief from Section 1460.13(a) of the Lansing Housing Code. The variance, if granted, would allow the continued use of three bedrooms in a second story of a residence which is used for rental purposes. Technical Information Bedroom #1 (West) Room Size: 11 ' 1" x 716" (83 sq. ft. ) Ceiling Height: 61711 Window Size:. 45 x 28 Glazing 8.75 Net Clear 4.37 Building Board of Appeals 11/10/92 Page 6 Knee Wall Height: 4110" Bedroom #2 (N.E.) Room Size: 10'0" x 1318" (137.5 sq. ft. ) Ceiling Height: 61811 Window Size: 45 x 28 Glazing 8.75 Net Clear 4.37 Knee Wall Height: 4110" Bedroom #3 (S.E.) Roon Size: 13 ' 8" x 910" (123. 7 sq. ft. ) Ceiling Height: 616" Window Size: 45 x 28 Glazing 8.75 Net Clear 4.37 Knee Wall Height: 4110" Christine Krisztian and Kenneth Terry, property owners, were in attendance at the meeting. Mr. Wilcox stated that the screw in type of smoke detection would not be authorized. He asked if smoke detection was located on the other floors of the structure? Mr. Terry stated that three battery operated smoke detectors are located in the dwelling. Mr. Donaldson moved to grant the variance subject to the installation of a hard wired smoke detector in conformance with Section 1210 of the 1991 Edition of the U.B.C. ; 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 bedrooms and the ceiling height of the rooms allow for sufficient area to collect products of combustion and will consequently afford sufficient time for exiting. 2. The ceiling height is in compliance with the Board' s written criteria for issuance of ceiling height variances. Appeal m92-035 — 5300 Aurelius Road, Jet Die Barnes Group An application for appeal has been filed by Jet Die Barnes Group. The applicant seeks relief from Section 3802 of the 1991 Edition of the Uniform Building Code. The applicant also seeks authorization to utilize the offices without fire suppression. The Building Safety Division has conditioned approval of the building permit on the installation of the sprinkler system. The applicant is aggrieved and requests a modification or reversal of the decision based upon the following facts : 1 . The portable office is made of noncombustible materials. Building Board of Appeals 11/10/92 Page 7 2. Offices will be used b%- supervision, thus low fire load. 3 . Offices need to be mobile due to changing environment of manufacturing. 4. Entire facility is sprinkled. Mr. Wilcox moved to grant the appeal subject to the installation of hard wired smoke detection system tied to the fire alarm system; motion supported by Mr. Donaldson. Motion carried unanimously. In support of this decision the Board makes the following findings of fact: 1 . The offices consist of noncombustible material. 2. The offices contain a low fire load since there use is supervisory and not clerical . 3. The entire building is sprinkled. 4. The high bay is over 25' in height and the office ceiling is 8' . The next meeting will be held on December 8, 1992. Being no further business before the Board it was moved by Mr. Jones, supported by Mr. Wilcox to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 4: 20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, I J c' A. elson Rac rding Secretary Minutes Approved On: OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS of the BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS Tuseday, November 10, 1992 The meeting was called to order by Chairman Richard Stuckman at 2:04 p.m. The roll call showed the following members present: MEMBERS PRESENT: Richard Stuckman, Chairman , Richard Jones, Vice Chairman Joseph Wilcox Roger Donaldson / Randy Kamm STAFF PRESENT: r--= t Jack Nelson, Recording Secretary (17 j Jim Ballard, Fire Marshal Mr. Jones moved to approve the minutes of the October 13, 1992, meeting with the following changes: Bottom of Page 4, correct spelling of the work "fruition." Page 5, heading of Appeal #92-028, correct the spelling of the word "Tisdale." OLD BUSINESS: Appeal 92-028 — 523 Tisdale Avenue, Joseph & Linda Robiadek An application for appeal was filed by Joseph and Linda Robiadek, 10930 Columbia Rd. , Eaton Rapids, Michigan. The appeal seeks relief from Section 1460.20(a)(2) of the Lansing Uniform Housing Code in order to utilized the second story of the rental property located at 523 Tisdale for a sleeping room and play room. The ceiling height of the bedroom measured at the 316" width is 614". The Owner, Jospeh Robiadek, attended the meeting and stated that the bedroom is 17 'x 4" x 121 . The window in the bedroom is 34" x 28" and is a double hung style. The stairway to the bedroom has been reconstructed to current code requirements. Mr. Jones moved to grant the appeal subject to the installation of a hard wired smoke detector in the bedroom. Motion supported by Mr. Wilcox. Motion carried unanimously. In support of this decision the Board makes the following finding of fact: The size, configuration and height of the bedroom will allow smoke accumulation in the room and consequently will allow adequate time Building Board of _,,peals November 10, 1992 Page 2 for exiting. NEW BUSINESS: Appeal #92-031 - 4620 Stafford, Adams Mechanical An application for appeal has been filed by John L. Adams, Mechanical Contractor. On September 3, 1992, Mr. Ralph Goff, Chief Mechanical Inspector, inspected 4620 Stafford for the replacement of a furnace. Upon inspection seven code violations of the Uniform Mechanical Code were in evidence. The applicant is aggrieved and seeks a modification or reversal of the enforcing officer's decision. Mr. John Adams, Mechanical Contractor, Louise Thomlinson, and Thelma VanDerwolde, the owners of the building were in attendance. Mr. Adams submitted a written document which delineated the arguments in support of the appeal, marked exhibit "A", and is considered as part of the hearing record. Mr. Goff, Chief Mechanical Inspector, submitted a copy of the written violation notice dated September 11 , 1992, which was issued to Mr. Adams. The violation notice is marked as exhibit "B", and shall be made a part of the hearing record. Mr. Stuckman stated that there are seven alleged violations. Each violation will be addressed in seratum according to the violation notice. Alleged Violation ##1 The opening to the crawl space is 21 x 36. Section 709 of the Uniform Mechanical Code requires a minimum opening of 30 x 30. Mr. Adams stated that the terminology in the Mechanical Code requires a 30 x 30 passage way to afford adequate area to remove the furnace, and not a 30 x 30 scuttle. Mr. Goff disagreed with Mr. Adams' interpretation, but stated that he would have no objection to the size of the current access opening if the owner's submitted a letter of no objection. The owner's purported that they have no objection to the submission of a letter. Alleged Violation ,'}2 The working space in front of the furnace is 13 3/4". Section 505 of the Uniform Mechanical Code requires no less than 30". Mr. Adams stated that the furnace has a small 72" high retaining wall 132" from the front of the furnace to keep dirt from falling down into the furnace area. There is a main support pole approximately 36" in front of the furnace. If this area were to be dug out it would cause the footing to become loose and unstable. The furnace requires 12" clearance to remove the blower assembly. The manufacturer's requirement is 6" of clearance from combustibles. Therefore, the furnace is completely serviceable and no logical reason exists to remove the retaining wall, thus allowing dirt to fall into the furnace area. Building Board of ,peals November 10, 1992 Page 3 Alleged Violation #3 Vent connector material is single wall pipe for approximately 511. Section 915(a) of the Uniform Mechanical Code does not allow single wall pipe to pass through a crawl space. Mr. Adams stated that this violation will be corrected. Alleged Violation #4 Vent connector at connection to the chimney liner does not have k" per foot rise as required by Section 915(D) , of the Uniform Mechanical Code. Mr. Adams stated that this violation will be corrected. Alleged Violation #5 The crawl space has not been provided with combustion air as required by Chapter 6 of the Uniform Mechanical Code, and manufacturer' s instructions. Mr. Goff stated that the area of the crawl space is approximately 1,300 cubic feet; 3,750 C.F.M. is required for the subject area. Alleged Violation #6 Ducts have not been insulated as required by Section 1005 and Table 10-D of the Uniform Mechanical Code. Also, check manufacturer's instructions for clearance of insulation to earth below ducts. Mr. Adams stated that the crawl space is a conditioned space and, consequently, does no-t require insulation; three heat runs have been installed. Mr. Goff stated that the crawl space is uninsulated, consequently adding conditioned air to the space would not be energy conscious. Alleged Violation #7 The manufacturer's installation instructions require that the manifold pressure be adjusted, the temperature rise be set, and the heat anticipator setting must be adjusted. Mr. Adams stated that he would comply with this item. Mr. Goff stated that he has no objection to the issuance of a variance for the unresolved code violations of 1, 2, 5 and 6 provided the current owner is aware of the issues and has no objections to the variances. Mr. Goff also stated that combustion air will not be required if the crawl space is provided with heat runs. The violations in question do not cause a dangerous situation, but are, in part, related to energy concerns. Mr. Kamm moved that official action on the case be tabled until the Decmeber 8, 1992, meeting to afford the owner adequate time to draft a letter of no objection. Upon receipt of the letter the Board will approve items 1, 2, 5 and Building Board of Appeals November 10, 1992 Page 4 6. Motion supported by Mr. Wilcox. Motion carried unanimously. Cases 92-032 and 92-033 will be addressed together. Appeal #92-032 — 1801 Bassett, Atmos. here Annealing An application for appeal has been filed by Mr. Todd Callaway of Economides Associates Architects. The application has been filed on behalf of Atmosphere Annealing Company and seeks relief from Section 3802 of the Uniform Building Code. The variance, if granted, would authorize the construction of a 45 x 22 (990 sq. ft. ) addition to Atmosphere Annealing located at 1801 Bassett. On Monday, August 24, 1992, I reviewed a set of construction documents and apprised the architect that the building area has met its maximum area for its construction type. Consequently, the Department could not issue the building permit. In like manner, the addition was of Type V—N construction and the existing building was Type- II—N. The Department apprised the architect that a permit could be issued if the construction type of the addition was changed to II—N, the addition was sprinkled, and a long range capitol improvement plan was submitted which would delineate a time schedule for suppression of the building. The building owner has rejected this and seeks a reversal and/or modification of the enforcing officer's decision. Appeal #92-033 — 209 W. Mt Hope, Atmosphere Annealing An application for appeal has been filed by Mr. Todd Callaway of Economides Associates Architects. The application has been filed on behalf of Atmosphere Annealing Company and seeks relief from Section 3802 of the Uniform Building Code, 1991 Edition pertaining to fire suppression. On Tuesday, August 4, 1992, I performed a plan review for a proposed 1,200 sq. foot addition to Atmosphere Annealing. At that time I apprised the arechitect that the building was too large for the construction type. My position was based upon the fact that the existing building was 81,000 square feet, was not sprinkled, and no perimeter increases were authorized. The Department notified the architect that the building permit would be issued if the following conditions were met: 1• The construction type must be changed to II—N. 2. The addition must be sprinkled. 3• A capitol improvement plan must be submitted which delineates a time table for suppression of the entire building. The owner has rejected this Department' s position and requests a reversal or modification of the enforcing officer's decision. Mr. Callaway, representing the Architect Dimitrois Economides, and Kevin Day, representing Atmosphere Annealing, were in attendance. Mr. Callaway gave the board the following information: Building Board of eals November 10, 1992 Page 5 Bassett Street Facility Area: 45,000 sq. ft. Addition "A": Truck Dock/Storage - 4,300 sq. ft. Addition "B": Office/Lounge Proposed Construction Type: II-N Proposal: Construct three area separation walls to reduce area of building. The location of three walls will still not comply with area requirements Of U.B.C. Mt. Hope Facility Area: 280,000 sq. ft. Addition:Employment: 1,200 sq. ft. - Lounge 75 persons Mr. Ballard stated that a fire alarm system should be installed in both facilities. Mr. Nelson stated that Section 3804 of the 1991 U.B.C. authorizes permissible sprinkler omission. It would appear that the facility would Subsection (b) . Spinkler comply with omissions are authorized only when approved by the Fire Department and the Building Official. Mr. Donaldson moved to grant appeals 92-032 and 92-033 subject to approval of a proposal by the Fire Marshal and the Building Safety Division; motion supported by Mr. Kamm. Motion carried unanimously. In support of this decision the Board makes the following findings of fact: 1• Section 3804 of the U.B.C. authorizes specific sprinkler omissions with concurrence of the building official and Fire Department. It is the Board's opinion that the proposal complies with the criteria delineated in Section 3804. 2. The Building/Fire Department's have been ordered to require an alarm system in order to increase fire safety in the facility. Appeal #92-034 - 903 N. Pine, Krisztian/Terry An application for appeal was filed by Christine Krisztian and Kenneth Terry. The application seeks relief from Section 1460. 13(a) of the Lansing Housing Code. The variance, if granted, would allow the continued use of three bedrooms in a second story of a residence which is used for rental purposes. Technical Information Bedroom #1 (West) Room Size: Ceiling Height: 671 ' 1" x 7'6" (83 sq. ft. ) 11 Window Size: 6 45 x 28 Building Board of - _ ,,eals November 10, 1992 Page 6 Glazing 8.75 Net Clear 4.37 Knee Wall Height: 4110" Bedroom ##2 (N.E.) Room Size: 1010" x 1318" (137.5 sq. ft. ) Ceiling Height: 61811 Window Size: 45 x 28 Glazing 8.75 Net Clear 4.37 Knee Wall Height: . 4110" Bedroom ##3 Room Size: 13181, x 910" (123. 7 sq. ft. ) Ceiling Height: 616" Window Size: 45 x 28 Glazing 8.75 Net Clear 4.37 Knee Wall Height: 4110" Christine Krisztian and Kenneth Terry, property owners, meeting. were in attendance at the Mr. Wilcox stated that the screw in type of smoke detection would not be authorized. He asked if smoke detection was located on the other floors of the structure? Mr. Terry stated that three battery operated smoke detectors are located in the dwelling. Mr. Donaldson moved to grant the variance subject to the installation of a hard wired smoke detector in conformance with Section 1210 of the 1991 Edition of the U.B.C. ; 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 bedrooms and the ceiling height of the rooms allow for sufficient area to collect products of combustion and will consequently afford sufficient time for exiting. 2. The ceiling height is in compliance with the Board' s written criteria for issuance of ceiling height variances. Appeal #92-035 - 5300 Aurelius Road, Jet Die Barnes Group An application for appeal has been filed by Jet Die Barnes Group. The applicant seeks relief from Section 3802 of the 1991 Edition of the Uniform Building Code. The applicant also seeks authorization to utilize the suppression. offices without fire The Building Safety Division has conditioned approval of the building permit on the installation of the sprinkler system. The applicant is aggrieved and requests a modification or reversal of the decision based upon the following facts: Building Board of peals November 10, 1992 Page 7 1. The portable office is made of noncombustible materials. 2. Offices will be used by supervision, thus low fire load. 3. Offices need to- be mobile due to changing environment of manufacturing. 4• Entire facility is spinkled. Mr. Wilcox moved to grant the appeal subject to the installation of hard wired smoke detection system tied to the fire alarm system; motion supported by Mr. Donaldson. Motion carried unanimously. In support of this decision the Board makes the following findings of fact: 1. The offices consist of noncombustible material. 2. The offices contain a low fire load since there use is supervisory and not clerical. 3. The entire building is sprinkled. 4• The high bay is over 25' in height and the office ceiling is 81 . The next meeting will be held on December 8, 1992. Being no further business before the Board it was moved by Mr. Jones, supported by Mr. Wilcox to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 4:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, a k A. Nelson cording Secretary Minutes Approved On: OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS of the BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS Tuseday, November 10, 1992 The meeting was called to order by Chairman Richard Stuckman at 2:04 p.m. The roll call showed the following members present: MEMBERS PRESENT; Richard Stuckman, Chairman Richard Jones, Vice Chairman Joseph Wilcox Roger Donaldson c Randy Kamm STAFF PRESENT: Jack Nelson, Recording Secretary Jim Ballard, Fire Marshal Mr. Jones moved to approve the minutes of the October 13, 1992,rmee'ting with the following changes: Bottom of Page 4, correct spelling of the work "fruition." Page 5, heading of Appeal #92-028, correct the spelling of the word "Tisdale." OLD BUSINESS: Appeal 92-028 — 523 Tisdale Avenue, Joseph & Linda Robiadek An application for appeal was filed by Joseph and Linda Robiadek, 10930 Columbia Rd. , Eaton Rapids, Michigan. The appeal seeks relief from Section 1460.20(a)(2) of the Lansing Uniform Housing Code in order to utilized the second story of the rental property located at 523 Tisdale for a sleeping room and play room. The ceiling height of the bedroom measured at the 316" width is 614". The Owner, Jospeh Robiadek, attended the meeting and stated that the bedroom is 17 'x 4" x 121 . The window in the bedroom is 34" x 28" and is a double hung style. The stairway to the bedroom has been reconstructed to current code requirements. Mr. Jones moved to grant the appeal subject to the installation of a hard wired smoke detector in the bedroom. Motion supported by Mr. Wilcox. Motion carried unanimously. In support of this decision the Board makes the following finding of fact: The size, configuration and height of the bedroom will allow smoke accumulation in the room and consequently will allow adequate time Building Board of Appeals November 10, 1992 Page 2 for exiting. NEW BUSINESS: Appeal #92-031 - 4620 Stafford, Adams Mechanical An application for appeal has been filed by John L. Adams, Mechanical Contractor. On September 3, 1992, Mr. Ralph Goff, Chief Mechanical Inspector, inspected 4620 Stafford for the replacement of a furnace. Upon inspection seven code violations of the Uniform Mechanical Code were in evidence. The applicant is aggrieved and seeks a modification or reversal of the enforcing officer's decision. Mr. John Adams, Mechanical Contractor, Louise Thomlinson, and Thelma VanDerwolde, the, owners of the building were in attendance. Mr. Adams submitted a written document which delineated the arguments in support of the appeal, marked exhibit "A", and is considered as part of the hearing record. Mr. Goff, Chief Mechanical Inspector, submitted a copy of the written violation notice dated September 11, 1992, which was issued to Mr. Adams. The violation notice is marked as exhibit "B", and shall be made a part of the hearing record. Mr. Stuckman stated that there are seven alleged violations. Each violation will be addressed in seratum according to the violation notice. Alleged Violation #1 The opening to the crawl space is 21 x 36. Section 709 of the Uniform Mechanical Code requires a minimum opening of 30 x 30. Mr. Adams stated that the terminology in the Mechanical Code requires a 30 x 30 passage way to afford adequate area to remove the furnace, and not a 30 x 30 scuttle. Mr. Goff disagreed with Mr. Adams ' interpretation, but stated that he would have no objection to the size of the current access opening if the owner's submitted a letter of no objection. The owner's purported that they have no objection to the submission of a letter. Alleged Violation #2 The working space in front of the furnace is 13 3/4". Section 505 of the .Uniform Mechanical Code requires no less than 30". Mr. Adams stated that the furnace has a small 7z" high retaining wall 13z" from the front of the furnace to keep dirt from falling down into the furnace area. There is a main support pole approximately 36" in front of the furnace. If this area were to be dug out it would cause the footing to become loose and unstable. The furnace requires 12" clearance to remove the blower assembly. The manufacturer' s requirement is 6" of clearance from combustibles. Therefore, the furnace is completely serviceable and no logical reason exists to remove the retaining wall, thus allowing dirt to fall into the furnace area. Building Board of .ppeals November 10, 1992 Page 3 Alleged Violation #3 Vent connector material is single wall pipe for approximately 511. Section 915(a) of the Uniform Mechanical Code does not allow single wall pipe to pass through a crawl space. Mr. Adams stated that this violation will be corrected. Alleged Violation #4 • Vent connector at connection to the chimney liner does not have 'k" per foot rise as required by Section 915(D) , of the Uniform Mechanical Code. Mr. Adams stated that this violation will be corrected. Alleged Violation #5 .The crawl space has not been provided with combustion air as required by Chapter 6 of the Uniform Mechanical Code, and manufacturer' s instructions. Per. Goff stated that the area of the crawl space is approximately 1,300 cubic feet; 3,750 C.F.M. is required for the subject area. Alleged Violation #6 Ducts have not been insulated as required by Section 1005 and Table 10—D of the Uniform Mechanical Code. Also, check manufacturer's instructions for clearance of insulation to earth below ducts. Mr. Adams stated that the crawl space is a conditioned space and, consequently, does not require insulation; three heat runs have been installed. Mr. Goff stated that the crawl space is uninsulated, consequently adding conditioned air to the space would not be energy conscious. Alleged Violation #7 The manufacturer' s installation instructions require that the manifold pressure be adjusted, the temperature rise be set, and the heat anticipator setting must be adjusted. Mr. Adams stated that he would comply with this item. Mr. Goff stated that he has no objection to the issuance of a variance for the unresolved code violations of 1, 2, 5 and 6 provided the current owner is aware of the issues and has no objections to the variances. Mr. Goff also stated that combustion air will not be required if the crawl space is provided with heat runs . The violations in question do not cause a dangerous situation, but are, in part, related to energy concerns. Mr. Kamm moved that official action on the case be tabled until the Decmeber 8, 1992, meeting to afford the owner adequate time to draft a letter of no objection. Upon receipt of the letter the Board will approve items 1, 2, 5 and Building Board of Appeals November 10, 1992 Page 4 6. Motion supported by Mr. Wilcox. Motion carried unanimously. Cases 92-032 and 92-033 will be addressed together. Appeal #92-032 - 1801 Bassett, Atmosphere Annealing An application for appeal has been filed by Mr. Todd Callaway of Economides Associates Architects. The application has been filed on behalf of Atmosphere Annealing Company and seeks relief from Section 3802 of the Uniform Building Code. The variance, if granted, would authorize the construction of a 45 x 22 (990 sq. ft. ) addition to Atmosphere Annealing located at 1801 Bassett. On Monday, August 24, 1992, I reviewed a set of construction documents and apprised the architect that the building area has met its maximum area for its construction type. Consequently, the Department could not issue the building permit. In like manner, the addition was of Type V-N construction and the existing building was Type II-N. The Department apprised the architect that a permit could be issued if the construction type of the addition was changed to II-N, the addition was sprinkled, and a long range capitol improvement plan was submitted which would delineate a time schedule for suppression of the building. The building owner has rejected this and seeks a reversal and/or modification of the enforcing officer's decision. Appeal #92-033 - 209 W. Mt Hope, Atmosphere Annealing An application for appeal has been filed by Mr. Todd Callaway of Economides Associates Architects. The application has been filed on behalf of Atmosphere Annealing Company and seeks relief from Section 3802 of the Uniform Building Code, 1991 Edition pertaining to fire suppression. On Tuesday, August 4, 1992, I performed a plan review for a proposed 1,200 sq. foot addition to Atmosphere Annealing. At that time I apprised the arechitect that the building was too large for the construction type. My position was based upon the fact that the existing building was 81,000 square feet, was not sprinkled, and no perimeter increases were authorized. The Department notified the architect that the building permit would be issued if the following conditions were met: 1. The construction type must be changed to II-N. 2• The addition must be sprinkled. 3. A capitol improvement plan must be submitted which delineates a time table for suppression of the entire building. The owner has rejected this Department's position and requests a reversal or modification of the enforcing officer' s decision. Mr. Callaway, representing the Architect Dimitrois Economides, and Kevin Day, representing Atmosphere Annealing, were in attendance. Mr. Callaway gave the board the following information: Building Board of eals November 10, 1992 Page 5 Bassett Street Facility Area: 45,000 sq. ft. Addition "A": Truck Dock/Storage - 4,300 sq. ft. Addition "B": Office/Lounge Proposed Construction Type: II-N Proposal: Construct three .area separation walls to reduce area of building. The location of three walls will still not comply with area requirements Of U.B.C. Mt. Hope Facility Area: 280,000 sq. ft. Addition: 1,200 sq. ft. - Lounge Employment: 75 persons Mr. Ballard stated that a fire alarm system should be installed in both facilities. Mr. Nelson stated that Section 3804 of the 1991 U.B.C. authorizes permissible sprinkler omission. It would appear that the facility would comply with Subsection (b) . Spinkler omissions are authorized only when approved by the Fire Department and the Building Official. Mr. Donaldson moved to grant appeals 92-032 and 92-033 subject to approval proposal by the Fire Marshal and the Building Safety Division; motion supported by Mr. Kamm. Motion carried unanimously. In support of this decision the Board makes the following findings of fact: 1• Section 3804 of the U.B.C. authorizes specific sprinkler omissions with concurrence of the building official and Fire Department. It is the Board' s opinion that the proposal complies with the criteria delineated in Section 3804. 2. The Building/Fire Department' s have been ordered to require an alarm system in order to increase fire safety in the facility. Appeal #92-034 - 903 N. Pine, Krisztian/Terry An application for appeal was filed by Christine Krisztian and Kenneth Terry. The application seeks relief from Section 1460.13(a) of the Lansing Housing Code. The variance, if granted, would allow the continued use of three bedrooms in a second story of a residence which is used for rental purposes. Technical Information Bedroom #1 (West) Room Size: gpfli"a Hof8hti a171" x 7 '6" (83 sq. ft. ) Window Size: 45 x 28 Building Board of Vpeals November 10, 1992 Page 6 Glazing 8. 75 Net Clear 4.37 Knee Wall Height: 4110" Bedroom #2 (N.E.) Room Size: „ � �� Ceiling Height: 6 8ft 0,0 x 13 8 (137.5 sq. ft. ) Window Size: 45 x 28 Glazing 8. 75 Net Clear 4.37 Knee Wall Height: 4110" Bedroom #3 (S.E.) Room Size: 6368" x 9'0" (123. 7 sq. ft. ) Ceiling Height: Window Size: 45 x 28 Glazing 8.75 Net Clear 4.37 Knee Wall Height: 4110" Christine Krisztian and Kenneth Terry, property owners, were in attendance at the meeting. Mr. Wilcox stated that the screw in type of smoke detection would not be authorized. He asked if smoke detection was located on the other floors of the structure? Mr. Terry stated that three battery operated smoke detectors are located in the dwelling. Mr. Donaldson moved to grant the variance subject to the installation of a hard wired smoke detector in conformance with Section 1210 of the 1991 Edition of the U.B.C. ; 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 bedrooms and the ceiling height of the rooms allow for sufficient area to collect products of combustion and will consequently afford sufficient time for exiting. 2. The ceiling height is in compliance with the Board' s written criteria for issuance of ceiling height variances. Appeal #92-035 — 5300 Aurelius Road, Jet Die Barnes Group An application for appeal has been filed by Jet Die Barnes Group. The applicant seeks relief from Section 3802 of the 1991 Edition of the Uniform Building Code. The applicant also seeks authorization to utilize the offices without fire suppression. The Building Safety Division has conditioned approval of the building permit on the installation of the sprinkler system. The applicant is aggrieved and requests a modification or reversal of the decision based upon the following facts: Building Board of eals November 10, 1992 Page 7 1 . The portable office is made of noncombustible materials. 2. Offices will be used by supervision, thus low fire load. 3. Offices need to be mobile due to changing environment of manufacturing. 4. Entire facility is spinkled. Mr. Wilcox moved to grant the appeal subject to the installation of hard wired smoke detection system tied to the fire alarm system; motion supported by Mr. Donaldson. Motion carried unanimously. In support of this decision the Board makes the following findings of fact: 1. The offices consist of noncombustible material. 2. The offices contain a low fire load since there use is supervisory and not clerical. 3. The entire building is sprinkled. 4. The high bay is over 25' in height and the office ceiling is 81 . The next meeting will be held on December 8, 1992. Being no further business before the Board it was moved by Mr. Jones, supported by Mr. Wilcox to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 4:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, L� a k A. Nelson cording Secretary Minutes Approved On: OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS of the BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS October 13, 1992 The meeting was called to order by Chairman Richard Stuckman at 2:03 p.m. The roll call showed the following Members present: MEMBERS PRESENT Richard Stuckman, Chairman Richard Jones, Vice Chairman Joseph Wilcox, Member Roger Donaldson, Member ; MEMBERS ABSENT Randall Kamm STAFF PRESENT _. Jack Nelson, Secretary James Ballard, Fire Marshal Mr. Jones moved to approve the minutes of September 8, 1992, with the following change: Correct the spelling of the word "configuration" at the top of page four. Motion supported by Mr. Donaldson. Motion carried unanimously. OLD BUSINESS: Appeal #92-024 - 501 S. Clemens, City Wide Properties An application for appeal was filed by Rosemary Petryk on behalf of City Wide Properties. On June 9, 1992, a certification inspection of the structure was performed. The inspection revealed violations of Section 1460.20(a)(2) of the Lansing Uniform Housing Code. Mr. Kevin Reed, Code Compliance Officer, cited the owner for the occupancy of a second floor bedroom without adequate ceiling height and an inadequate tread width leading to the second floor (7-z") . The applicant is aggrieved and seeks a reversal or modification of the enforcing officer' s decision. Chairman Stuckman explained the Board' s procedure to the applicant and apprised her that an affirmative vote of three members is necessary to overturn the enforcing officer' s decision. Rosemary Petryk addressed the Board and stated the ceiling height in the bedroom was 6'-10". The ceiling height measured at the 3 '-6" width was approximately 61- 61 . The net openable window area is 4.61 square feet in area. The total window area is 9.23 square feet in area. Building Board of ! !als Minutes October 13, 1992 Page 2 Chairman stuckman stated that there are two issues in the case, one of the ceiling height and the other pertaining to the length of the tread on the stairway leading to the second floor. It was moved by Mr. Donaldson, supported by Mr. Jones, to grant the appeal provided that a window was installed in the bedroom which complies with egress requirements of the 1991 Uniform Building Code. In like manner, a hard wired smoke detector shall be installed in the bedroom. The motion carried unanimously. Mr. Jones moved to authorize the use of the existing stairway predicated upon the installation of handrails on both sides of the sta.irway. The handrails shall be installed in accordance with current building code requirements. Motion supported by Mr. Donaldson. Motion carried unanimously. NEW BUSINESS Appeal #92-025 - Thomas Nakielski, 5400 S. Pennsylvania An application for appeal has been filed by Mr. Thomas Nakielski. The applicant seeks a reversal or modification of the Plumbing Inspector' s order to install two toilet rooms in a photographic studio which has an occupant load exceeding 15 persons. The violation is contrary to Table 9-8 which would require that the facility provide two toilet rooms. The mens must contain three fixtures; a water closet, urinal and lavatory. ' The womens toilet room shall consist of a water closet and lavatory. The applicant proposes to utilize a uni-sex barrier free toilet room. Technical Data Gross sq. ft. of Tenant area: 2,264 Net Area: 1,659 Calculated Occupant Load as determined by Architect: 17 Permit Number 7470 Mr. Nakielski addressed the Board and stated that he operates a photographic studio in a building which has approximately 2,300 sq. ft. of area. The actual occupant load of the business is less than 15 persons. Consequently, a variance is requested which would allow the use of one uni-sex toilet room. Chairman Stuckman stated that the defined usage of the tenant space is in compliance with the purpose and intent of the code. Mr. Wilcox moved to grant the variance, motion supported by Mr. Jones. Motion carried unanimously. In support of this variance the Board makes the following findings of fact: The calculated occupant load of 17 is just slightly more than the occupant load of 15 which would authorize the use of one uni-sex toilet room. Appeal ##92-026 - W.H.D. Properties, 204-B W. Grand River Building Board of eals Minutes October 13, 1992 Page 3 An application for appeal has been filed by W.H.D. Properties. The applicant seeks relief from Section 1460.20 of the Lansing Uniform Housing Code as it relates to the inadequacy of the ceiling height of a sleeping room in a second story bedroom. The applicant represents that the ceiling height in the bedroom is 6110". The ceiling height in the hallway leading to the bedroom is 613". Delores Fuller, Code Compliance Officer, cited the owner for non-compliance. The applicant is aggrieved and seeks a reversal or modification of the order. Chairman Stuckman explained the Board' s Rules of Procedure, and stated that an affirmation vote of three memebers is necessary to overturn the enforcing officers decision. Chairman Stuckman stated that there are two separate issues. The first concerns the adequacy of height of the ceiling, and the second the adequacy of light, ventilation and egress windows. Mr. Hulce addressed the Board and stated that the apartment is located in the basement. It has four bedrooms, a living room, kitchen, and bathroom. There is one exit from the apartment. The bedroom windows are located 60" above the floor. The dimensions of the windows are as follows: North wall - 32 x 22 East wall - 36 x 20 Living Room - 36 x 20 Mr. Wilcox stated that he feels that the variance should be denied unless the apartment could be brought up to code in reference to light and ventilation and egress from the sleeping room. Mr. Wilcox moved to approve the appeal subject to installation of a bedroom window which complies with the requirements of Section 1204 of the 1991 Edition of the U.B.C. , and installation of window(s) in the bedroom and living room which comply with Section 1205 "Light and Ventilation" of the 1991 Edition of the U.B.C. Motion supported by Mr. Jones. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Jones moved to grant a variance to allow the use of the apartment even though the ceiling height does not comply with Section 1460.02(a)(2) of the Lansing Housing Code. The variance is subject to installation of a hard wired smoke detector in the bedroom and in the high ceiling portion of the kitchen. Motion supported by Mr. Donaldson. Mr. Jones offered an amendment to the motion which would require the entire building to comply with Section 1210 of the 1991 Edition of the U.B.C. The amended motion was supported by Mr. Donaldson. Chairman Stuckman requested a vote on the amendement. Motion carried unanimously. Chairman Stuckman requested a vote on the main motion. Motion carried unanimously. In support of this decision the Board make the following findings of fact: -u U.L«g nuara or A als Minutes October 13, 1992 Page 4 In the Board's opinion, failure to comply with the strict letter of the code, in this case, could adversely effect the safety of the occupants of the apartment. It is imperative that the bedroom and living room comply with light and ventilation requirements of the Building Code. The bedroom must comply with minimum egress requirements and a smoke detection system must be installed in the entire building in accordance with the requirements of the 1991 U.B.C. Appeal #92-027 — 400 N. Pennsylvania, State of Michigan An application for appeal was filed by Bill Snow on behalf of the State of Michigan, Secretary of Senate. The appeal application was precipitated by a violation notice issued by the Building Safety Division which cited numerous violations of the Building and Fire Codes. In order to alleviate the situation the State of Michigan retained the firm of Clark, Trombley, and Randers to develop a report which would delineate necessary corrective action. The report is part of the record. The report requires that a portion of the building be sprinkled. The applicant is seeking relief from section 3802 of the Code for the reasons stated in Part II of the appeal application. Chairman Stuckman stated that the firm that he works for, M.B.D.S. , was a consultant to Clark, Trombley and Randers who was employed by the State of Michigan to develop preliminary cost estimates to satisfy Uniform Building Code requirements. Mr. Stuckman stated that his position creates a conflict of interest, consequently, he will not vote on the issue. Chairman Stuckman reviewed the Boards procedures and stated that three members were needed to overturn the decision of the Building Safety Division. Dan Merkle, State Facilities Manager, Ray Brennan, Assistant Secretary of the Senate and Bill Snow, Security of the Senate, were in attendance. Mr. Merkle addressed the Board and stated that the facility constructs furniture for the restoration of the Capitol for the Senate. The north portion of the building is used for a carpentry shop, the south portion of the building for a spray painting operation, and the basement for storage. Mr. Merkle further stated that the buildings are owned by the Lansing School District and leased to the State. The State' s lease runs through June 1995. A current development study of the area indicates that the buildings may be raized in 1995 to accommodate a planned unit development. The State of Michigan is reluctant to expend the monies necessary for a fire suppression system if the lease will not be renewed because of proposed development. Mr. Merkle stated that all other aspects of the study would be implemented with the exception of the sprinkler system. A fire alarm system coupled with smoke detection would be installed in lieu of the sprinkler system; except that rooms 127 and 128 would be sprinkled. Mr. Ballard asked if the lease was renewed and the development did not reach furition if the State would then sprinkle the entire building? Building Board of teals Minutes October 13, 1992 Page 5 Mr. Merkle stated that if the facility was permanent then a sprinkler system would be installed. Mr. Jones moved that the appeal be granted with the condition that all other provisions contained in the Clark, Trombley, and Randers study be implemented. Motion supported by Mr. Wilcox. Mr. Donaldson moved to amend the original motion to require the addition of a sunset clause which requires the Board to revisit the case prior to lease expiration. The purpose and intent of the amendment is to allow further review if the building was used permanently for the carpentry shop function. Motion supported by Mr. Jones. Motion carried. Voting on the main motion, motion carried. Appeal #92-028 — 523 Tidale, Joe & Linda Robiadek The applicant requested that this appeal be tabled until the November meeting in order to supply the required documentation for ceiling height. A motion by Mr. Jones, supported by Mr. Wilcox, to approve the request to Postpone the matter. Motion carried. Appeal #92-029 — 540 Woodrow, Walter Ha kiewicz An application for appeal was filed by Mr. Walter Hapkiewicz. The application seeks a reversal or modification of the enforcing officer' s decision to prohibit the use of a bedroom located on the second floor of an apartment due to inadequate ceiling height. The applicant has represented that the bedroom takes up the entire second floor. The room has two windows, one located on the north side and the other on the south side of the room. Technical Information Ceiling Height: 616" Room Dimension: 28' 9" x ll ' 6" = 330 sq. ft. Window Area: North 31 x 24 = 744 = 5.2. sq. ft. Openable Area: 144 South 43 x 29 = 1,247 = 8.66 sq. ft. 144 Mr. Hapkiewicz state that he has installed a hard wired smoke detector and a bedroom window which meets egress requirements of the Uniform Building Code. Mr. Jones moved to grant the appeal; motion supported by Mr. Donaldson. Motion . carried. building Board of eals Minutes October 13, 1992 Page 6 °j2-030 — 414 Paulson, Laura Lopez The applicant requested that her appeal be tabled until the November meeting to offord her more "mP do anther informntion roApf;d�nR OP 1. hs lipi:4lip., Mr. Donaldson made a motion to approve the request, supported by Mr. Wilcox. Motion carried. Being no further business before the Board it was moved by Mr. Wilcox, supported by Mr. Donaldson, to adjourn the meeting at 4:10 p.m. Respectfully su mitted, Jrrtary is n S Minutes Approved On: ' OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS of the BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS September 8, 1992 The meeting was called to order at 2:00 p.m. by Vice—Chairperson Richard Jones. The roll call showed the following members present: MEMBERS PRESENT Richard Jones, Vice—Chairperson Joe Wilcox Randall Kamm Roger Donaldson MEMBERS ABSENT Richard Stuckman, Chairman STAFF PRESENT Jack Nelson, Secretary Jim Ballard, Fire Marshal Mr. Donaldson moved to approve the minutes of August 11, 1992, with the following changes: 1. Correct the spelling of "Board" on page 2, second to the last line. 2. Change the Board policy criteria from "85V to 82.4% on Page 3, Item #3 under "findings of fact." Motion supported by Mr. Wilcox. Motion approved unanimously. OLD BUSINESS: �1 l p�9al #92-015 — Petroff Realty, Hollister Building c� �A �Le.quest for a rehearing has been filed by George Petroff, Petroff Realty, 2751 Still Valley, East Lansing, Michigan. The applicant seeks relief from Section 2003(b) of the Uniform Building Code, 1988 Edition as amended. The appeal, if granted, would authorize the replacement of all existing windows on the north and east sides of the Hollister Building which is located at 106 W. Allegan Street. ` Th-}S case was originally addressed on June 9, 1992. The case was postponed in order to afford the applicant an opportunity to draft a proposal to the Board for review. The Building Safety Division was provided with a proposal from the applicant on August 31, 1992, and is submitting it to the Board for review and action. Building Board of ! als Meeting September 8, 1992 Page 2 According to the proposal Petroff Realty proposes to sprinkle an entire floor of the Hollister Building when windows are installed on that floor. After review of the proposal by the Board Members, Mr. Kamm moved to authorize the installation of non-fire rated windows on the north and east building face of the Hollister Building. The approval is subject to the installation of a fire suppression system on the entire floor when windows are installed on the subject floor. The fire suppression system shall comply with applicable N.F.P.A. requirements which may require a fire pump and an emergency generator. The motion was supported by Mr. Wilcox. Motion carried unanimously. Appeal #91-022 - Connie Jo Sich, 4615 S. Pennsylvania An application for appeal was filed by Mrs. Connie Jo Sich, 2292 S. Washington Rd. , Lansing, Michigan. The applicant seeks relief from Section 1460.20(a)(2) of the Lansing Housing Code. The appeal application was precipitated by a violation notice which was issued by Randall Eberbach, Code Compliance Officer. The violation notice cited the owner for inadequate ceiling height in the second story bedroom. The applicant is aggrieved and seeks a reversal or modification of the enforcing officers decision to disallow the use of the second floor bedroom. Chairperson Jones introduced the Board Members and informed the applicant of the rules of procedure. Mrs. Sich addressed the Board stating that the bedroom has an adequate window which can be used for egress purposes, and a smoke detector is located in the bedroom. Mr. Donaldson stated that the net clear window opening does not comply with Building Code requirements. The net clear opening is 4.0 sq. ft. ; 5.7 sq. ft. is required by code. Mr. Jones stated that the Board had previously approved requests which have achieved 82.4% of the required ceiling height as established by the Uniform Building Code. This case is at that minimum level. However, ceiling configuration has a bearing on each case. Mr. Nelson submitted the following information concerning the case: Technical Information Total Ceiling Height: 610" Ceiling Height at 316" Width: 610" Knee Wall Height: 481, Window Size: 2' x 4' - 8 sq. ft. Total Floor Area: 205.62 sq. ft. Natural Light Required at 8% of Floor Area: 16.45 sq. ft. required (16.0 sq. feet of area existing) Natural Ventilation required: 10.25 sq. ft. required (16.0 sq. feet existing) Building Board of A� _ als Meeting September 8, 1992 Page 3 Mr. Kamm moved that the appeal be granted. The motion was supported by Mr. Wilcox. Clarification was requested as to whether a complying egress window would be required. Mr. Kamm stated that the existing window is adequate for the intended purpose. Motion carried unanimously. In support of this decision the Board makes the following findings of fact: 1. The ceiling configeration coupled with the ceiling height provides sufficient volume to collect smoke. 2. The proposal is within the criteria which has been established by the Board for the issuance of ceiling height variances. 3. Three hardwired smoke detectors which are wired in series currently exist in the tenant space. The smoke detectors will provide an early warning system. Appeal {f92-023 — Donald A Gayon, 312 W. Maple An application for appeal has been filed by Donald Gayon, 1868 Melrose Ct. , East Lansing, Michigan. The applicant seeks a modification or reversal of the enforcing officers decision to disapprove the use of a second story bedroom which does not comply with the minimum ceiling height requirements of the Lansing Housing Code. Technical Information Total Ceiling Height: 78 3/4" Ceiling Height at 316" Width: 69" Knee Wall Height: 51 1/2" Window Size: 28." x 45" — 1260 sq. in. (1260 divided by 144 = 8.75 sq. ft. ) Total Floor Area: 96.75 sq. ft. Natural Light required at 8% of Floor Area: 7.74 Natural Ventilation Required: 4.8 sq. ft. of openable area Chairperson Jones introduced the Board Members and explained the rules of procedure. Mr. Gayon addressed the Board stating that the building would not be economically feasible if the bedroom on the second floor were not allowed to be used. Mr. Gayon also stated that he proposed to install a window in the bedroom which complies with egress requirements. Mr. Wilcox moved to approve the case subject to the installation of a complying egress window and the installation of two hard wired smoke detectors; one at the top of the stairway and the other in the bedroom. Motion supported by Mr. Kamm. Motion carried unanimously. Building Board of eals Meeting September 8, 1992 Page 4 In support of this decision the Board makes the following findings of fact: 1. The ceiling configeration coupled with the ceiling height is adequate to collect smoke. 2. The proposal is within the minimum criteria established by the Board for the issuance of ceiling height variances. 3. The installation of an egress window coupled with smoke detection will afford safe egress from the tenant space. Appeal #92-024 — City Wide Properties, 501 S. Clemens The applicant requested that this case be postponed until the October meeting. It was moved by Mr. Kamm, supported by Mr. Donaldson, to postpone Appeal #92-024 until the October 13, 1992 meeting. Motion carried unanimously. Being no further business before the Board it was moved by Mr. Kamm, supported by Mr. Wilcox, to adjourn the meeting at 3:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, a V !Ne screta JAN/mmr Minutes approved on: OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS of the BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS September 8, 1992 The meeting was called to order at 2:00 p.m. by Vice—Chairperson Richard Jones. The roll call showed the following members present: MEMBERS PRESENT Richard Jones, Vice—Chairperson Joe Wilcox Randall Kamm Roger Donaldson { MEMBERS ABSENT Richard Stuckman, Chairman STAFF PRESENT TV ' Jack Nelson, Secretary rj 1 Jim Ballard, Fire Marshal Mr. Donaldson moved to approve the minutes of August 11, 1992, with the following changes: 1. Correct the spelling of "Board" on page 2, second to the last line. 2. Change the Board policy criteria from 1185%" to 82.4% on Page 3, Item #3 under "findings of fact." Motion supported by Mr. Wilcox. Motion approved unanimously. OLD BUSINESS: Appeal #92-015 — Petroff Realty, Hollister Building A request for a rehearing has been filed by George Petroff, Petroff Realty, 2751 Still Valley, East Lansing, Michigan. The applicant seeks relief from Section 2003(b) of the Uniform Building Code, 1988 Edition as amended. The appeal, if granted, would authorize the replacement of all existing windows on the north and east sides of the Hollister Building which is located at 106 W. Allegan Street. This case was originally addressed on June 9, 1992. The case was postponed in order to afford the applicant an opportunity to draft a proposal to the Board for review. The Building Safety Division was provided with a proposal from the applicant on August 31, 1992, and is submitting it to the Board for review and action. Building Board of L !als Meeting September 8, 1992 Page 2 According to the proposal Petroff Realty proposes to sprinkle an entire floor of the Hollister Building when windows are installed on that floor. After review of the proposal by the Board Members, Mr. Kamm moved to authorize the installation of non-fire rated windows on the north and east building face of the Hollister Building. The approval is subject to the installation of a fire suppression system on the entire floor when windows are installed on the subject floor. The fire suppression system shall comply with applicable N.F.P.A. requirements which may require a fire pump and an emergency generator. The motion was supported by Mr. Wilcox. Motion carried unanimously. Appeal #91-022 - Connie Jo Sich, 4615 S. Pennsylvania An application for appeal was filed by Mrs. Connie Jo Sich, 2292 S. Washington Rd. , Lansing, Michigan. The applicant seeks relief from Section 1460.20(a)(2) of the Lansing Housing Code. The appeal application was precipitated by a violation notice which was issued by Randall Eberbach, Code Compliance Officer. The violation notice cited the owner for inadequate ceiling height in the second story bedroom. The applicant is aggrieved and seeks a reversal or modification of the enforcing officers decision to disallow the use of the second floor bedroom. Chairperson Jones introduced the Board Members and informed the applicant of the rules of procedure. Mrs. Sich addressed the Board stating that the bedroom has an adequate window which can be used for egress purposes, and a smoke detector is located in the bedroom. Mr. Donaldson stated that the net clear window opening does not comply with Building Code requirements. The net clear opening is 4.0 sq. ft. ; 5.7 sq. ft. is required by code. Mr. Jones stated that the Board had previously approved requests which have achieved 82.4% of the required ceiling height as established by the Uniform Building Code. This case is at that minimum level. However, ceiling configuration has a bearing on each case. Mr. Nelson submitted the following information concerning the case: Technical Information Total Ceiling Height: 610" Ceiling Height at 316" Width: 610" Knee Wall Height: * 4811 Window Size: 2' x 4' - 8 sq. ft. Total Floor Area: 205.62 sq. ft. Natural Light Required at 8% of Floor Area: 16.45 sq. ft. required (16.0 sq. feet of area existing) Natural Ventilation required: 10.25 sq. ft. required (16.0 sq. feet existing) Building Board of Al ,als Meeting September 8, 1992 Page 3 Mr. Kamm moved that the appeal be granted. The motion was supported by Mr. Wilcox. Clarification was requested as to whether a complying egress window would be required. Mr. Kamm stated that the existing window is adequate for the intended purpose. Motion carried unanimously. In support of this decision the Board makes the following findings of fact: 1. The ceiling configeration coupled with the ceiling height provides sufficient volume to collect smoke. 2. The proposal is within the criteria which has been established by the Board for the issuance of ceiling height variances. 3. Three hardwired smoke detectors which are wired in series currently exist in the tenant space. The smoke detectors will provide an early warning system. Appeal #92-023 — Donald A. Gayon, 312 W. Maple An application for appeal has been filed by Donald Gayon, 1868 Melrose Ct. , East Lansing, Michigan. The applicant seeks a modification or reversal of the enforcing officers decision to disapprove the use of a second story bedroom which does not comply with the minimum ceiling height requirements of the Lansing Housing Code. Technical Information Total Ceiling Height: 78 3/4" Ceiling Height at 316" Width: 69" Knee Wall Height: 51 1/2" Window Size: 28" x 45" — 1260 sq. in. (1260 divided by 144 = 8.75 sq. ft. ) Total Floor Area: 96.75 sq. ft. Natural Light required at 8% of Floor Area: 7.74 Natural Ventilation Required: 4.8 sq. ft. of openable ar.ea Chairperson Jones introduced the Board Members and explained the rules of procedure. Mr. Gayon addressed the Board stating that the building would not be economically feasible if the bedroom on the second floor were not allowed to be used. Mr. Gayon also stated that he proposed to install a window in the bedroom which complies with egress requirements. Mr. Wilcox moved to approve the case subject to the installation of a complying egress window and the installation of two hard wired smoke detectors; one at the top of the stairway and the other in the bedroom. Motion supported by Mr. Kamm. Motion carried unanimously. Building Board of E. !als Meeting September 8, 1992 Page 4 In support of this decision the Board makes the following findings of fact: 1. The ceiling configeration coupled with the ceiling height is adequate to collect smoke. 2. The proposal is within the minimum criteria established by the Board for the issuance of ceiling height variances. 3. The installation of an egress window coupled with smoke detection will afford safe egress from the tenant space. Appeal #92-024 — City Wide Properties, 501 S. Clemens The applicant requested that this case be postponed until the October meeting. It was moved by Mr. Kamm, supported by Mr. Donaldson, to postpone Appeal #92-024 until the October 13, 1992 meeting. Motion carried unanimously. Being no further business before the Board it was moved by Mr. Kamm, supported by Mr. Wilcox, to adjourn the meeting at 3:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, a W !Ne skt creta JAN/mmr Minutes approved on: OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS of the BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS July 14, 1992 The meeting was called to order by Chairman Stuckman at 2:10 p.m. with a roll call showing the following members present: tr� MEMBERS PRESENT: C Richard Stuckman, Chairman _ Richard Jones, Vice Chairman °— Joe Wilcox, Member Roger Donaldson, Member Randall Kamm, Member r c7 Mr. Jones moved for approval of the June 9, 1992, minutes with the 014wing amendments: Change the word "faces" to "face" on Page 3, second paragraph, second line. Change the period to a comma on Page 4, first paragraph, first -line. Correct the spelling of the word "provided" on Page 4, third paragraph. Motion supported by Mr.. Wilcox. Motion carried unanimously. Appeal #92-019 — 9092 N. Sycamore An application for appeal was filed by Mr. Gary Moyer, 837 Garfield St. , Lansing Michigan. The applicant is the owner of a rental dwelling located at 9092 N. Sycamore. Delores Fuller, Code Compliance Officer, inspected the unit and found that the ceiling height in one of the bedrooms on the second floor did not comply with minimum code requirements. The Building Safety Division has adopted a policy pertaining to ceiling height violations. The following is a synopsis of the policy. Technical Data Room Dimenion: 11 x 12 — 132 sq. ft. Ceiling Height: 618" to Ceiling Ceiling Height: 613" to 316" Level Window Dimension: 222 x 24 The Lansing Uniform Building Code requires a minimum ceiling height in habitable rooms of 716". The Lansing Housing Code sets a minimum height of 7'4" in existing buildings. Bedrooms in existing buildings must have operable rescue egress windows with a net clear opening of five square feet, a minimum net clear opening height of 22 inches, and 'a maximum sill height of 48 inches. Building Board of Appeals Minutes July 14, 1992 Page 2 There are numerous dwellings throughout the City with rooms as well as entire floors being used as habitable space which do not comply with the minimum Code requirements. These dwelling units face the prospect of being vacated since correction of the violation(s) is often not possible nor financially feasible. It is not the Codes intent, however, to deny affordable housing to people, nor to deny revenue potential to landlords. At the same time, this Division has the responsibility of ensuring that safe housing is being provided to residents of the City. Consequently, the Department has adopted an Administrative Policy which, if complied with, would authorize the occupancy of these units. However, these appeals do not comply with the following Policy. 1. Minimum ceiling height shall be 618" and the ceiling must be at least 316" in width at that height across the length of the room. 2. Bedrooms must have at least one window which has a minimum five square feet of rough opening and provides a minimum clear opening not less than 24 inches high and 20 inches in width. 3. Smoke detectors shall be installed in each bedroom where either of the two .previous minimum conditions exist. Such detectors shall receive their power from the building wiring (110 volts) and shall be equipped with a battery back—up. The Department requests that if relief is granted for occupancy of the units, the minimum requirements indicated in the Policy be part of your conditional approval. Mr. Stuckman introduced the Board Members and staff, and stated the rules for procedure. Mr. Moyer addressed the Board and explained his case stating that there were two bedrooms located on the second floor, of which one had inadequate ceiling height. Mr. Stuckman questioned whether the room complied with the second paragraph of Section 1207(a) of the Uniform Building Code? The Code section states, in part, that "when a room has a sloping ceiling, the prescribed ceiling height for the room is required in only one—half of the area (one—half of the required area of 70 sq. ft. ) no portion of the room measuring less than 5' from the finished floor to finished ceiling shall be included in any computation of the minimum area." After discussion it was concluded that the applicant complied with this criteria. Mr. Wilcox moved that the appeal be approved subject to the installation of an egress window and a complying hard—wired smoke detector. The motion was supported by Mr. Jones. Motion carried unanimously. In support of this decision the Board makes the following findings of fact: 1. The volume of the room is sufficient size to collect products of combustion for a period of time which will afford safe egress. Building Board of Appeals Minutes July 14, 1992 Page 3 2. The installation of an egress window and a hard—wired smoke detector coupled with the area of the room will equate to compliance with the code. Being no further business to be brought before the Board, Mr. Kamm moved that the meeting be adjourned, supported by Mr. Jones. Motion carried unanimously. Respectfully submitted, JRec Nelson ding Secretary JN/mmr Minutes Approved On: OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS of the BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS SPECIAL MEETING April 28, 1992 The meeting was called to order by Vice—Chairman Jones at 2: 15 p.m. with a roll call showing the following members present. MEMBERS PRESENT: Richard Jones, Vice Chairman Joe Wilcox, Member Roger Donaldson, Member ti MEMBERS ABSENT: Richard Stuckman, Chairman Randall Kamm, Member STAFF PRESENT: - J Jack Nelson, Secretary C__ James Kzeski, Director, Building Safety k GJ I OTHERS PRESENT: Ralph Griese, P.E. Brad Schafer, Attorney William Ensley, Owner Mike Hodge, Attorney David Zavadil Mr. Jones introduced the Members and stated that a quorum of the Board consists of three Members, and the affirmative vote of three Members of the Building Board of Appeals is required on all matters to come before the Board. Appeal #92-002 — 2525 N. Logan Street, William Ensley An application for appeal was filed by Mr. William Ensley, 15677 Grove Rd. , Lansing, Michigan. The appeal requests the Board to issue a building permit for construction on the property identified as 2525 N. Logan St. , Lansing, Michigan. The application cited the following arguments in support of the appeal. "I was told by various members of the Building and Planning Departments that my plans and application documents were all in order and that there were no particular objections to them. I was then told that I needed to first obtain a "show" license pursuant to No. 860.01 of the Lansing City ordinances, even though: (1) The anticipated entertainment at the location does not require such a license, and, (2) There is no statutory or ordinance requirement of obtaining a "show" license prior to granting a building permit. Even though I later indicated that I would obtain a Building Board of eals Minutes April 28, 1992 Page 2 "show" license, I was told that my building permit would not be approved, although the City Planner I was dealing with, Mr. Ruff, refused to tell me why my building permit would not be approved. As both I and my engineer, Ralph Griese, have resolved all known issues with the .City regarding my plans and application, I see no reason why my requested building permit should not be issued." Vice—Chairman Jones requested Mr. Nelson to give a synopsis of the case. Mr. Nelson stated: The appeal concerns the efforts of Mr. Ensley to obtain a building permit for property located on N. Logan Street. In his application Mr. Ensley seeks building permit issuance as it relates to the operation of a bookstore, show bar and viewing booths at 2525 N. Logan. In June of 1991, Mr. Ensley applied for a building permit to alter the building to accommodate the above referenced activities. On July 22, 1992, the site plan was submitted to the Site Plan Review Committee for comment. On September 18, 1991 , a revised site plan which reflected changes requested by the Site Plan Review Committee was submitted by Mr. Ensley. On September 23, 1991, I forwarded a letter to Mr. Ensley's engineer, Ralph Griese, with a copy to Mr. Ensley, to which I attached the Building Divisions ' comments. The letter indicated that upon receipt of a letter or revised construction documents addressing each review item, a permit would be released subject to approval from the other city agencies involved. In the days following my letter, I separately spoke with Mr. Griese and Mr. Ensley and informed them that the primary areas of non—compliance included the need for electrical load calculations, and issues relating to the width of the handicapper ramp, and the structural integrity of the drywall ceiling. I also stated that I would be satisfied when the electrical load calculations were provided, and I would condition the permit upon compliance with barrier free design requirements . Mr. Griese has not submitted the electrical load calculations as requested. In regard to actions by the Board of Appeals we recommend that the appeal be denied based upon the following findings : 1. Information was not submitted as requested in the September 23, 1991, letters . 2. The issue raised pertaining to the show license is outside the purview of the Building Board of Appeals and may be more appropriately addressed by the Board of Zoning Appeals. Vice—Chairman Jones requested Mr. Brad Schafer to present his case. Mr. Schafer stated that he is representing Mr. Ensley. Mr. Schafer also stated that Mr. Ralph Griese, Engineer, who was responsible for the construction documents was present to answer any questions. Also present was Mr. Ensley and Dan Zavadil, Attorney. Mr. Schafer stated that on October 30, 1991 , Mr. Ensley filed a lawsuit against the City of Lansing seeking a building permit. After a court hearing the judge Building Board of eals Minutes April 28, 1992 Page 3 held that Mr. Ensley must first exhaust his administrative remedies by filing appeals with this Board and the Board of Zoning Appeals. Mr. .Schafer also stated that he did not agree with Mr. Nelson's statement that a denial of the appeal would preclude the right to have a show bar (topless dancing) at the facility. He claimed that, Judge Glazer' s order stated that all rights under the old ordinance were preserved. Mr. Schafer submitted a copy of the Judges order for the record. In like manner, Mr. Schaffer submitted a copy of Mr. Nelson' s September 23, 1991, Plan Review letter, a copy of the September 29, 1991, memo from James Ruff to Mr. Nelson, and a copy of the December 6, 1991, letter from Mr. Nelson to Mr. Ensley. All the documents were made part of the record. Mr. Schafer cited Section 204 of the 1988 edition of the Uniform Building Code, as amended, as a basis for the Building Board of Appeals to address the issue regarding a requirement imposed by the Planning Division that he obtain a show license. Section 204 states : ". . . . the Board shall also hear all appeals from decision, rules, regulations, or interpretations from any official or employee of the Building Safety Division." Mr. Schafer stated that there is no language in the Building Code or the Zoning Ordinance which makes the issuance of show license a prerequisite for the issuance of a building permit. Mr. Schafer also stated that the Board of Appeals should find that Mr. Ensley does not have to acquire the show license prior to building permit issuance. If the Board concludes that the issue is beyond the realm of the Boards expertise, the Board should state its finding in the record to assure that Judge Glazer is aware of the Boards ruling. Mike Hodge, Attorney, Miller, Canfield, Paddock and Stone, stated that the Building Board of Appeals is not the proper arena to address the show license issue. Vice—Chairman Jones state that it appeared that the appeal has two issues. First, concerning the sequence of permit issuance. What comes first the show license or the building permit? Second, whether the Board should require the issuance of the building permit. Mr. Schafer stated that Mr. Ensley complied with all building code requirements and the Board should require issuance of the building permit. Mr. Schafer further stated that he hired Mr. Zavidal, a Cooley Law student, to accompany Mr. Ensley to all meetings with Mr. Ruff and Mr. Nelson. Mr. Zavidal stated that Mr. Nelson stated that all issues were resolved. Mr. Griese stated that he talked to Mr. Nelson, and Mr. Nelson stated that there were no further building 'issues to be resolved. Mr. Ensley stated that Mr. Nelson referred him to Mr. Ruff, and Mr. Ruff said he would not sign the permit and would not give a reason for not approving it. Mr. Ensley further indicated that he was referred back and forth between Mr. Ruff and Building Board of eals Minutes " April 28, 1992 Page 4 Mr. Nelson. Mr. Hodge stated that the appeal should be denied and Mr. Ensley should be �•_ required to start the building permit process over again if he still wants a permit. The Board should not now give Mr. Ensley a permit even if he now submits electrical load calculations because Mr. Ensley had abandoned the process by filing the suite against the City. Mr. Schafer stated that they were not abandoning the process. "We went to court because the city was trying to adopt a new ordinance and the City was deliberately stalling the processing of Mr. Ensley's building permit." Roger Donaldson moved that the City of Lansing, Building Board of Appeals, does not have jurisdiction pertaining to the issuance of the show license as to the procedure as it relates to building permit issuance; motion supported by Mr. Wilcox. Motion carried — 3 —" Aye' s; 0 — Nay's Mr. Wilcox moved that the request for appeal be denied because the electrical load calculations were not submitted as requested, and since the suit was filed against the City the permit should be denied and a new application be required, motion supported by Mr. Donaldson. Motion carried — 3 Aye's; 0 — Nay' s OTHER BUSINESS Roger Donaldson submitted criteria to be utilized by the Board in addressing ceiling height variance requests. The Board will discuss the proposal at the May 12, 1992, meeting. Mr. Kzeski asked that the Board grant authority to the Chairman or Vice—Chairman to submit a letter to the City Attorney requesting expeditious review of the 1991 Building Code amendments. Respectfully submitted, rretary elso ,TAN/mmr Minutes Approved On: OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS of the BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS SPECIAL MEETING April 28, 1992 The meeting was called to order by Vice-Chairman Jones at 2:15 p.m. with a roll call showing the following members present. MEMBERS PRESENT: Richard Jones, Vice Chairman Joe Wilcox, Member Roger Donaldson, Member cn N " MEMBERS ABSENT: =P a Richard Stuckman, Chairmanzi f-! Randall Kamm, Member C^ STAFF PRESENT: " CD f Jack Nelson, Secretary James Kzeski, Director, Building Safety ' ^ OTHERS PRESENT: Ralph Griese, P.E. Brad Schafer, Attorney William Ensley, Owner Mike Hodge, Attorney David Zavadil Mr. Jones introduced the Members and stated that a quorum of the Board consists of three Members, and the affirmative vote of three Members of the Building Board of Appeals is required on all matters to come before the Board. Appeal #92-002 - 2525 N. Logan Street, William Ensley An application for appeal was filed by Mr. William Ensley, 15677 Grove Rd. , Lansing, Michigan. The appeal requests the Board to issue a building permit for construction on the property identified as 2525 N. Logan St. , Lansing, Michigan. The application cited the following arguments in support of the appeal. "I was told by various members of the Building and Planning Departments that my plans and application documents were all in order and that there were no particular objections to them. I was then told that I needed to first obtain a "show" license pursuant to No. 860.01 of the Lansing City ordinances, even though: (1) The anticipated entertainment at the location does not require such a license, and, (2) There is no statutory or ordinance requirement of obtaining a "show" license prior to granting a building permit. Even though I later indicated that I would obtain a Building Board of eals Minutes April 28, 1992 Page 2 "show" license, I was told that my building permit would not be approved, although the City Planner I was dealing with, Mr. Ruff, refused to tell me why my building permit would not be approved. As both I and my engineer, �. Ralph Griese, have resolved all known issues with the City regarding my plans and application, I see no reason why my requested building permit should not be issued." Vice—Chairman Jones requested Mr. Nelson to give a synopsis of the case. Mr. .Nelson stated: The appeal concerns the efforts of Mr. Ensley to obtain a. building permit for property located on N. Logan Street. In his application Mr. Ensley seeks building permit issuance as it relates to the operation of a bookstore, show bar and viewing booths at 2525 N. Logan. In June of 1991, Mr. Ensley applied for a building permit to alter the building to accommodate the above referenced activities . On July 22, 1992, the site plan was submitted to the Site Plan Review Committee for comment. On September 18, 1991 , a revised site plan which reflected changes requested by the Site Plan Review Committee was submitted by Mr. Ensley. On September 23, 1991, I forwarded a letter to Mr. Ensley' s engineer, Ralph Griese,. with a copy to Mr. Ensley, to which I attached the Building Divisions ' comments. The letter indicated that upon receipt of a letter or revised construction documents addressing each review item, a permit would be released subject to approval from the other city agencies involved. In the days following my letter, I separately spoke with Mr. Griese and Mr. Ensley and informed them that the primary areas of non—compliance included the need for electrical load calculations, and issues relating to the width of the handicapper ramp, and the structural integrity of the drywall ceiling. I also stated that I would be satisfied when the electrical load calculations were provided, and I would condition the permit upon compliance with barrier free design requirements. Mr. Griese has not submitted the electrical load calculations as requested. In regard to actions by the Board of Appeals we recommend that the appeal be . denied based upon the following findings: 1. Information was not submitted as requested in the September 23, 1991, letters. 2. The issue raised pertaining to the show license is outside the purview of the Building Board of Appeals and may be more appropriately addressed by the Board of Zoning Appeals. Vice—Chairman Jones requested Mr. Brad Schafer to present his case. Mr. Schafer stated that he is representing Mr. Ensley. Mr. Schafer also stated that Mr. Ralph Griese, Engineer, who was responsible for the construction documents was present to answer any questions. Also present was Mr. Ensley and Dan Zavadil, Attorney. Mr. Schafer stated that on October 30, 1991, Mr. Ensley filed a lawsuit against the City of Lansing seeking a building permit. After a court hearing the judge Building Board of eals Minutes April 28, 1992 Page 3 held that Mr. Ensley must first exhaust his administrative remedies by filing appeals with this Board and the Board of Zoning Appeals. Mr. Schafer also stated that he did not agree with Mr. Nelson' s statement that a denial of the appeal would preclude the right to have a show bar (topless dancing) at the facility. . He claimed that, Judge Glazer' s order stated that all rights under the old ordinance were preserved. Mr. Schafer submitted a copy of the Judges order for the record. In like manner, Mr. Schaffer submitted a copy of Mr. Nelson's September 23, 1991, Plan Review letter, a copy of the September 29, 1991, memo from James Ruff to Mr. Nelson, and a copy of the December 6, 1991, letter from Mr. Nelson to Mr. Ensley. All the documents were made part of the record. Mr. Schafer cited Section 204 of the 1988 edition of the Uniform Building Code, as amended, as a basis for the Building Board of Appeals to address the issue regarding a requirement imposed by the Planning Division that he obtain a show license. Section 204 states: . . . . the Board shall also hear all appeals from decision, rules, regulations, or interpretations from any official or employee of the Building Safety Division." Mr. Schafer stated that there is no language in the Building Code or the Zoning Ordinance which makes the issuance of show license a prerequisite for the issuance of a building permit. Mr. Schafer also stated that the Board of Appeals should find that Mr. Ensley does not have to acquire the show license prior to building permit issuance. If the Board concludes that the issue is beyond the realm of the Boards expertise, the Board should state its finding in the record to assure that Judge Glazer is aware of the Boards ruling: Mike Hodge, Attorney, Miller, Canfield, Paddock and Stone, stated that the Building Board of Appeals is not the proper arena to address the show license issue. Vice—Chairman Jones state that it appeared that the appeal has two issues. First, concerning the sequence of permit issuance. What comes first the show license or the building permit? Second, whether the Board should require the issuance of the building permit. Mr. Schafer stated that Mr. Ensley complied with all building code requirements and the Board should require issuance of the building permit. Mr. Schafer further stated that he hired Mr. Zavidal, a Cooley Law student, to accompany Mr. Ensley to all meetings with Mr. Ruff and Mr. Nelson. Mr. Zavidal stated that Mr. Nelson stated that all issues were resolved. Mr. Griese stated that he talked to Mr. Nelson, and Mr. Nelson stated that there were no further building issues to be resolved. Mr. Ensley stated that Mr. Nelson referred him to Mr. Ruff, and Mr. Ruff said he would not sign the permit and would not give a reason for not approving it. Mr. Ensley further indicated that he was referred back and forth between Mr. Ruff and Building Board of eals Minutes April 28, 1992 Page 4 Mr. Nelson. Mr. -Hodge stated that 'the appeal should be denied and Mr. Ensley should be required to start the building permit process over again if he still wants a permit. The Board should not now give Mr. Ensley a permit even if he now submits electrical load calculations because Mr. Ensley had abandoned the process by filing the suite against the City. Mr. Schafer stated that they were not abandoning the process. "We went to court because the city was trying to adopt a new ordinance and the City was deliberately stalling the processing of Mr. Ensley' s building permit." Roger Donaldson moved that the City of Lansing, Building Board of Appeals, does not have jurisdiction pertaining to the issuance of the show license as to the procedure as it relates to building permit issuance; motion supported by Mr. Wilcox. Motion carried — 3 — Aye's; 0 — Nay' s Mr. Wilcox moved that the request for appeal be denied because the electrical load calculations were not submitted as requested, and since the suit was filed against the City the permit should be denied and a new application be required; motion supported by Mr. Donaldson. Motion carried — 3 Aye' s; 0 — Nay's OTHER BUSINESS Roger Donaldson submitted criteria to be utilized by the Board in addressing ceiling height variance requests. The Board will discuss the proposal at the May 12, 1992, meeting. Mr. Kzeski asked that the Board grant authority to the Chairman or Vice—Chairman to submit a letter to the City Attorney requesting expeditious review of the 1991 Building Code amendments. Respectfully submitted, rak' A. i elso y JAN/mmr Minutes Approved On: OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS of the BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS April 14, 1992 The meeting was called to order by Vice-Chairman Jones at 2:05 p.m. with a roll call showing the following members present: MEMBERS PRESENT Richard Jones, Vice Chairman Joe Wilcox, Member Randall Kamm, Member Roger 'Donaldson, Member MEMBERS ABSENT `` �r" 04i � 16 S i992 Richard Stuckman, Chairman ��t�P� n �l I .E MAYOR'S QFFICE STAFF PRESENT CITY OF LANSING J Jack Nelson, Recording Secretary CD James McCue, Code Compliance Officer ©Chuck Willis, Fire Inspector It was moved by Mr. Kamm, supported by Mr. Wilcox, to approve the minutes from t MarctlO, 1992, providing the correction of the word "children" on page 4, second paragraph. Table Cases Appe%i ##92-005 - 2313 Rundle his% case was tabled at the March 10, 1992, meeting in order to afford the applicant sufficient time to determine costs on numerous options. This appeal was filed by Cathy Stull and David Anderson on behalf of Dale Farhat, owner. Those in attendance were Dale Farhat, owner and Cathy Stull, Attorney. The applicant seeks relief from Section 1460.20(a)(13) of the Lansing Housing Code. The variance, if granted, would permit continued occupancy of the second floor living space which lacks headroom as habitable space. Ms. Stull submitted a proposal from Telephone Alarm System Company; a copy of the proposal was made part of the hearing record. The proposal included photo- electric smoke detectors with built in horn and 135 degree heat sensor, fire alarm bells, and a 12 volt fire alarm master control with standby battery. Mr. Donaldson asked if the system was monitored. Mr. Farhat stated that it was a monitored system. Mr. McCue stated that the room has a sloped ceiling. The horizontal portion of the ceiling is 16" wide. The ceiling height to this location is 614" in height. Building Board of ApF s Minutes April 14, 1992 Page 2 The ceiling height measured at a point of 36" in width and 5111" in height. The height of the knee walls are 44". Mr. McCue further stated that the room is very confining in his opinion. In like manner, the volume of the space is not large enough to act as a smoke trap, thus creates a hazardous situation. Ms. Stull stated that the room is habitable and has been rented for a long duration of time and no complaints have been received. Furthermore, the concerns which have been raised pertain to fire safety and the proposal addresses those concerns. There was discussion concerning the bedroom window. The size of the existing window is 35" x 35"; 4.72 square feet. The window does not comply with egress requirements of the Building Code. Mr. Farhat stated that he would not object to replacing the window with a complying unit. Mr. Wilcox moved to deny the appeal based upon the following findings of fact: 1. The volume of the room does not afford sufficient area to collect smoke, thus causing unsafe egress. 2. The configuration of the space, 5111" headroom coupled with its narrowness, adversely affects egress. 3. The configeration of the room would make fire fighting difficult. The motion was supported by Mr. Donalds. Motion carried unanimously. New Business Appeal #92-008 - 1801 W. Main, Jonathan Watts Mr. Watts, owner, filed an application for a dimensional variance of Section 3306(c) of the Uniform Building Code. The applicant seeks relief from building code requirements which require that the rise of every step in a stairway be not less than 4 inches or greater than 7 inches, and the run shall be not less than 11 inches. On October 23, 1991, the Building Safety Division issued a building permit for the construction of a (46 x 65) 2,990 square feet addition to an existing building which is located at 1801 W. Main Street. According to the permit application the proposed use of the addition is storage. The stairway design was altered during construction which resulted in a tread width of 9z" and a rise of 811. The Building Inspector has ordered that the stairway be reconstructed in order to comply with building code requirements. The applicant is aggrieved and requests a modification or reversal of the enforcing officers decision. Mr. Watts addressed the Board stating that the stairway serves a second floor storage area. A deviation in the plans was necessary because a bearing wall was found during construction. The wall could not be relocated, consequently the Building Board of App s Minutes April 14, 1992 Page 3 rise and run had to be altered. After discussion Mr. Wilcox moved that the appeal be granted providing that the second floor be limited to storage use only. Mr. Wilcox cited the following finding of fact to support his motion. 1• The rise and run of the stairway had to be altered due to an unforeseen problem found during construction; a bearing wall was found which could not be altered. Its location precluded strict compliance with the code. Motion was supported by Mr. Kamm. Motion carried unanimously. Appeal #92-009 - 1504 Illinois,. Mark Ketchum An application for a dimensional variance from Section 1460.20(a)(13) of the City of Lansing Housing Code has been filed by Mr. Ketchum. The applicant seeks authorization to use the second floor for a bedroom. The application states that the ceiling height in the room is 615". It is also indicated that windows which comply with Section 1204 of the U.B.C. will be installed in the bedroom. Second, a hard-wired smoke detector will be installed. Mr. Ketchum addressed the Board and stated that he would like to continue the use of a second floor bedroom which has a ceiling height of 615". An egress window will be installed which complies with Section 1204 of the Uniform Building Code. In like manner, two hard-wired smoke detectors will be installed in the upper level. Mr. Kamm moved to approve the appeal based upon the following findings of fact: 1. The room is 12 feet wide and approximately 20 feet in length. 2. The ceiling height is 615". The room is of sufficient size to capture smoke and hot gases on the ceiling, thus allowing for egress. 3. The approval is subject to the installation of a hard-wired detection device and a bedroom window which complies with building code requirements for egress. Motion was supported by Mr. Wilcox. Motion carried unanimously. Appeal #92-010 - 620 S. Capitol Ave. , Michigan Manufactures Association This case was postponed at the request of the applicant until May 12, 1992. Mr. Donaldson moved that the case be tabled until May 12, 1992, motion supported by Mr. Kamm. Motion carried unanimously. Appeal #92-011 - 928 N. Cedar St. , William Nakfoor An application for a dimensional variance from Section 1460.20(a)(13) of teh City of Lansing Housing Code was filed by Mr. Nakfoor. The applicant seeks authorization to utilize the second floor for a bedroom. The room lacks 2" from complying with the Departments policy. Building Board of ApI _dls Minutes April 14, 1992 Page 4 Mr. Nakfoor stated that an elderly tenant has lived in the house since June 10, 1984, and the area in question is currently used for storage, however, should occupancy change the second floor may be used for sleeping purposes. Mr. Donaldson moved to deny the appeal since the second floor is not used for a bedroom now and the appeal, if granted, would allow a substandard area to be utilized. The motion died for lack of support. Mr. Donaldson asked Mr. Nakfoor what financial burdens would be a result of a denial of the appeal. Mr. Nakfoor stated that a reduction in rent would be necessary if the appeal was denied. Mr. Wilcox moved to approve the appeal subject to the installation of a hard- wired smoke detector and a bedroom window which complies with egress requirements. The motion was supported by Mr. Kamm. Three affirmative votes are necessary in order to grant an appeal. The vote was: Ayes - 2; Nays 1. The motion was not approved. The appeal was consequently denied. Being no further business before the Board, Mr. Kamm moved, supported by Mr. Wilcox, to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 3:25 p.m. The next meeting will be a "Special" meeting on April 28, 1992, at 2:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, eretary Nelson Minutes Approved On: Listed Burglar Al TA S Alarm Systems Fire Alarm Systems Central Station Of All Types And Local Alarms TELEPHONE ALARM SYSTEMS INC. Commercial-Residential , Closed Circuit TV Photo-Electric,Audio- 310 North Grand Avenue Passive I.R.Systems Lansing, Michigan 48933 Commercial Telephone (517) 482-1441 Installations March 24, 1992 Mr. Dale Farhat 801 W. Geneva Dewitt, Mi. 48820 Dear Mr. Farhat: With reference to the 2 story dwelling located at 2313 Rundle, Lansing, Mi. , please be advised that we propose to install the following fire warning equipment to enable occupancy of the 2nd floor sleeping area: 1 ea. ESL #1501 12 volt fire alarm master control with standby battery 4 ea. ESL #445 CST photoelectric smoke detectors with built-in horn and 135degree heat sensor 2 ea. 8" fire alarm bells Installation of the above equipment would meet and exceed the requirements of NFPA 74, Household Fire Warning Equipment, 1989, and paragraph 7-6.2.9, NFPA 101, Life Safety Code, 1991. Very Tru ours, W.H. Ru ' WHR/j. OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS of the BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS April 14, 1992 The meeting was called to order by Vice—Chairman Jones at 2:05 p.m. with a roll call showing the following members present: MEMBERS PRESENT Richard Jones, Vice Chairman Joe Wilcox, Member 3 Randall Kamm, Member =� Roger 'Donaldson, Member MEMBERS ABSENT Richard Stuckman, Chairman STAFF PRESENT Jack Nelson, Recording Secretary James McCue, Code Compliance Officer Chuck Willis, Fire Inspector It was moved by Mr. Kamm, supported by Mr. Wilcox, to approve the minutes from March 10, 1992, providing the correction of the word "children" on page 4, second paragraph. Tabled Cases Appeal #92-005 — 2313 Rundle This case was tabled at the March 10, 1992, meeting in order to afford the applicant sufficient time to determine costs on numerous options. This appeal was filed by Cathy Stull and David Anderson on behalf of Dale Farhat, owner. Those in attendance were Dale Farhat, owner and Cathy Stull, Attorney. The applicant seeks relief from Section 1460.20(a)(13) of the Lansing Housing Code. The variance, if granted, would permit continued occupancy of the second floor living space which lacks headr-oom as habitable space. . Ms. Stull submitted a proposal from Telephone Alarm System Company; a copy of the proposal was made part of the hearing record. The proposal included photo— electric smoke detectors with built in horn and 135 degree heat sensor, fire alarm bells, and a 12 volt fire alarm master control with standby battery. Mr. Donaldson asked if the system was monitored. Mr. Farhat stated that it was a monitored system. Mr. McCue stated that the room has a sloped ceiling. The horizontal portion of the ceiling is 16" wide. The ceiling height to this location is 614" in .height. Building Board of Appe Minutes April 14, 1992 Page 2 The ceiling height measured at a point of 36" in width and 5111" in height. The height of the knee walls are 44". Mr. McCue further stated that the room is very confining in his opinion. In like manner, the volume of the space is not large enough to act as a smoke trap, thus creates a hazardous situation. Ms. Stull stated that the room is habitable and has been rented for a long duration of time and no complaints have been received. Furthermore, the concerns which have been raised pertain to fire safety and the proposal addresses those concerns. There was discussion concerning the bedroom window. The size of the existing window is 35" x 35"; 4.72 square feet. The window does not comply with egress requirements of the Building Code. Mr. Farhat stated that he would not object to replacing the window with a complying unit. Mr. Wilcox moved to deny the appeal based upon the following findings of fact: 1. The volume of the room does not afford sufficient area to collect smoke, thus causing unsafe egress. 2. The configuration of the space, 5111" headroom coupled with its narrowness, adversely affects egress. 3. The configeration of the room would make fire fighting difficult. The motion was supported by Mr. Donalds. Motion carried unanimously. New Business Appeal #92-008 - 1801 W. Main, Jonathan Watts Mr. Watts, owner, filed an application for a dimensional variance of Section 3306(c) of the Uniform Building Code. The applicant seeks relief from building code requirements which require that the rise of every step in a stairway be not less than 4 inches or greater than 7 inches, and the run shall be not less than 11 inches. On October 23, 1991, the Building Safety Division issued a building permit for the construction of a (46 x 65) .2,990 square feet addition to an existing building which is located at 1801 W. Main Street. According to the permit application the proposed use of the addition is storage. The stairway design was altered during construction which resulted in a tread width of 912" and a rise of 8". The Building Inspector has ordered that the stairway be reconstructed in order to comply with building code requirements. The applicant is aggrieved and requests a modification or reversal of the enforcing officers decision. Mr. Watts addressed the Board stating that the stairway serves a second floor storage area. A deviation in the plans was necessary because a bearing wall was found during construction. The wall could not be relocated, consequently the Building Board of 9ppe Minutes April 14, 1912 Page 3 that the and run had to be altered. be granted Providing f011owing rise a that the appeal Mr, Wilcox cited the moved e use only• discussion Mr. Wilco orag After limited motion• d due to an unforeseen floor be support his found which could second °f fact to altere f inding d run of the stairway ha d to wall a. c with the code• e an uctiOn; strict comp The rise during constr recluded 1. found Its location Pre unanimously• not be altered. Motion carried Kamm• suPP°rted by Mr' Ketchum of the City Motion was Mark 20(a)(13) seeks 1504 Illinois, 1460. licant Appeal #92-009 ce from Section The aPP Cates that 1 variance Ketchum• location s which n for a dimensiona filed by Mr' The aPpd that windows application Code has been a bedroom• Second, An apP Housing floor for also indicat the bedroom• of Lansing to use the second 6� 5�� • It is in the room is C, wiii be installed in author izati°height 4 of the U•B' lied. the use the ceiling will be insta continue with Section 120 like to ess window comply detector would a hard-wired smoke that he height of 6, 511 . An egr Code. Board and stated Building d the a ceiling 1204 °f the Uniform the upper Mr. Ketchum addresbedroom which has Section installed in floor complies with will be of a second which smoke detectors will be installed hard-wired fact% In like manner' upon the following findings of level. the appeal based P length. Mr. Kamm moved to aPPrO and aPPro,imately 20 feet in size cap 12 feet wide sufficient to capture The room is room is °f for egress' 1, is 615" . The thus allowing ceiling height the ceiling, wired detection 2. The gases on °f a hard- uirements smoke and hot g code req the ins With building is subject to complies a roval window which 3 • The PP a bedroom device and unanimously' for egress. Motion carried Wilcox• Association supported by Mr' Manufactures Motion was Ave• , Michi an 12, 1992• itol May eal #92_010 - 620 S' Ca request of the apPlicant until motion supported A supP oned at the 12, 1992, was Poste until May This case be tabled moved that the case Motion carried unanimously' Mr, Donaldson Nakfoor by Mr, Kamm. William of teh City Cedar St• � 20(a)(13) seek 011 - 928 N• Sect 1460. applicant Appeal #92- from Sec The 11 fro onal variance Mr. Nakfoor• The room lacks 2 for a dimensiwas filed by a bedroom' An application Code floor for Housing second of Lansing utilize the Policy, authorization to Departments complying with the Building Board of Appe_._s Minutes April 14, 1992 Page 4 Mr. Nakfoor stated that an elderly tenant has lived in the house since June 10, 1984, and the area in question is currently used for storage, however, should occupancy change the second floor may be used for sleeping purposes, Mr. Donaldson moved to deny the appeal since the second floor is not used for a bedroom now and the appeal, if granted, would allow a substandard area to be utilized. The motion died for lack of support. Mr. Donaldson asked Mr. Nakfoor what financial burdens would be a result of a denial of the appeal. Mr. Nakfoor stated that a reduction in rent would be necessary if the appeal was denied. Mr. Wilcox moved to approve the appeal subject to the installation of a hard— wired smoke detector and a bedroom window which complies with egress requirements. The motion was supported by Mr. Kamm. Three affirmative votes are necessary in order to grant an appeal. The vote was: Ayes — 2; Nays 1. The motion was not approved. The appeal was consequently denied. Being no further business before the Board, Mr. Kamm moved, supported by Mr. Wilcox, to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 3:25 p.m. The next meeting will be a "Special" meeting on April 28, 1992, at 2:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, a k A. Nelson e retary Minutes Approved On: UL Listed Burglar Alarm Systems A S Fire Alarm Systems Of All Types Central Station And Local Alarms TELEPHONE ALARM SYSTEMS, INC. Comm Closed CircutTV Photo-Electric,Audio- 310 North Grand Avenue Commercial Tele Passive I.R.Systems Lansing, Michigan 48933 phone Installations (517) 482-1441 March 24, 1992 Mr. Dale Farhat 801 W. Geneva Dewitt, Mi. 48820 Dear Mr. Farhat: With reference to the 2 story dwelling located at 2313 Rundle, Lansing, Mi. , please be advised that we propose to install the following fire warning equipment to enable occupancy of the 2nd floor sleeping area: 1 ea. ESL #1501 12 volt fire alarm master control with standby battery 4 ea. ESL #445 CST photoelectric smoke detectors with built-in horn and 135degree heat sensor 2 ea. 8" fire alarm bells Installation of the above equipment would meet and exceed the requirements of NFPA 74, Household Fire Warning Equipment, 1989, and paragraph 7-6.2.9, NFPA 101, Life Safety Code, 1991. Very Tru ours, W.H. Ru WHR/ OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS of the BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING March 10, 1992 The meeting was called to order by Chairman Stuckman at 2:07 p.m. with a roll call showing the following members present: MEMBERS Richard Stuckman, Chairman Richard Jones, Vice Chairman Joe Wilcox, Member Randall Kamm, Member Roger Donaldson, Member STAFF PRESENT Jack Nelson, Recordinf; Secretary James McCue, Ged2 Compliance Officer It was moved by Hr. Donaldson, supported by Mr. Stuckman, to approve the minutes of the February 11, 1992, meeting. Motion carried unanimously. The following three cases addressed by the Board pertain to inadequate ceiling heights in three separate rental dwellings. The Lansing Uniform Building Code requires a minimum ceiling height in habitable rooms of 7 '6" . The Lansing Housing Code sets a minimum height of 7'4" in existing buildings. Bedrooms in existing buildings must have operable rescue/egress windows with a net clear opening of five square feet, a minimum net clear opening height of 22 inches, and a maximum sill height of 48 inches. Upon ispection, if it is determined that a dwelling unit does not comply with the ceiling height requirement, the enforcement official applies the following standard to the dwelling unit. If the unit does not comply with the standard, all cases are remanded to the Building Board of Appeals. Minimum ceiling height shall be 6' 8" and the ceiling must be a least 316" in width at that height across the length of the room. Bedrooms must have at least one window which has a minimum of five square feet of rough opening and provides a minimum clear opening not less than 24 inches high and 20 inches in width. Smoke detectors shall be installed in each bedroom where either of the two previous minimum conditions exist. Such detectors shall receive their power from the building wirin (110 volts and shall be equipped with a battery back—up. ZT 0 6 6H 1,T WJW 6 r ,. Building Board of peals Minutes Page 2 In the three appeals to be addressed by the Board, none of the cases meet the minimum criteria established for the issuance of an Administrative Modification. Appeal #92-004 — 510 W. Hodge St, Dale Farhat An application for appeal was filed by Cathy Stull and David Anderson on behalf of Mr. Dale Farhat owner of the subject building. Those in attendance were Dale Farhat, owner; Jeff Farhat, owner; David Anderson, Attorney; Cathy Stull, Attorny. The applicant seeks relief from Section 1460.20(a)(13) of the City of Lansing Housing Code. The variance, if granted, would permit the continued occupancy of the second floor living space which lacks proper headroom as habitable space. Mr. Anderson, Attorney for the deed holder stated that the residence was constructed in 1935. The residence is approximately 722 square feet in area. Mr. Farhat has owned the building for 1.0 years. The second story room was utilized for a bedroom at the time of purchase. Mr. Anderson further stated that there are two windows in the room, neither of which complies with the minimum egress requirements of the Building Code. Chairman Stuckman asked Mr. McCue, Code Compliance Officer, to present his case. Mr. McCue stated that the egress window is 24" wide with a net clear opening height of 1.711. The ceiling height is 614-2". The stairway which serves the bedroom is 30" wide. Mr. McCue further stated that he has no objection to the issuance of the variance if the minimum standards established by the Department are complied with. Mr. Wilcox moved, supported by Mr. Jones, that the application for variance be approved subject to the installation of a hard wired smoke detector, and the window opposite from the stairway be replaced with a window which complies with Section 1204 of the Uniform Building Code. Motion carried unanimously. In support of this decision the Board makes the following findings of fact: 1 . There is sufficient volume of ceiling area to act as a smoke shelf which will afford adequate time for egress. This coupled with the installation of a hard wired smoke detector will equate to the safety of a code complying ceiling. 2. The building is existing and has been previously utilized as a bedroom. This decision is predicated upon compliance with the following conditions : 1. A window which complies with Section 1204 of the U.B.C. shall be installed in the bedroom within three months of March 10, 1992. 2. A hard wired smoke detector with a battery back—up shall be installed in the bedroom prior to occupancy. 13uiiaing lsoarcl or P Pals Minutes Page 3 Appeal #92-005 - 2313 Rundle Street, Dale Farhat An application for appeal was filed by Cathy Stull and David Anderson on behalf of Dale Farhat owner. Those in attendance were Dale Farhat, owner; Jeff Farhat, owner; David Anderson, Attorney; and Cathy Stull, Attorney. The applicant seeks relief from Section 1460.20(a)(13) of the Lansing Housing Code. The variance, if granted, would permit continued occupancy of the second floor living space which lacks headroom as habitable space. Mr. Anderson presented his case stating that the 664 square foot residence was constructed in 1923. The dwelling has two bedrooms. The second story bedroom is 9'wide by 24' long. Two windows are located in the bedroom, neither window unit complies with egress requirements. The second floor is served by a 30" wide stairway. Mr. Anderson further stated that to prohibit the use of this living space as habitable space is tantamount to a taking of property. The property owner is agreeable to installation of additional smoke detectors and complying egress windows which would address safety concerns. Mr. Stuckman asked Mr. McCue to present his findings. Mr. McCue stated that the room has a sloped ceiling. The horizontal portion of the ceiling is 16" wide. The ceiling height to this location is 614" in height. The ceiling height measured at a point of 36" in width and 5111" in height. The height of the knee walls are 44". Mr. McCue further stated that the room is very confining in his opinion. Chairman Stuckman drew a cross-section of the room showing ceiling heights for better visualization of the space. Mr. Jones stated that an alternative method of compliance could be to install a smoke evacuation system. Mr. Stuckman stated that a second alternative could be the construction of a dormer. Mr. Anderson asked if the case could be tabled until the April meeting in order to determine the cost of the alternatives. Mr. Jones moved, supported by Mr. Wilcox, to table Appeal #92-005 until the April meeting. Motion carried unanimously. Appeal #92-007 - 1544, Lansing Avenue, Gary Moyer An application for appeal was filed by Gary Moyer, owner of 1544 Lansing Avenue. Mr. Moyer seeks relief from Section 1460.20(a)(13) of the Lansing Housing Code. The request is made to permit continued occupancy of the second floor living space which lacks proper headroom as habitable space. Mr. Moyer addressed the Board and stated that the room height is 617" with carpet, without carpet .it would be 6 '81'. The ceiling width in the center of the room is 31 . If you measure from the center over 21 inches (1/2 of the 3'6") the height at that point is 6'6" with carpet; only 1" difference. The windows in the front of the room are of legal size to meet the existing room and the existing building codes. At the other end of the room the window exceeds the code size. Building Board of P gals Minutes Page 4 The room has two plugs on the side walls. There is a recessed light in the center of the room, and the room is very well insulated. This room has a hip roof style. There is an open staircase with handrail to the room, and dressers and closets have been built into the shorter walls. There is a 110 volt smoke alarm in it. The existing room is laking at most 1" in height and 3" on each side for the width requirement to meet code for an existing room in an existing building. Mr. Moyer stated that he had not changed the structure of the room in any way, just paint and carpet updating. The gentleman that the home was purchased from owned it for 35 years and had raised four children in the home. His childred inhabited the upstairs area as a bedroom as well as visiting grandchildren in later years. Mr. Moyer stated that he felt the room was very safe and would like to be able to use it as a habitable room. Mr. Wilcox moved, supported by Mr. Kamm, that the appeal be approved since the request only deviates from the adopted policy by 1". Motion carried unanimously. In support of this decision the Board makes the following findings of fact: 1 . The ceiling height is adequate to create a smoke shelf to collect smoke during exiting. This coupled with egress windows and a hard wired smoke detector will ensure safety to the occupants. 2. The building is existing and has been utilized as a bedroom for several years, consequently, it would be impractical to enforce the strict letter of the law in this case. The decision is predicated upon compliance with the following conditions: 1 . The existing bedroom window (one unit) shall comply with Section 1204 of the Uniform Building Code 1988 Edition. 2. A hard wired smoke detector with battery back—up shall be installed in the second floor bedroom. Being no further business before the Board, Mr. Kamm moved, supported by Mr. Wilcox, that the meeting be adjourned. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 3:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, J k A. Nelson e retary Minutes Approved on: