Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Building Board of Appeals 1994 Minutes
OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS of the - .` , CITY OF LANSING BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS LAJ,-J!izU CITY Y CLERK November 8, 1994 The November meeting of the City of Lansing Building Board of Appeals was called to order by Chairman Richard Stuckman. The following members were in attendance: Richard Stuckman, Chair Richard Jones, Vice Chair Joe Wilcox Randall Kamm NOTE: The Board currently has one vacancy, that of the contractor representative. Staff members present: Jack A. Nelson, Secretary Jim Ballard, Fire Marshall A motion was made by Richard Jones to approve the minutes of the September 13, 1994, meeting. The motion was supported by Joe Wilcox. Motion carried'. CASE AB-033-94 - 1526 LANSING Jack Nelson advised the Board that this case was originally on the docket as Case A13-009-94. In the September 13, 1994, meeting the Board voted to cancel this case and have the petitioner to re-apply due to the case being tabled at various meeting. Requesting relief from the requirements of Section 3306(a)(b) and (c) of the Lansing Uniform Building Code, 1991 edition. STAIRWAYS - Sec. 3306 (a) General. Every stairway having two or more risers serving any building or portion thereof shall conform to the requirements of this section. When aisles in assembly rooms have steps, they shall conform with the provisions in Section 3315. (b) Width. The minimum stairway width shall be determined as specified in Section 3303(b) , but shall not be less than 44 inches except as specified herein. Stairways serving an occupant load of 49 or less shall not be less than 36 inches in width. Handrails may project into the required width a distance of 32 inches from each side of a stairway. Stringers and other projections such as trim and similar decorative features may project into the required width 1' inches on each side. (c) Rise and Run. The rise of every step in a stairway shall not be less than 4 inches or greater than 7 inches. Except as permitted in Subsections (d) and (f) , the run shall not be less than 11 inches as measured horizontally between the vertical planes of the furthermost projection of adjacent treads. Except as permitted in Subsections (d) , (e) and (f) , the largest tread run within any flight of stairs shall not exceed the smallest by more than 3/8 inch. The greatest riser height within any flight of stairs shall not exceed the smallest by more than 3/8 inch. BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS NOVEMBER 8, 1994 PAGE 2 The petitioner seeks authority to occupy the second floor of an existing rental unit which has a run of 62 and a rise of 82 on the stairway leading to the second floor. In like manner the stairway is 32" in width. Steve Ruffin was present to represent House Renters of Lansing, Jay Vincent. Mr. Ruffin stated that after having been to the house at 1526 Lansing St. he had determined that there was no way that the staircase could be moved without major structural changes taking place. Mr. Ruffin further stated that his clients were not really clear as to what the violation was. Mr. Stuckman stated that the violation was that there were no proper egress windows and that the stairway was too steep. Mr. Nelson added that the original appeal was also requesting a ceiling height variance. The ceiling height is close enough that the department seeing no problem in approving it if egress windows and smoke detection was installed. Mr. Nelson further stated that the Department was mainly concerned that the steepness of the stairway be corrected. Mr. Ruffin asked if the Board would approve this appeal if the egress windows were installed. Mr. Ruffin stated that the property is presently being sold and that one of the conditions of the sale is that the property remain as a single family dwelling rather than a rental unit. Mr. Ruffin further stated this property is presently going through litigation because the owners cannot occupy the building until a variance is granted or the corrections are made. Mr. Nelson stated that if the property is turned into a private dwelling the Department will have no jurisdiction until a building permit is pulled. Randall Kamm moved to approve the appeal with the following provisions: hard-wired smoke detection must be installed, handrails must be provided on both sides of the staircase and Mr. Ruffin must provide the new owners with a written warning about the staircase. A copy of the letter must be provided to the City of Lansing Building Office. The smoke detection system must be installed by December 20, 1994. The detection system must be installed by a licensed electrical contractor. The applicant must contact the Code Compliance Officer, Delores Fuller, for a final inspection. Mr. Nelson asked for clarification of smoke detection that must be installed. Smoke detection must be provided as per Section 1210 of the Uniform Building Code. Requirements for installation of smoke detectors. Power source. In new construction, required smoke detectors shall receive their primary power from the building wiring when such wiring is served from a commercial source and shall be equipped with a battery backup. The detector shall emit a signal when the batteries are low. Wiring shall be permanent and without a disconnecting switch other than those required for overcurrent protection. Location within dwelling units. In dwelling units, a detector shall be installed in each sleeping room and at a point centrally located in the corridor or area giving access to each separate sleeping area. When the dwelling unit has more than one story and in dwellings with basements, a detector shall be installed on each story and in the basement. In dwelling units where a story or basement is split into two or more levels, the smoke detector shall be installed on the upper level, except that when the lower level contains a sleeping area, a detector shall be installed on each level. When sleeping rooms are on an upper level, the detector shall be placed at the ceiling of the upper level in close proximity to the stairway. In dwelling units where the ceiling height of a room open to BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS NOVEMBER 8, 1994 PAGE 3 the hallway serving the bedrooms exceeds that of the hallway by 24 inches or more, smoke detectors shall be installed in the hallway and in the adjacent room. Detectors shall sound an alarm audible in all sleeping areas of the dwelling unit in which they are located. Motion was supported by Richard Jones. Motion carried.a CASE AB-034-94 - 1092 S. WASHINGTON Requesting relief from Section 4507 of the 1991 edition of the Uniform Building Code as amended. The petitioner seeks authority to re-install a door to 109' S. Washington which provides direct access to the upper floors. If door swing would encroach onto the public right-of-way, the door cannot swing in since the door swing would encroach into the landing. Petitioners findings of facts in support of this appeal: This door was in existence prior to the tenancy of DuPuis et Fils/Bruno Tews Jewelers in 1984. We are requesting restoration to the previous condition. There is inadequate space to recess door so that it does not encroach on public right-of-way. This entry would be the only entry to the 2nd and 3rd floors and would provide necessary police and fire department access. Providing access to the upper floors through an interior stairway is not an option at this time as we are negotiating with a tenant whose design does not accommodate this. Specific Code Citation: Power-operated doors and their guide rails shall not project over public property. Other doors, either fully opened or when opening, shall not project more than 1 (one) foot beyond the property line, except in alleys no projection beyond the property line is permitted. Plummer Mifflin, owner, was present for this case. Mr. Mifflin stated that at present the only access to the second floor is through one of the other tenant spaces. Mr. Mifflin stated that he is currently planning to rent out the second floor and would like to provide direct access, the usage for the space is currently unknown. There is no elevator in the building. Mr. Mifflin further stated that there is 40" from the wall to the 1st step and that the stairway is 44" wide. A discussion followed about amount of landing space required. Mr. Nelson stated that the landing has to be at least the width of the stairway or 44" . Mr. Nelson stated that Mr. Mifflin could go to the Barrier Free Design Board to obtain a variance for the lack of an elevator. Mr. Nelson further stated that since the occupancy load is less than 50 the building code would only require a stairway width of 36" . Therefore the landing would only need to be 36" . Joe Wilcox made a motion to approve the appeal with the condition that the door opens 1801 and that it be provided with a door closer. Motion supported by Richard Jones. Motion carried3. Mr. Nelson advised petitioner that he would need to go to the Public Service Department to obtain approval to occupy the City right-of-way. BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS NOVEMBER 8, 1994 PAGE 4 CASE AB-035-94 - 3337 REMY DRIVE Requesting relief from the requirements of Section 705 of the Lansing Uniform Building Code, 1991 edition which requires the ventilation system in commercial "garages" to be continuous. A request is being made to allow the building exhaust system to be operated on an intermittent as- needed basis. Petitioners Arguments in Support of this Appeal: We were asked to design a ventilation system for the building. The primary use of the building is storage of items and materials used by the Maintenance Division of the Housing Commission. Vehicles and lawn mowers are also parked in the building overnight and other times when they are not in use. The only other flammable liquid storage is four 5-gallon gasoline cans, which are stored in a safety cabinet. No welding or vehicle repair takes place in the building. A tractor is used on rare occasions for moving items down from the storage mezzanines. It was the exhaust fumes from the tractor that prompted the request for the ventilation system. The cost of the system as installed was $42,800. When we designed the system we referred to the code requirements for Group B, Division 1 and Group H, Division 4 buildings since these are the closest classifications we could find in relation to the actual use. In addition to ventilation, we designed the system to be able to heat the building since the existing unit heaters were in need of repair or replacement. The controls were designed and installed with a normal occupied mode for heating with continuous minimum outside air ventilation, an exhaust mode with 100% exhaust with make-up air heating and an unoccupied mode for heating. The exhaust mode was to be used when the vehicles are entering and leaving the building, and for those occasions when the tractor is used. I have discussed this system with Mr. Ralph Goff. When he inspected the system, his initial interpretation of the applicable code sections called for continuous exhaust and make-up. Because the use of the building does not neatly fit into the Code's occupancy classifications, the intermittent nature of the contaminants and the Housing Commission's concern over the energy cost of continuous exhaust and make-up, Mr. Goff suggested we contact you for assistance in determining what will best meet the needs of the building and its occupants. Please consider granting an Administrative Modification to allow operation of the exhaust mode by the occupants on an as needed basis. Mr. David Shaw of Capital Consultants was present for this appeal. Mr. Shaw stated that the ventilation system was installed after employees voiced concerns about the exhaust fumes that could be smelled when the tractor was being run in the garage area. Mr. Shaw looked at Section 705 and 905 and had a difficult time placing this into a classification so he decided to offer it as a single unit for heaters and exhaust. The system is presently set-up to be used on an as needed basis. There are normally only one or two persons in the office area and garage area. Mr. Shaw stated that there is no means for cross ventilation. There are two overhead doors on the southside that are opened in the summer to provide air. Mr. Shaw stated that there is a switch located in the garage area to turn the system on. The switch is readily accessible and signed. Mr. Shaw further stated that the system runs continuously for ventilation and heat, but can be switched to exhaust manually which stops the air change and just puts the air out. Mr. Nelson stated that he had spoken to Ralph Goff, Chief Mechanical Inspector, and that Mr. Goff had no objection to the system. BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS NOVEMBER 8, 1994 PAGE 5 Richard Jones moved to grant appeal. Supported by Joe Wilcox. Motion carried4. CASE AB-036-94 - 2001 PATTENGIL Requesting relief from the requirements of Section 909(g) of the Lansing Uniform Plumbing Code. The Petitioner is seeking authorization to install a historically appropriate tub and shower faucet and valve set as part of a bathroom renovation. The tub and shower set includes 3 handles for hot, cold and diverter valves as well as a shower head with flow control and wall mounted tub spout. The historic reproductions are not pressure balanced which could cause scalding when an additional fixture is placed in operation. Petitioners Arguments in Support of this Appeal: We are doing a bathroom renovation. The house was built in the early to mid 1900's and we are working to renovate in an historically appropriate style. We found, as our contractor began renovation, that we have needed to do a number of plumbing and electrical upgrades to bring the house up to code. We have completed all of these. On this one faucet and valve set we are seeking a variance from the pressure balance valve requirement because it is the only way we can make use of the traditional handle design. We have purchased a high quality fixture set from a national renovating supply company - unaware of this code requirement - which appears to apply only to Michigan and a few other states. Mr. Fidencio Palacio, owner, was present for this case. Mr. Nelson stated that this case was similar to one that the Board had approved earlier this year (AB-018-94) . The owner had passed around an item that she had brought to the attention of Joseph Delaney, Chief Plumbing Inspector. At 114' the item would shut off the water, item was inserted into the shower head. Mr. Palacio stated that he resides at the residence and has never had a problem with the water temperature. Mr. Palacio further stated that he only learned that this was a violation when he applied for a permit to do the renovations. Joe Wilcox moved to grant this appeal. Motion seconded by Richard Jones. Motion carrieds. Being no other business before the Board a motion for adjournment was entertained. Richard Jones moved to adjourn. Motion seconded by Joe Wilcox. Motion carried6. Respectfully Submitted, e2tary son V BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS NOVEMBER 8, 1994 PAGE 6 RECORD OF VOTES: #1 Record of Vote Yea Nay Richard Stuckman, Chair (absent) Richard Jones, Vice Chair X Joe Wilcox X Randall Kamm X #2 Record of Vote Yea Nay Richard Stuckman, Chair X Richard Jones, Vice Chair X Joe Wilcox X Randall Kamm X #3 Record of Vote Yea Nay Richard Stuckman, Chair X Richard Jones, Vice Chair X Joe Wilcox X Randall Kamm X #4 Record of Vote Yea Nay Richard Stuckman, Chair X Richard Jones, Vice Chair X Joe Wilcox X Randall Kamm X #5 Record of Vote I Yea Nay Richard Stuckman, Chair X Richard Jones, Vice Chair X Joe Wilcox X Randall Kamm X BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS NOVEMBER 8, 1994 PAGE 7 #6 Record of Vote Yea Nay Richard Stuckman, Chair X Richard Jones, Vice Chair X Joe Wilcox X Randall Kamm X OF �� BUILDING AND CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICE Department of Planning and Neighborhood Development Lower Level, Washington Square Annex * * 119 North Washington Square Lansing, MI 48933 ��CN16��► (517)483-4355 David C_ Hollister, Mayor MEETING CANCELLATION NOTICE THE BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING SCHEDULED FOR TUESDAY, OCTOBER 11, 1994, AT 2:00 P.M. HAS BEEN CANCELLED. THE BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS WILL RESUME ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 15, 1994, AT 2:00 P.M. OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS of the CITY OF LANSING BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS September 13, 1994 The September meeting of the City of Lansing Building Board of Appeals was called to order by Vice Chairman Richard Jones. The following members were in attendance: Richard Jones, Vice Chair Joe Wilcox Randall Kamm The following members were absent: Richard Stuckman, Chair NOTE: The Board currently has one vacancy, that of the contractor representative. Staff members present: Christine Segerlind, Acting Secretary James McCue, Code Compliance Officer Joe Wilcox stated that there should be a change in the August minutes. Page 4, motion 4, should state that "it was moved to grant the appeal subject to the condition that no obstructions such as curtains or blinds be installed on the north wall of the building which would adversely effect the sprinkler system from protecting the opening." A motion was made by Joe Wilcox to approve the minutes of the August 9, 1994, meetin� with the above noted correction. The motion was supported by Randall Kamm. Motion carried . The following OLD BUSINESS was addressed. CASE AB-009-94 - 1526 LANSING The case was tabled at the August 9, 1994, hearing due to the absence of the petitioner. The petitioner did not attend the September hearing. It was moved by Randall Kamm to cancel Case AB-009-94 as it has been tabled for numerous meetings. Motion seconded by Joe Wilcox. Motion carried2. The petitioner will have to re-apply in order to have this case brought before the Board again. The next case under old business was addressed. CASE AB-025-94 - 503 S. FRANCIS Requesting relief from the requirements of Section 1460.20 of the Lansing Uniform Housing Code. The Petitioner seeks authority to occupy a second floor of an existing rental dwelling. The first floor has one bedroom and one bedroom is proposed for the second floor. The ceiling height complies with the Board policy which allows occupancy if an egress window is installed in compliance with the Building Code and a hardwired smoke detection system is installed in accordance with Section 1210 of the Building Code. The Petitioner is requesting authority to BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS SEPTEMBER 13, 1994 PAGE 2 utilize the existing window units which do not meet minimum requirements. The window in question is 40x23 with a net openable dimension of 20x23 (3.19 square feet) . Mr. Dennis Dudley presented the Board with a copy of the receipt for having hardwired smoke detection installed throughout the house (copy attached) . Joe Wilcox asked what the problem was with installing egress windows to comply with code since there was room to lengthen and widen the window. Mrs. Suzanne Dudley stated that it was because of the extra cost, they didn't want to have the work done if they didn't have to. Randall Kamm stated that over the years the Board had dealt with a number of cases like this and that a standard had been set. The reason for the size requirements was to protect the people in the house and that is the main concern. Mr. Kamm further stated that they needed to install at least one egress window and that since both windows are over roofs, they could make it either window. Randall Kamm moved to deny the appeal. Motion seconded by Joe Wilcox. Motion carried3. The following NEW BUSINESS was addressed by the Board. CASE AB-026-94 - 306 CLINTON Requesting relief from the requirements of Table 5-A of the Lansing Uniform Building Code. The Petitioner seeks authority to install windows (glass block and/or casement) on the east side of a building. The windows are proposed on the first and second floors. In like manner an exhaust vent is also proposed on the ground floor. The east wall of the building is located on the property line, Table 5-A of the code does not allow openings on a property line. Petitioners Arguments in Support of this Appeal: The adjacent property is a railroad right-of-way, the rails are in service. There is no building adjoining the building in question, and there is little likelihood of any structure being built at this location. The likelihood of conflagration is measurably reduced since no structure is present. The building is being developed to house art studios which is consistent with the City's hopes for development in this area. Art studios need natural light. Marilyn Frye (owner) and Liz Harrow (architect) were present for this case. They both further stated that if the railroad right-of-way were developed they understood they would have to block the windows off. 4 Joe Wilcox moved to grant the appeal. Motion seconded by Randall Kamm. Motion carried . BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS SEPTEMBER 13, 1994 PAGE 3 CASE AB-027-94 - 1236-1238 TURNER Requesting relief from the requirements of Section 4507 of the Lansing Uniform Building Code. The Petitioner seeks authority at the front of the building and gives access to second floor apartments• door opening is located u Section 4501 of the Lansing Uniform Building Code states that a door may not project more than one (1) foot beyond the property line. Petitioners Arguments in Support of this Appeal: 1) Safety (1) The sidewalk this door would swing out on is wide (15ft. ) and there is no parking on this side of the street. There is little traffic on this sidewalk. (2) The door serves only four small apartments, so traffic will be relatively light. (3) In case of fire an out-swinging door would be safer for people's egress. 2) Costs (a) Installing an in-swinging door would require moving a large staircase back several feet to create a landing for the door to swing back into. The stairwell space is 20' long and 5 10l wide. At the top, the stairs land above a steel cross-beam that extends the full width of the building and supports the floor joists of the second floor. Moving the stairs back would require removing this steel beam and introducing some other support for the floor joists. The renovation project as a whole involves very little structural n a the (about 90 o of the internal walls will be the same as before renovation) . g staircase would be very extensive and expensive modification relative to the project as a whole. (The whole renovation of the interior is budgeted at $50 - 60,000.) (b) Within 3-5 years we may be required to install an elevator for barrier-free access to the apartments upstairs- If the extensive structural airs are changesothan installation would be involved with the even more extenenpresent structure. Those costs would likely be prohibitive. Summation: Installing an in-swinging door would involve COST and STRUCTURAL MODIFICATIONS that are very DISPROPORTIONATE to the scale and cost of the renovation project. The out-swinging door would pose little threat to pedestrians and would be safer for residents. Christine Segerlind presented the Board and the petitioner with a memorandum that was received on September 11, 1994, from the Public Service Department stating that they are opposed to the construction of any door that would extend into the public right-of-way and that if this appeal is approved it would be necessary for the petitioner to go to the Public Service Department and have the Director of that department to approve the permanent occupation of the public right-of- way. Joe Wilcox moved to grant this appeal. Motion seconded by Randall Kamm. Motion carrieds. The petitioner is aware they must take this case before the Public Service Department. BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS SEPTEMBER 13, 1994 PAGE 4 CASE AB-028-94 - 1714 BEAL Requesting relief from Section 1460.20(a)(13) Improper Occupancy, of the Lansing Uniform Housing Code in that a basement is being utilized for sleeping purposes which does not have adequate egress, ceiling height and light and ventilation. On January 20, 1994, Mr. James McCue inspected the premise and found numerous violations of the Lansing Housing Code. The violations were to be corrected by February 28, 1994. On July 19, 1994, an additional letter was sent to the petitioner giving notice that the dwelling would be posted for no occupancy if the corrections were not completed by Friday, August 19, 1994. On Thursday, August 18, 1994, the petitioner filed for relief to the Appeals Board. This application stays all enforcement action against the petitioner pending disposition of the appeal. TECHNICAL DATA: Basement dimensions: Bedrooms: 151x11'_2" 15'x11'2" Window dimensions: 291lx21" = 4.29 sq.ft. Ceiling height: 6'6" Light and ventilation required. 8 0 of floor area, approximately 13 sq.ft. of glazing required in each bedroom with half the area openable. Each bedroom has 4.29 sq.ft. of glazing. The entire area is openable. The windows do not comply with egress requirements since the sill height exceeds 44" and the window has insufficient area. Petitioners Arguments in Support of this Appeal: There is a door on the west wall which opens to the outside backyard. There are two windows on the north wall which can be used for egress. Lucille Ryan (owner) and Terrance Sherman (resident) were present. Mr. Sherman stated that his son's had been using the basement for bedrooms for the past seven years and that he only recently (within the last four weeks) constructed a partition to separate it into two rooms. Mr. Sherman further stated that he and his son's had no problem getting through the windows and into the basement. Christine Segerlind stated that the reason for egress windows was so that the Fire Department could get through the windows if need be. Joe Wilcox asked if the only way to gain access to the outside from the second bedroom was to go through the first bedroom. Mr. Sherman replied that yes, you had to go through the first bedroom in order to exit the basement area from the second bedroom. Mr. McCue, Code Compliance Officer, stated that there is an 8"' step up to the door leading to the outside area and that the door is 28"' wide. Mr. McCue further stated that there was 5 7" from BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS SEPTEMBER 13, 1994 PAGE 5 the floor to the window sill, which, along with the size of the window, would make it hard or impossible to get out of in case of an emergency. There was general discussion about the case and ways to bring the window to code which would involve making a window well. Joe Wilcox moved to grant the appeal provided that an egress window is placed in the second bedroom per code and that hardwired smoke detection is installed throughout the structure per code. The window shall be in place within thirty (30) days of the date of this hearing. The detectors shall be installed within thirty (30) days from the date of this hearing by a licensed electrical contractor. Motion seconded by Randall Kamm. Motion carried6. The conditions for the installation of the smoke detector are as follows: Requirements for installation of smoke detectors. Power source. In new construction, required smoke detectors shall receive their primary power from the building wiring when such wiring is served from a commercial source and shall be equipped with a battery backup. The detector shall emit a signal when the batteries are low. Wiring shall be permanent and without a disconnecting switch other than those required for overcurrent protection. Location within dwelling units. In dwelling units, a detector shall be installed in each sleeping room and at a point centrally located in the corridor or area giving access to each separate sleeping area. When the dwelling unit has more than one story and in dwellings with basements, a detector shall be installed on each story and in the basement. In dwelling units where a story or basement is split into two or more levels, the smoke detector shall be installed on the upper level, except that when the lower level contains a sleeping area, a detector shall be installed on each level. When sleeping rooms are on an upper level, the detector shall be placed at the ceiling of the upper level in close proximity to the stairway. In dwelling units where the ceiling height of a room open to the hallway serving the bedrooms exceeds that of the hallway by 24 inches or more, smoke detectors shall be installed in the hallway and in the adjacent room. Detectors shall sound an alarm audible in all sleeping areas of the dwelling unit in which they are located. CASE AB-030-94 - 114 E. MICHIGAN Requesting relief from the requirements of Table 5-A of the Lansing Uniform Building Code which does not authorize openings on a property line. The petitioner seeks authority to install glazing on the 8th through the 12th floor of the proposed M.U.C.C. Building. The windows would be fixed non-operable insulated solar glass in aluminum frame. The windows would be protected on the inside with sprinkler heads at the head of the unit. No blinds or other obstructions would be allowed to be used on these windows. The west wall is the only building face subject to the variance. BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS SEPTEMBER 13, 1994 PAGE 6 Petitioners Arguments in Support of this Appeal: Approval of windows on the west elevation of the new Michigan United Conservation Club Office Building on floors 8 through 12 is requested for the following reasons: 1. The Police Building structure is not designed for additional floors. 2. The roof of the Police Building is a concrete slab, and therefore the likelihood of a fire in the Police Building breaking through the roof is minimal. 3. The Police Building is not likely to be added to or go any higher. The potential of blocking building windows is remote. 4. The windows on the 8th though the 12th floors will be above the roof line of the existing Police Building. 5. The building is very narrow and long in depth. In accordance with the Building Code, windows are only allowable on the south and north elevations where there is a potential of placing windows in the 60' dimension. It is desirable to have most nice offices with windows; and therefore, the only location for desirable offices is on the north and south ends of the building. With the potential for windows on the west elevation, it becomes a more leasable and usable space for potential lease clients. 6. The view through the windows to the west will give a full view of the Capitol and the redevelopment of the downtown Lansing area. Being able to lease the additional floors and space with windows, will contribute to the economic revitalization of the downtown Lansing area. 7. It is agreeable that if windows are allowed on the west elevation, a sprinkler head will be placed above the window openings to provide fire protection for the opening and no window blinds will be installed on the windows. It would be agreeable that the window glass would be a mirrored glass to reduce the amount of sunlight from the west elevation. Joe Wilcox moved to grant this appeal as requested. Motion seconded by Randall Kamm. Motion carried'. Mr. Hinkle asked if the Board would also rule on a letter they had sent to Jack Nelson which added to their appeal (letter attached) . Christine Segerlind presented the Board with the letter that had been received in the Building Office on September 7, 1994. It was decided that the Board would not act on this request as the petitioner has not yet determined the location of the property line. The petitioner was advised that he must apply to the Board in order to have this issue reviewed, it would not be accepted as a part of Case AB- 030-94. CASE AB-031-94 - 100 E. NORTH ST. Requesting relief from Section 3318 and 1712 of the Lansing Uniform Building Code, 1991 edition. The petitioner proposes to delete panic hardware on the first floor main public entrance/exit doors. Second the petitioner seeks authority to reduce the height of the second floor porch railing to 30" instead of 42" . In conclusion the petitioner seeks to reduce the guardrails on the first floor north porch to 36" . BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS SEPTEMBER 13, 1994 PAGE 7 Petitioners Arguments in Support of this Appeal: The Parks and Recreation Department is embarking on the first phase of the restoration of it's historic property noted above. In the preparation of plans and specifications, the following three items have arisen which would adversely affect the historic character of the house if strict adherence to the code is mandatory: 1. The first floor main public entrance (and exit) doors are solid wood frame with a tempered glass inset. The use of panic hardware on these doors, as the code requires, would detract from the residential quality of the house. We therefore request that normal exit hardware be permitted on these two doors. 2. The height of the original second floor north porch railing is primarily 30", while code requires 42". This porch has not been, nor will be, open to the public at any time. The door will be so posted. Therefore we request that the original railing be preserved. 3. The height of the original first floor north porch railing is 20" in height. We fully realize that this historical feature is now a hazard because of its awkward height and are willing to sacrifice some historical accuracy to assure that it is safe. However, we believe that a 36" height is in better proportion with the original character of the porch than the required 42". We also believe that the 36" height will be sufficient to provide safety for public use this porch will receive. We therefore request that the lower height be approved. Applicable Building Code Provisions: The Uniform Building Code in Section 104(f) grants special consideration to "Historic Buildings" when a set of established criteria is met. This variance may be granted if the Board finds that the case meets the following tests: (f) Historic Buildings. Repairs, alterations and additions necessary for the preservation, restoration, rehabilitation or continued use of a building or structure may be made without conformance to all the requirements of this code when authorized by the building official, provided: 1. The building or structure has been designated by official action of the legally constituted authority of this jurisdiction as having special historical or architectural significance. 2. Any unsafe conditions as described in this code are corrected. 3. The restored building or structure will be no more hazardous based on life safety, fire and sanitation than the existing building. Dick Schafer, Parks and Recreation Department, and Dick Frank, Architect, were present. Mr. Frank asked if Christine Segerlind had received a fax that he had sent to her on September 12, 1994. Ms. Segerlind had not received a fax. Mr. Frank proceeded to state that his faxed letter was a confirmation of a meeting that they had had with Jack Nelson which had resolved the issues of their appeal. Results: 1. Panic hardware will be placed on the south door of the house. This is one of two primary means of ingress and egress to the main part of the house. A panic device will also be BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS SEPTEMBER 13, 1994 PAGE 8 added to the west door which is part of the exiting system from the second and third floors. This exit path serves as a second means of egress from the second and third floors. 2. The north main door will not have panic hardware added but will be signed in accordance with Chapter 30 of the Building Code. This will help retain the historic character of the primary public view from North Street. 3. Additional exit signs and emergency lighting will be added on a temporary basis until Phase 2 of this project can address exiting on a more comprehensive basis. Because of the complexity of this situation, such will be determined as a result of a tour with representatives of the Fire Marshall's Office, the Building Office and Mr. Frank. Joe Wilcox moved to grant appeal as amended. Motion seconded by Randall Kamm. Motion Carriede. Being no other business before the Board a motion for adjournment was entertained. Randall Kamm moved to adjourn. Motion seconded by Joe Wilcox. Motion carried9. Respectfully Submitted, Chri'stine Se erlindf�� g Acting Secretary BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS SEPTEMBER 13, 1994 PAGE 9 RECORD OF VOTES: #1 Record of Vote Yea Nay Richard Stuckman, Chair (absent) Richard Jones, Vice Chair X Joe Wilcox X Randall Kamm X #2 Record of Vote Yea Nay Richard Stuckman, Chair (absent) Richard Jones, Vice Chair X Joe Wilcox X Randall Kamm X #3 Record of Vote Yea Nay Richard Stuckman, Chair (absent) Richard Jones, Vice Chair X Joe Wilcox X Randall Kamm X #4 Record of Vote Yea Nay Richard Stuckman, Chair (absent) Richard Jones, Vice Chair X Joe Wilcox X Randall Kamm X #5 Record of Vote Yea Nay Richard Stuckman, Chair (absent) Richard Jones, Vice Chair X . Joe Wilcox X Randall Kamm X BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS SEPTEMBER 13, 1994 PAGE 10 #6 Record of Vote Yea I Nay Richard Stuckman, Chair (absent) Richard Jones, Vice Chair X Joe Wilcox X Randall Kamm X #7 Record of Vote Yea Nay Richard Stuckman, Chair (absent) Richard Jones, Vice Chair X Joe Wilcox X Randall Kamm X #8 Record of Vote Yea Nay Richard Stuckman, Chair (absent) Richard Jones, Vice Chair X Joe Wilcox X Randall Kamm X #9 Record of Vote Yea Nay Richard Stuckman, Chair (absent) Richard Jones, Vice Chair X Joe Wilcox X Randall Kamm X OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS of the CITY OF LANSING BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS August 9, 1994 The August meeting of the City of Lansing Building Board of Appeals was called to order by Vice Chairman Richard Jones. The following members were in attendance: Richard Jones, Vice Chair Joe Wilcox Randall Kamm The following members were absent: Richard Stuckman, Chair NOTE: The Board currently has one vacancy, that of the contractor representative. Staff members present: James Ballard, Fire Marshall Jack Nelson, Recording Secretary A motion was made by Randall Kamm to approve the minutes of the July 12, 1994, meeting. The motion was supported by Joe Wilcox. Motion carried'. The following OLD BUSINESS was addressed. CASE AB-009-94 - 1526 LANSING The case was tabled at the July 12, 1994, hearing in order to afford the petitioner additional time to prepare his case. The petitioner did not attend the August hearing. Mr. Nelson requested that the Case AB-009-94 be tabled to the next scheduled meeting. It was moved by Joe Wilcox to leave Case AB-009-94 on the table. Motion seconded by Randall Kamm. Motion carried 2. The case is tabled to the next available meeting. The next case under old business was addressed. CASE AB-019-94 - 3128 VIKING Requesting relief from the requirements of Section 1460.20 of the Lansing Uniform Housing Code. The Petitioner seeks authority to occupy the second floor of an existing rental dwelling. The second floor has two bedrooms. The small bedroom lacks proper square footage to be used as a sleeping room. The Housing Code requires that all habitable rooms shall have a minimum area of 70 square feet. In like manner the hallway does not have sufficient ceiling height to comply with the Housing Code. Mr. McCue has informed the petitioner that the violation could be rectified by removing the wall which separates the small bedroom and the hallway. This coupled with the installation of a hard wired smoke detector in the bedroom would comply with the standards under which an inspector could issue relief. BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS AUGUST 9, 1994 PAGE 2 Vice Chairman Jones requested Mr. Hagen to present his case. Mr. Hagen stated that the dwelling on Viking is one of fifty rental properties he has in the city of Lansing. The unit has three bedrooms, one on the lower level and two on the second floor. A hallway bisects the second floor creating two bedrooms. The hallway is 48" in width. The ceiling height is 84" on one side and 48" on the other side. The removal of the wall as purported by Mr. McCue, the Code Compliance Officer, makes no sense from a fire safety perspective but will only allow technical compliance with the code. Mr. Nelson stated that the ceiling height in the hallway would impede Fire Department rescue operations and the hallway would obscure the presence of smoke and fire from one room to the other. Mr. Hagen stated that the bedroom windows comply with Building Code requirements for exiting. Joe Wilcox asked if the dwelling was equipped with smoke detection devices. Mr. Hagen stated that detectors were installed in the first floor and in the crawl space. Joe Wilcox moved to grant appeal AB-019-94, which requested authorization to utilize a bedroom with less square footage than authorized by the Housing Code and requested authorization to utilize the second floor which has a ceiling height less than authorized by the Housing Code. The approval is subject to installation of a hard-wired, interconnected smoke detection system installed in the building in compliance with Section 1210 of Building Code for new buildings. The standards for installation shall be a part of the record. In like manner, the detectors shall be installed by a licensed electrician within 30 days of the date of this hearing. Motion seconded by Randall Kamm. Motion carried3. Requirements for installation of smoke detectors. Power source. In new construction, required smoke detectors shall receive their primary power from the building wiring when such wiring is served from a commercial source and shall be equipped with a battery backup. The detector shall emit a signal when the batteries are low. Wiring shall be permanent and without a disconnecting switch other than those required for overcurrent protection. Smoke detectors may be solely battery operated when installed in existing buildings; or in buildings without commercial power; or in buildings which undergo alterations, repairs or additions regulated by Subsection 2 of this section. Location within dwelling units. In dwelling units, a detector shall be installed in each sleeping room and at a point centrally located in the corridor or area giving access to each separate sleeping area. When the dwelling unit has more than one story and in dwellings with basements, a detector shall be installed on each story and in the basement. In dwelling units where a story or basement is split into two or more levels, the smoke detector shall be installed on the upper level, except that when the lower level contains a sleeping area, a detector shall be installed on each level. When sleeping rooms are on an upper level, the detector shall be placed at the ceiling of the upper level in close proximity to the stairway. In dwelling units where the ceiling height of a room open to the hallway serving the bedrooms exceeds that of the hallway by 24 inches or more, smoke detectors shall be installed in the hallway and in the adjacent room. Detectors shall sound an alarm audible in all sleeping areas of the dwelling unit in which they are located. BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS AUGUST 9, 1994 PAGE 3 In support of this decision the Board makes the following findings of fact: The smoke detection system, which will afford early warning in the event of fire and complying egress windows will in the Boards opinion, equate to the intent and purpose of the Code. The building is an existing rental dwelling unit, structural roof medications would not be economically feasible. The following NEW BUSINESS was addressed by the Board. CASE AB-022-94 - 309 N. WASHINGTON SQUARE Requesting relief from Section 3309(a) of the U.B.C. 1991 edition. More specifically to allow an opening in a stairs haft at the first level. Section 3309 allows an opening in an enclosure serving one adjacent floor and not connected with corridors or stairways serving other floors. In this case the corridor serves access to the basement. Requesting relief from the requirements of Table 5-A of the City of Lansing Uniform Building Code. The Petitioner seeks authority to install windows on the first and second floors of the north wall of 309 N. Washington Square. The north wall is constructed on the property line. A dedicated sprinkler system is proposed to protect the window openings. Table 5-A of the Building Code does not permit any openings when a property is within 5' to the building wall. Mr. Morris Stein of Keystone Design addressed the Board and presented the following arguments in support of the appeal request. The Market Square Building is an existing two-story structure with basement, of approximately 27,000 square feet per floor. The building was constructed approximately 25 years ago and is constructed entirely of concrete, steel, and masonry. A small portion of the building is presently sprinklered. As a part of the proposed remodeling, the entire building will be sprinklered. The owner has obtained an approximate 40,000 sq. ft. lease for a department with the State of Michigan, which will occupy the entire second floor and approximately 40 o of the first floor and a small portion of the basement. This department, because of the nature of its office usage, desires to have additional windows on the north side of the building. This north wall is currently on a property line and the adjacent property to the north is owned by Lansing Community College. We have had discussion with Mr. Bruce Newman and Mr. Bill Darr of L.C.C. 's Facility Management Department regarding the current and expected use of this property. At this point in time, there is no short or long term plan for changing the use of the property. They feel the parking is a very important item to them and they do not see a change in the foreseeable future. We would anticipate if some office building expansion is required, the former Continental Cable Building to the north which is owned by L.C.C. , would be expanded rather than a new building constructed. We would propose adding additional windows in the north masonry wall of the building on the first and second floors and to protect these windows with special sprinkler heads over each window. The exact type of head would be subject to approval by the Building Department and Fire Marshall at the time of proceeding with the sprinkler design. We are well aware that in the future if L.C.C. decided to build a building immediately adjacent to this building, we would have to close in the windows with fireproof masonry. Although, based on current usage projections, we anticipate this possibly will never happen. BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS AUGUST 9, 1994 PAGE 4 As part of the total remodeling of the building, we anticipate adding additional windows on the second floor on both the Washington Square side and the south side adjacent to Ionia Street. We will also move the existing lower windows out, with a whole new wall on the first floor, and completely renovate the exterior appearance of the building. The north wall of the building is presently an unpainted block wall and with the addition of windows we would anticipate also improving the appearance of this wall. Most of the interior of the building will be gutted and completely rebuilt for major tenants, bringing the currently non-conforming hallways up to Code (toilets, etc. ) , and a completely new heating system will be installed. We think this will bring the building up to a "first class" building standard in the downtown portion of the city of Lansing and will be a nice improvement to that area of the downtown. James Ballard, Fire Marshall, stated that he has no objection to the appeal if the building was fully fire suppressed and no obstruction such as curtains or blinds were installed between the sprinkler heads and the windows on the north side of the tenant space. Jack Nelson, Building Official, stated that the Building Office had no objection to either request subject to compliance with conditions or approval which are as follows: 1. That no obstructions are installed on the north side of the building which would impede the sprinkler system from protecting the opening and a dedicated head be installed over each window in the affected area as proposed. Joe Wilcox moved to grant the appeal subject to the condition that no obstructions such as curtains or blinds be installed on the west wall of the building which would adversely effect the sprinkler system from protecting the opening. Motion seconded by Randall Kamm. There was discussion concerning the request to authorize the opening in the stairshaft enclosure on the first floor. Joe Wilcox moved to amend his original motion to include approval of the opening in the stair enclosure. Motion seconded by Randall Kamm. Motion carried4. Main motion vote. Motion carrieds . In support of this decision the Board makes the following findings of fact: The renovation process will provide a fire suppression system which is not required by the Building Code. This feature will protect the occupants of the building in case of fire. The openings in the north wall will be protected by a• dedicated sprinkled head. Moreover, if a building is ultimately constructed on the north side of the building the openings will be blocked in or protected with fire windows. The opening in the exit enclosure on the first floor is not a concern since the basement and second floor is segregated by one-hour fire resistive construction. CASE AB-023-94 - 1316 DOWNEY Requesting relief from the requirements of Section 1460.20 of the Lansing Uniform Housing Code and Section 3306 of the Lansing Uniform Building Code. BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS AUGUST 9, 1994 PAGE 5 The building is currently vacant, but has recently been utilized as a rental. There are two bedrooms on the second floor. The ceiling height complies with the Board policy for the granting of an Administrative Modification which requires that smoke detection be installed in accordance with Section 1210 of the Building Code and the sleeping room(s) are provided with exits which comply with Section 1204 of the Code. In this case neither bedroom window complies with the minimum requirements for egress. Window type Sq.Ft. Openable Area Height Width East Bedroom: casement 5.3 20" 32" West Bedroom: double-hung 4.1 18.5" 27" In like manner, the stairway to the second floor does not comply with the rise and run requirements of the Building Code in that the rise of all of the steps except for the top is 7". The first riser is 411. Section 3306c states that the largest riser height within any flight of stairs shall not exceed the smallest by more than 3/8 inch. Mr. Lloyd Keeler addressed the Board and stated he purchased the house next to his residence since it was abandoned and vacant. The house was a mess and was fixed up. The house was constructed in the 50's. The windows are close to complying with current code requirements. It would be difficult to repair the stairway to code since it would entail major structural modification. Joe Wilcox stated that the petitioner may be able to add an additional surface on each step with varying degrees of thickness to rectify the situation. Mr. Nelson stated that the Department has no objection to the variance request for the windows but the stairway is a dangerous situation which should be rectified. It was moved by Joe Wilcox to grant the appeal request which addresses the egress window modification, and deny the relief on the request to authorize the use of the stairway. This motion is subject to the installation of a hard-wired, interconnected smoke detection system in accordance with Section 1210 of the Building Code for new buildings. The smoke detection shall be installed by a licensed electrical contractor. The stairway repair shall be completed prior to occupancy. The motion was seconded by Randall Kamm. Motion carried6. The conditions for the installation of the smoke detection system are as follows: Requirements for installation of smoke detectors. Power source. In-new construction, required smoke detectors shall receive their primary power from the building wiring when such wiring is served from a commercial source and shall be equipped with a battery backup. The detector shall emit a signal when the batteries are low. Wiring shall be permanent and without a disconnecting switch other than those required for overcurrent protection. Smoke detectors may be solely battery operated when installed in existing buildings; or in buildings without commercial power; or in buildings which undergo alterations, repairs or additions regulated by Subsection 2 of this section. Location within dwelling units. In dwelling units, a detector shall be installed in each sleeping room and at a point centrally located in the corridor or area giving access to each separate sleeping area. When the dwelling unit has more than one story and in dwellings with basements, a detector shall be installed on each story and in the basement. In dwelling units where a story or basement is split into two or more levels, the smoke BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS AUGUST 9, 1994 PAGE 6 detector shall be installed on the upper level, except that when the lower level contains a sleeping area, a detector shall be installed on each level. When sleeping rooms are on an upper level, the detector shall be placed at the ceiling of the upper level in close proximity to the stairway. In dwelling units where the ceiling height of a room open to the hallway serving the bedrooms exceeds that of the hallway by 24 inches or more, smoke detectors shall be installed in the hallway and in the adjacent room. Detectors shall sound an alarm audible in all sleeping areas of the dwelling unit in which they are located. In support of this decision the Board makes the following findings of fact: The window openings in question are adequate for Fire Department rescue operations. The installation of smoke detection, as required for new buildings will increase the safety of the building in question. The denial of the stairway variance requested is based upon the fact that inadequate stairways can be extremely dangerous. When the rise of a stairway is varied, it effects the rhythm of the user, and may cause a fall. Alternate means for repair are available which would not require major structural alterations. CASE AB-024-94 - 18122 MAPLEWOOD Requesting relief from the requirements of Section 1460.20 of the Lansing Uniform Housing Code which states: All egress or rescue windows from sleeping rooms shall have a minimum net clear opening of 5.7 square feet. The minimum net clear opening height dimension shall be twenty-four inches. The minimum net clear opening width dimension shall be twenty inches. Where windows are provided as a means of egress or rescue, they shall have a finished sill height of not more than forty-four inches above the floor. However, all operable existing egress or rescue windows having a minimum net clear dimension of twenty-two inches and a maximum sill height of forty-eight inches, may have their exiting use. (Ord. 736. Passed 12-8-86) . The Petitioner seeks authority to continue renting a duplex which has windows which do not comply with the egress requirements of the Housing Code. The window in question has a clear opening height of 25" and a clear opening width of 27". The net clear opening is 4.68 square feet. Mr. Kenneth Royston addressed the Board and stated that he purchased the 2 unit building in 1991. When it was purchased the owner gave Mr. Royston a copy of a compliance certificate from the Building Safety Office. The certificate represented that at the time of inspection the dwelling unit met the minimum requirements of the Housing Code. There was general discussion about the case. Joe Wilcox moved to grant the appeal subject to the installation of hard-wired, interconnected smoke detectors in this unit only. The detectors shall be installed in accordance with Section 1210 of the U.B.C. 1991 edition for new buildings. The detectors shall be installed within thirty (30) days from the date of this hearing by a licensed electrical contractor. Motion seconded by Randall Kamm. Motion carried'. The conditions for the installation of the smoke detector are as follows: Requirements for installation of smoke detectors. BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS AUGUST 9, 1994 PAGE 7 Power source. In new construction, required smoke detectors shall receive their primary power from the building wiring when such wiring is served from a commercial source and shall be equipped with a battery backup. The detector shall emit a signal when the batteries are low. Wiring shall be permanent and without a disconnecting switch other than those required for overcurrent protection. Smoke detectors may be solely battery operated when installed in existing buildings; or in buildings without commercial power; or in buildings which undergo alterations, repairs or additions regulated by Subsection 2 of this section. Location within dwelling units. In dwelling units, a detector shall be installed in each sleeping room and at a point centrally located in the corridor or area giving access to each separate sleeping area. When the dwelling unit has more than one story and in dwellings with basements, a detector shall be installed on each story and in the basement. In dwelling units where a story or basement is split into two or more levels, the smoke detector shall be installed on the upper level, except that when the lower level contains a sleeping area, a detector shall be installed on each level. When sleeping rooms are on an upper level, the detector shall be placed at the ceiling of the upper level in close proximity to the stairway. In dwelling units where the ceiling height of a room open to the hallway serving the bedrooms exceeds that of the hallway by 24 inches or more, smoke detectors shall be installed in the hallway and in the adjacent room. Detectors shall sound an alarm audible in all sleeping areas of the dwelling unit in which they are located. In support of this decision the Board makes the following findings of fact: The window in question is 3.96 sq. ft. in area, 5.0 is required by the Housing Code. The dimensions of the windows are sufficient in area as not to impede rescue since the unit is a multi- unit. Under fire conditions fire personnel can remove the mullion. The installation of the smoke detection system as required for new buildings will increase the fire safety of the unit. CASE AB-025-94 - 503 S. FRANCIS The petitioner .contacted the Department and requested that the case be tabled until the September meeting. Joe Wilcox moved to table Case AB-025-94 until the September meeting. Motion seconded by Randall Kamm. Motion carried". OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Nelson reviewed the proposed amendments adopting the 1994 U.B.C. Mr. Nelson requested Board members to review the proposal prior to the Departments request for approval. Being no other business before the Board a motion for adjournment was entertained. Randall Kamm moved to adjourn. Motion seconded by Joe Wilcox. Motion carried9. Re ectfully Su bmitted, J lson Secretary BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS AUGUST 9, 1994 PAGE 8 RECORD OF VOTES: #1 Record of Vote Yea Nay Richard Stuckman, Chair (absent) Richard Jones, Vice Chair X Joe Wilcox X Randall Kamm X #2 Record of Vote Yea Nay Richard Stuckman, Chair (absent) Richard Jones, Vice Chair X Joe Wilcox X Randall Kamm X #3 Record of Vote Yea Nay Richard Stuckman, Chair (absent) Richard Jones, Vice Chair X Joe Wilcox X Randall Kamm X #4 Record of Vote Yea Nay Richard Stuckman, Chair (absent) Richard Jones, Vice Chair X Joe Wilcox X Randall Kamm X #5 Record of Vote Yea Nay Richard Stuckman, Chair (absent) Richard Jones, Vice Chair X Joe Wilcox X Randall Kamm X BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS AUGUST 9, 1994 PAGE 9 #6 Record of Vote Yea Nay Richard Stuckman, Chair (absent) Richard Jones, Vice Chair X Joe Wilcox X Randall Kamm X a #7 Record of Vote Yea Nay Richard Stuckman, Chair (absent) Richard Jones, Vice Chair X Joe Wilcox X Randall Kamm X #S Record of Vote Yea j Nay Richard Stuckman, Chair (absent) Richard Jones, Vice Chair X Joe Wilcox X Randall Kamm X #9 Record of Vote Yea Nay Richard Stuckman, Chair (absent) Richard Jones, Vice Chair X Joe Wilcox X Randall Kamm X 07-26-94A03 : 59 RCVD OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS of the CITY OF LANSING BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS July 12, 1994 The July meeting of the City of Lansing Building Board of Appeals was called to order by Chairman Stuckman. The following members were in attendance: Richard Stuckman, Chair Richard Jones, Vice Chair Randall Kamm The following members were absent: Joe Wilcox Staff members present: James Ballard, Fire Marshall Christine Segerlind, Acting Secretary A motion was made by Richard Jones, with a second by Randall Kamm to approve the June 14 , 1994, minutes . Motion carried'. The following New Business was addressed. CASE AB-009-94 - 1526 LANSING Mr. Anthony Portee of House Renters was present. Mr. Stuckman read the case as listed on the Appeal Docket. The Petitioner is requesting relief from the requirements of Section 1460 . 20 of the Lansing Uniform Housing Code. The petitioner seeks authority to occupy the second floor of an existing rental dwelling which has a ceiling height less than authorized by the Housing Code. Second, the petitioner seeks relief from Section 1460 . 14E hallways of the Housing Code which if approved would authorize the use of an existing stairway which does not have adequate width and rise and run. CEILING HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS: 7 ' 4" - See 1460 . 20 Lansing Uniform Housing Code HALLWAY WIDTH: 36" - Section 1460 . 14E Lansing Uniform Housing Code BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS JULY 12 , 1994 PAGE 2 RISE AND RUN OF STAIRWAY: 8" max. rise/9" min. run - Section 3306 U.B.C. ACTUAL DIMENSIONS Ceiling Height - 7 ' 0" Hallway width - 32" Rise & run of stairway - 612 " rise/82" run Ceiling height meets Board policy which allows approval by Department subject to installation of a complying egress window and a hand wired smoke detector. A correction was then made to the actual dimensions . According to the Correction Letter sent by Delores Fuller the rise and run for the stairway should be 61" run/82" rise. Also the stairway width is 32" rather than the hallway width. Mr. Stuckman then asked Mr. Portee how much of an imposition it would be to move the stairway to the left so that it was where the bedroom door presently is and then widen the stairway. Mr. Portee said he didn't know. Mr. Stuckman asked if Mr. Portee would like this case tabled until the August meeting to allow him time to get complete information. Mr. Portee agreed. Richard Jones moved to table Case AB-009-94 until the August meeting and seconded by Randall Kamm. Motion carriedz. CASE AB-010-94 - 1414 N. CHESTNUT Mr. Anthony Portee of House Renters was present. Mr. Stuckman read the case as listed on the Appeal Docket. The Petitioner is requesting relief from the requirements of Section 1460 . 20 of the Lansing Uniform Housing Code . The petitioner seeks authority to occupy the second floor of an existing rental dwelling which has a ceiling height less than authorized by the Housing Code. Second, the petitioner seeks relief from Section 1460 . 14E hallways of the Housing Code which if approved would authorize the use of an existing stairway which does not have adequate width and rise and run. CEILING HEIGHT: 7 ' 4" - See 1460 . 20 Lansing Uniform Housing Code HALLWAY WIDTH: 36" - Section 1460 . 14E Lansing Uniform Housing Code ACTUAL DIMENSIONS : *Ceiling Height - 6 ' 9" Hallway width - 23" BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS JULY 12, 1994 PAGE 3 The ceiling height in this unit complies with the Boards policy for approval if smoke detection is installed in accordance with Section. 12010 of the Uniform Building Code, and the unit complies with Section 1204 of the Uniform Building Code for egress . Mr. Ballard stated that he didn't see a problem as long as at least 1 (one) window in each room had proper egress . With proper egress and smoke detection the safety factor would be provided for the hallway and stairs . Richard Jones moved to grant this appeal provided that each bedroom has 1 (one) window with proper egress according to Code and hardwired smoke detection that is interconnected with electrical wiring and all rooms (upstairs and down) . Motion seconded by Randall Kamm. Richard Jones amended his motion before it went to vote to add the following: hardwired smoke detection must also be interconnected with the basement. Amended motion seconded by Randall Kamm. Motion carried3. CASE AB-019-94 - 3128 VIKING Mr. Kerry Hagen failed to provide complete information for this appeal . No one was present for this appeal . Case will be tabled until the August meeting. CASE AB-020-94 - 1607 COLEMAN Mr. Ronald Heck was present for this case. Mr. Heck first stated that the case was being appeal by himself, rather than his son Randall Heck as listed on the Appeal Docket. Mr. Stuckman read the case as listed on the Appeal Docket: The Petitioner is requesting relief from the requirements of Section 1460 . 20 of the Lansing Uniform Housing Code. The Petitioner seeks authority to occupy the second floor of an existing rental dwelling. In like manner, the ceiling height in the bathroom located on the second floor is 6 ' 5" . The Housing Code requires a minimum ceiling height of 710" . In conclusion the second floor bedroom(s) do not comply with Section 1460 . 18 of the Building Code, which pertains to rescue windows . Mr. McCue has apprised the petitioner that the building would be approved if a hard wired ( 110V) smoke detector with a battery back up was installed on the ceiling in the bedroom and egress windows were installed in all bedrooms . BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS JULY 12 , 1994 PAGE 4 The petitioner has stated that the dwelling in question is old and has never been cited on prior inspections . Moreover, the size of the existing windows are very close to what is called for in the code, as a practical matter they could readily serve as egress . Mr. Heck stated that this house had been built in 1930 . At that time there was no building code and the bathroom was built on the back of the house. Mr. Heck stated that because of the way it is built (passed around pictures) it is impossible to raise the roof of the bathroom to the height required by code. Mr. Heck further stated that this house had been inspected numerous times before, yet never cited for the bathroom height or improper window sizes . It was agreed that it would be hard to raise the ceiling of the bathroom. Mr. Jones, after looking at the window sizes, commented that the windows are 83% of the required size. Richard Jones moved to grant the appeal for bathroom height and for egress windows providing hardwired smoke detection be installed throughout the entire dwelling. Motion seconded by Randall Kamm. Motion carried'. OTHER BUSINESS None. Randall Kamm moved to adjourn. Motion seconded by Richard Jones . Motion carrieds. Respectfully Submitted, Christine Segerlin( Acting Secretary cc: Delores Fuller, Code Compliance Officer James McCue, Code Compliance Officer BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 5 JULY 12, 1994 RECORD OF VOTES : #1 Record of Vote Yea Nay F=== [Randa ichard Stuckman, Chair X ichard Jones, Vice Chair X oe Wilcox (absent) ll Kamm X #2 Record of Vote Yea Nay Richard Stuckman, Chair X Richard Jones, Vice Chair X Joe Wilcox (absent) Randall Kamm X #3 Record of Vote Yea Nay Richard Stuckman, Chair X Richard Jones, Vice Chair X Joe Wilcox (absent) Randall Kamm X #4 Record of Vote Yea Nay Richard Stuckman, Chair X Richard Jones, Vice Chair X Joe Wilcox (absent) Randall Kamm X #5 Record of Vote Yea Nay Richard Stuckman, Chair X Richard Jones, Vice Chair X Joe Wilcox (absent) Randall Kamm X OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS of the CITY OF LANSING BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS Tuesday, June 14, 1994 The June meeting of the City of Lansing Building Board of Appeals was called to order by Vice Chairman Jones. The following members were in attendance: Richard Jones, Vice Chair Joe Wilcox Randall Kamm The following members were absent: Richard Stuckman, Chair The Board currently has one vacant position. Staff members present: James Ballard, Fire Marshall Jack A. Nelson, Secretary Ralph Goff, Chief Mechanical Inspector Gary Brydges, Chief Building Inspector A motion was made by Mr. Wilcox, with a second by Mr. Kamm to approve the May 10, 1994, minutes. Motion carried'. The following New Business was addressed. CASE AB-004-94 - 430 N. LARCH Mr. Nelson stated that .he had received a letter dated May 12, 1994, from Bob Smith requesting that the second floor variance for exiting be tabled indefinitely. The second floor will not be utilized until a fire-rated corridor is constructed through the dining area or the case is addressed by the Board. Mr. Wilcox moved to table variance indefinitely, seconded by Mr. Kamm. Motion Carriedz. CASE AB-009-94 - 1526 LANSING CASE AB-010-94 - 1414 CHESTNUT Mr. Nelson stated that Mr. Anthony Portee, representing House Renters of Lansing, contacted him by telephone and stated that he would try to get someone to represent him but that if he could not he would like his cases, AB-009-94, 1526 Lansing St. and AB-010- 94, 1414 Chestnut, postponed until the July 12, 1994, hearing. Mr. Wilcox moved to table AB-009-94 and AB-010-94 until the July 12, 1994 meeting, 3 seconded by Mr. Kamm. Motion carried . BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS JUNE 14, 1994 PAGE 2 CASE AB-014-94 - 910 WISCONSIN An application for appeal has been filed by Mr. Don Tomanica, 910 Wisconsin, Lansing, Michigan. The Petitioner seeks relief from Section 1460.20 of the Lansing Uniform Housing Code. Mr. Tomanica stated that the roof was put on the garage in 1986 and is in good condition. During a recent inspection he was informed wood over shingles and then new shingles was against code. Mr. Tomanica stated that the work was performed by a contractor while he was on vacation and when he returned and saw the work he thought it looked good and was unaware that it was not to code. To bring the garage to code would cost $850.00. Mr. Jones asked what the Housing Code said in regards to this. Mr. Nelson stated that the Housing Code does not address this situation. The Building Code, in an Appendix Chapter not adopted by the City, states that only 3 layers may be applied and then it must be stripped and re-done. Mr. Nelson stated that the dead load is what must be considered in this situation. With additional layers there is the possibly of the roof falling in. Mr. Tomanica said he did not know the spacing or the dead load. He also stated that the garage is used by tenants mainly for storage because of where it is located. Mr. Wilcox moved to grant appeal, seconded by Mr. Kamm. Motion carried°. In support of this decision the Board makes the following findings of fact: 1 . The Building Office was unable to cite a Code Section in either the Housing Code or the Building Code which would stipulate that the method of construction did not comply with Building Code requirements. 2. The building in question is an accessory building which is not occupied should a failure occur, loss would be limited to property. 3. The additional load on existing members over the short span does not appear to be excessive. CASE AB-015-94 - 1820 SUNSET An application for appeal has been filed by Mr. Phil Laven, Trumark, Inc. , Lansing, Michigan. The Petitioner seeks relief from Section 501(b) of the Lansing Uniform Building Code. The building has been classified as a Group B Division 4 occupancy of Type II construction. The building code does not limit the size of the building if the building is entirely surrounded and adjoined by public ways or yards not less than 60' in width. Mr. Nelson stated that the building as classified did not meet with the Building Code and therefore the Building Permit was denied. Mr. Nelson also stated that the building is un- sprinkled. Mr. Laven stated that Trumark is a sheet metal process stamping and assembly operation. There is 60 feet around entire exterior of the building except the garage which is 32 feet and a 16 foot gate. There is an easement on the south side of the plant, this again adds 32 BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS JUNE 14, 1994 PAGE 3 feet between garage and fence. There is no restriction from either direction north or south to circle all buildings. Garage was built in approximately 1954. Garage is a critical part of Trumark's production facility and houses toolroom equipment such as saws, lathes, grinders, milling machines, non productive welding and hilo repair. Mr. Nelson said that the concern was for the Fire Department to be able to access all areas of the building in case of a fire. Mr. Nelson felt that this would be possible. Mr. Ballard stated that he also felt the Fire Department would have adequate access but that there were some problems with exiting and lighting that the Fire Department would like to see resolved. Mr. Nelson stated that the exiting and lighting problems should be tied in with the appeal in order to guarantee enforcement. Mr. Kamm moved to grant appeal provided proper exiting and lighting is also provided, seconded by Mr. Wilcox. Motion Carried5. In support of this decision the Board makes the following findings of fact: The purpose and intent of Section 506 of the Building Code is not to limit Group B Division 4 occupancies of Type 2 or 3 construction when entirely surrounded by public ways or yards not less than 60' in width. The rational it would seem is to allow Fire Department access around the facility and to provide room for staging in case of fire. In like manner a 60' yard would limit the spread of fire to adjoining lots. In this case the entire perimeter is open to yards or public ways in excess of 60' except for one 60' section, where the yard is reduced to 32'. This factor in itself would not appear to adversely affect the fire safety of this or other buildings. This variance is conditioned upon the applicant complying with previous violations pertaining to exit illumination and signage. CASE AB-016-94 - 4722 N. GRAND RIVER An application for appeal has been filed by Mr. Bob Smith, Freeman, Smith & Associates, Lansing, Michigan. The Petitioner seeks relief from Section 506(c) of the Lansing Uniform Building Code as it pertains to the construction of an addition to a building which currently exceeds the area limitations for a Group B Division 2 and a Group H Division 2 occupancy. Mr. Smith showed plans for construction. Mr. Smith stated that both the existing building and addition will have an automatic fire suppression system. The flammable liquid storage room will be isolated by a 2-Hour separation and built with necessary explosion relief. Mr. Smith proposes providing three additional man doors on the east side of the addition in order to cut the travel distance to exits. Mr. Smith stated they are also remodeling offices and putting exits in rear and front. Mr. Smith stated they are requesting to design and construct a 13,480 sq. ft. addition to an existing Automotive Parts Distribution Center. Addition will contain shelf and pallet racks for auto parts and returned goods, a flammable liquid storage room, a shipping area tied to a conveyor system, and six new truck dock bays. Propose a B-2 Occupancy and a Type II-N construction with sprinklers to match the existing building construction. Openings between new and existing construction will be maintained due to the conveyor BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS JUNE 14, 1994 PAGE 4 system. The flammables room will be designed and constructed to an H-3 Occupancy with a 2-Hour separation, a depressed floor and an automatic sprinkler system. No modifications are anticipated to the existing building. Mr. Nelson stated that currently their flammables are spread throughout the building, this proposal would create a flammables room and put them all together in a separate area. Mr. Nelson also stated that the new warehouse will be upgraded from Type II to Type I and the flammables area will be Type I. Mr. Kamm moved to grant appeal, seconded by Mr. Wilcox. Motion Carried6. In support of this decision the Board makes the following findings of fact: In lieu of strict compliance with Chapter 5 of the Building Code the petitioner submitted a proposal which the board feels will equate to the purpose and intent of the Code. Fire walls will be installed to segregate the building into 4 areas. The construction type of the area of the new building will exceed that necessary for the use group, additional exits will be installed in the office area, an occupancy separation wall will be installed between the warehouse and the office. The entire building will be fire suppressed and all flammable liquids will be stored in a flammable liquid storage room, in compliance with the Fire Code. CASE AB-017-94 - 1215 E. MICHIGAN An application for appeal has been filed by Mr. Robert Smith, Hobbs & Black, Lansing, Michigan. The Petitioner seeks relief from the requirements of Section 2002(d) of the Lansing Uniform Mechanical Code as it pertains to the installation of a duct system in the kitchen of Sparrow Hospital. Mr. Joe Miller, representing Hobbs & Black, stated that they are currently doing a total renovation, in Phases, of the kitchens at Sparrow Hospital. Phase I has been completed. Mr. Robert Smith stated that the plan review letter of February stated that the Mechanical section was still under review, had not been approved and needed to be approved by Ingham County Health Department. No comments were attached to the mechanical permit which was later issued so they had no way of knowing that they could not continue with the plans they had submitted. Mr. Smith stated that had they been aware they could have made sure the duct was in compliance. At this point the duct is in place and there is no room to wrap it. To take all of the duct work out and wrap it would take them back to square one and leave Sparrow with no kitchens to use at all in addition to the added cost. Currently only one duct is in place that is not wrapped and two ducts are in place that have been wrapped, they found out in time to bring them to compliance. The duct work is protected once it leaves the kitchen area until it reaches the roof. The hoods are self- cleaning with a timed wash down that occurs daily. There is an automatic fire suppression system under the hood and within each duct as it leaves the hood. The duct work is welded stainless steel with access panels for cleaning as required by Code. The hood and duct work meets state requirements and has been approved by the State Fire Marshall. Mr. Ralph Goff, Chief Mechanical Inspector, stated that washing the hoods does not prevent grease build up or provide cleaning in the duct. He is concerned that if the ducts are not cleaned properly and regularly a fire could be caused by the build up. Mr. Goff BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS JUNE 14, 1994 PAGE 5 submitted pictures taken at B.O.C. of their ducts. (Pictures were submitted only to show what could happen if not cleaned. ) A long discussion followed. Mr. Ballard believes that every other floor of the Hospital has fire suppression. He feels that there will be minimal, if any, hazard. Mr. Wilcox moved to grant appeal with the provision that Sparrow show the ducts have been cleaned twice a year (as required by Health Department) and that the ducts be inspected quarterly, seconded by Mr. Kamm. Motion carried'. In support of this decision the Board makes the following findings of act: In the opinion of the Board the hazard in not protecting the duct is limited. Should a fire occur in the duct and effect its integrity the following conditions will limit the extent of conflagration: 1 . The entire building is fire suppressed. 2. The duct enters a fire rated shaft. 3. The kitchen is separated from the remainder of the building by a 1-hour occupancy separation wall. 4. The construction type of the building is I F.R. 5. The duct system is a state of the art self-cleaning devise when properly maintained will reduce the likelihood of fire. CASE AB-018-94 - 308 FERGUSON An application for appeal has been filed by Ms. Alison Horton, 308 Ferguson, Lansing, Michigan. The Petitioner seeks relief from the requirements of Section 909(g) of the Lansing Uniform Plumbing Code. The Petitioner is seeking authorization to install a historically appropriate tub and shower faucet and valve set as part of a bathroom renovation. The tub and shower set includes 3 handles for hot, cold and diverter valves as well as a shower head with flow control and wall mounted tub spout. The historic reproductions are not pressure balanced which could cause scalding when an additional fixture is placed in operation. Ms. Horton stated that the house was recently purchased and they are doing bathroom renovations before moving in. The house was built in 1916. They are working to renovate in a historically appropriate style consistent with its outstanding woodwork and other features. On this one faucet and valve set Ms. Smith is seeking a variance from the pressure balance valve requirement because it is the only way to make use of the traditional handle design. Ms. Horton passed around an-item she had purchased and brought to the attention of Joe Delaney, Chief Plumbing Inspector. Mr. Nelson stated that he had also talked to Mr. Delaney and that Mr. Delaney felt that the item would give the same results as the pressure valve system. At 1141 it automatically shuts off the water, thereby preventing scalding which is that same as the pressure valve system. Mr. Kamm moved to grant appeal, seconded by Mr. Wilcox. Motion Carried". BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS JUNE 14, 1994 PAGE 6 OTHER BUSINESS None Mr. Wilcox moved to adjourn, seconded by Mr. Kamm. Motion Carried9. Respectfully Submitted, r� a k Nelson e retary BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS JUNE 14, 1994 PAGE 7 RECORD OF VOTES: #1 Record of Vote Yea Nay Richard Stuckman, Chair (absent) Richard Jones, Vice Chair X Joe Wilcox X Randall Kamm X #2 Record of Vote Yea Nay Richard Stuckman, Chair (absent) Richard Jones, Vice Chair X Joe Wilcox X Randall Kamm X #3 Record of Vote Yea Nay Richard Stuckman, Chair (absent) Richard Jones, Vice Chair X Joe Wilcox X Randall Kamm X #4 Record of Vote Yea Nay Richard Stuckman, Chair (absent) Richard Jones, Vice Chair X Joe Wilcox X Randall Kamm X #5 Record of Vote Yea Nay Richard Stuckman, Chair (absent) Richard Jones, Vice Chair X Joe Wilcox X Randall Kamm X BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS JUNE 14, 1994 PAGE 8 #6 Record of Vote Yea Nay Richard Stuckman, Chair (absent) Richard Jones, Vice chair x Joe Wilcox x Randall Kamm X #7 Record of Vote Yea Nay Richard Stuckman, Chair (absent) Richard Jones, Vice Chair x Joe Wilcox X Randall Kamm % #8 Record of Vote Yea Nay Richard Stuckman, Chair (absent) Richard Jones, Vice Chair x Joe Wilcox % Randall Kamm X #9 Record of Vote Yea Nay Richard Stuckman, Chair (absent) Richard Jones, Vice Chair X Joe Wilcox X Randall Kamm x OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS CITY CLERK of the CITY OF LANSING BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS Tuesday, May 10, 1994 The May meeting of the City of Lansing Building Board of Appeals was called to order at 2:05 by Chairman Stuckman. The following members were in attendance: Richard Stuckman, Chair Richard Jones, Vice Chair Joe Wilcox The following members were absent: Randall Kamm The Board currently has one vacant position. Staff members present: James Ballard, Fire Marshall Jack A. Nelson, Secretary James McCue, Code Compliance Office Ralph Goff, Chief Mechanical Inspector A motion was made by Mr. Jones, with a second by Mr. Wilcox to approve the April 12, 1994, minutes. Motion carried'. The following New Business was addressed. Mr. Nelson stated that Mr. Anthony Portee, representing House Renters of Lansing, contacted him by telephone and requested that action on his cases, AB-009-94 1526, Lansing St. and AB-010-94, 1414 Chestnut, be postponed until the June 14, 1994, hearing. Mr. Jones moved to table AB-009-94 and AB-010-94 until the June 14, 1994 meeting, seconded by Mr. Wilcox. Motion carried2. CASE AB-011-94 - 1216 W. MT. HOPE AVE. An application for appeal has been filed by Mr. Alexander Bolt, 1230 Reo Road, Lansing, Michigan. The Petitioner seeks relief from Section 1460.13 and/or 1460.14 of the Lansing Uniform Housing Code. The Petitioner seeks continued occupancy of the second floor of a rental dwelling which has a hallway height less than authorized by the Housing and Building Code. Section 1460.13 of the Housing Code states that hallways and corridors shall a ceiling height of not less than 7 feet measured to the lowest projection of the ceiling. In this case the ceiling height in the hallway leading to the bedroom on the second floor is 6'4" in height. BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS MAY 10, 1994 PAGE 2 Mr. Alexander Bolt, presented the case to the Board. Mr. Bolt distributed pictures of the room in question and stated that the ceiling height in the bedroom complies with Building Code requirements but the short hallway which leads to the bedroom is 614". Chairman Stuckman asked if the ceiling of the hall was the roof deck. Mr. Bolt stated that it was, consequently, major structural modifications would have to be made to correct the situation. The ceiling in the bedroom was higher since the bedroom has a dormer roof. Mr. Stuckman asked James McCue, Code Compliance Officer, if there were any other violations in the structure. Mr. McCue stated that there were minor Plumbing Code violations which have been rectified. Joe Wilcox moved to grant the appeal subject to the installation of a hardwired smoke detection system. A smoke detector shall be located in the basement, first floor hallway and the second floor bedroom. All detectors shall be interconnected. Motion supported by Dick Jones. Motion carried3. In support of this decision the Board makes the following findings of fact: The ceiling height of the hallway will not impede fire fighter access or exiting from the bedroom since the width is adequate and the ceiling height is sufficient to afford reasonable access. In like manner, the bedroom window is sufficient size for Fire Department access. Second, the condition is pre-existing. Failure to allow continued use will adversely affect the economic value of the rental since the unit would be reduced to a 2 bedroom unit. CASE AB-012-94 - 333 EAST MICHIGAN AVENUE An application for appeal has been filed by Mr. Robert Smith, Architect of Hobbs and Black Associates, Inc. The Petitioner seeks relief from the following provisions of the Uniform Building and Mechanical Codes. Requesting relief from Chapter 20 of the Uniform Mechanical Code as amended, which requires shaft protection from grease ducts. The Petitioner purports that the hood in question is mainly for steam kettles and ovens. The hood is a water wash, high efficiency hood and the chance of grease accumulation is extremely small. Requesting relief from Section 3305(2) of the Lansing Uniform Building Code as amended. Petitioner has installed glazing in a corridor which is required to have a 1 hour fire resistance rating. The glazing exceeds that allowed by the Building Code. The petitioner is requesting that fire suppression be provided on each side of the glazing to stabilize the system under fire conditions. Requesting relief from Section 3305(h) Doors, of the Lansing Uniform Building Code as amended. Petitioner is requesting authorization to delete the fire rating of a vertical lift door which leads from the exhibition hall to an exit corridor. The door is an oversize door and can not obtain certification. Chairman Stuckman stated that each variance would be addressed separately. Chairman Stuckman requested Mr. Smith to present his case. BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS MAY 10, 1994 PAGE 3 Variance #1 Mr. Smith stated that two exhaust hoods are being installed in the kitchen in the Lansing Center. One of the Hood Systems is currently protected with a duct wrap with a 2-hour fire-resistance rating. The grease producing appliances are located beneath this system. The second hood system is of unprotected construction. The appliances under the hood consist of steam producing appliances except for a brazing pan which could produce grease laden vapors. The Hood System is a water wash high efficiency hood, consequently the build up of grease is extremely small. If adequately maintained the system is very safe. Also, the building is completely sprinklered and is of Type 1 construction. Mr. Wilcox asked how many operators or kitchen staffs would use the facility. Mr. Smith stated that there would be one kitchen operator. Chairman Stuckman stated that the hazard inherent in the system is predicated upon proper maintenance and operation of the self cleaning mechanism. If there was one kitchen operator a policy could be developed to ensure the system would be used properly. Chairman Stuckman posed the question as to how the procedure could be regulated. Jim Ballard, Fire Marshall, stated that they perform yearly inspections. Ralph Goff stated that the Health Department performs bi-yearly inspections. Bob Smith stated that a procedure for cleaning the hood could be incorporated into the operators contract. Ralph Goff, Chief Mechanical Inspector, stated that when a chef is hired the entire kitchen layout could be altered. Bob Smith stated that all equipment is hard wired and piped. Alterations would require the applicable permits. Dick Jones moved to grant variance #1 which will delete the necessity to protect the hood system in question in the main kitchen of the Lansing Center subject to the following conditions: 1. It shall be the operators responsibility to ensure that the hood system is operated and cleaned by manufactures specifications. A procedure shall be established by the operator that the system is properly operated and maintained. 2. Mr. Bob Smith shall be responsible for contacting the Lansing Center and the operator of this condition. Motion seconded by Joe Wilcox. Motion Carried4. Variance #2 Mr. Smith explained that a door and glazing was installed in the corridor which separated the corridor from the concession area. Upon inspection it was noted that the .3/4 hour assembly had glazing in excess of the 25% limitation of the Code. Fire suppression will be installed on each side of the door to cool the glazing in case of a fire. It is felt that this method will equate to strict code compliance. BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS MAY 10, 1994 PAGE 4 Dick Jones moved to grant the appeal subject to compliance with the proposal. Motion seconded by Joe Wilcox. Motion Carried5. Variance #3 Bob Smith presented the case and stated that several large vertical lift doors were installed between the Exhibit Hall and an exit corridor. The subject corridor is also utilized for accommodating large exhibitors as a means for unloading exhibit material. The vertical doors when closed contain several "B" labeled passage doors for exiting from the Exhibit Hall. The vertical lift door however, is oversized and consequently not labeled. Section 3305 of the Building Code requires that the corridor doors have a fire resistance rating of 20 minutes. Chairman Stuckman stated that the corridor in question be considered as part of the room when the vertical lift doors are in the open position. Mr. Nelson stated that the area could be considered a room only if it were 30' in width. (3305(g) Exception 2) Jim Ballard stated that the lineal footage of exiting is dramatically increased when the doors are in the open position. Joe Wilcox moved to grant the variance. Motion seconded by Dick Jones. Motion Carried6. In support of this decision the Board makes the following findings of facts: 1. The proposed duct system is served mainly by steam kettles and ovens consequently the possibility of grease producing vapors is negligible. The hood is equipped with a water wash system which will provide a mechanism to remove grease in the system. 2. The glazing in the wall will be cooled by the fire suppression system, this coupled with the fact that the frame and glass is a 45 minute assembly will equate to the purpose and intent of the Building Code. 3. The oversize doors in question are of a size which will not permit testing. The design and composition would equate to the minimum degree of fire safety of a 20 minute door. CASE AB-013-94 - 133 CLIFFORD STREET An application for appeal has been filed by Mr. Mark Sager, 2117 E. Grand River Avenue, Lansing, Michigan. The Petitioner seeks relief from Section 1460.20 of the Lansing Uniform Housing Code. The Petitioner seeks relief from requirements which require that the minimum ceiling height in habitable rooms be 7'4" . The ceiling height in the second floor bedroom of this rental is 6'5" measured at the 3'6" width. BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS MAY 10, 1994 PAGE 5 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 set clear opening height of 22 inches, and a maximum sill height of 48 inches. There are numerous dwelling throughout the City with rooms as well as entire floors being used as habitable space which do not comply with these 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 helping to ensure that safe housing is being provided to residents of the City. This policy is, therefore, being implemented with the purpose of balancing the City's need for affordable housing with the requirement to comply with Codes adopted by ordinance. The policy is divided into three stages. The procedure is dependent upon the degree of compliance. A. Inspector Approval 1 . Code Compliance Officer's are authorized to grant exceptions in the field as they pertain to ceiling heights when the following standards can be achieved. a. Minimum ceiling height shall be 6'8" and the ceiling must be at least 316" in width at that height across the length of the room. b. 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. C. 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. B . The Building Official may issue an Administrative Modification when statements b & c are met and when the room achieves 83 0 of the required area. In this case the room does not comply with statement a, consequently relief can only be granted by the Board. Mark Sager present his case and stated that the house is a 2 bedroom which is very small. The first level is 700 square feet. The second floor is approximately 300 square feet. It is not economically feasible to own a rental unit if it can only classified as a two bedroom unit. The Board discussed structural concerns relating the installation of an egress window. BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS MAY 10, 1994 PAGE 6 Dick Jones moved to grant the appeal subject to the installation of an egress window which complies with Section 1204 of the Building Code. Second a hardwired smoke detector shall be installed in the basement, in the corridor leading to the bedroom on the first floor and in the second floor bedroom. All detectors shall be interconnected. Motion seconded by Joe Wilcox. Motion carried'. In support of this decision the Board makes the following findings of fact: The room is of sufficient area to dissipate smoke due to its volume. This coupled with the fact that smoke detectors will be installed in the bedroom will protect the safety of the occupants. OLD BUSINESS At the April 12, 1994, meeting the Board discussed a previous action dated March 11, 1986. At that time the Board approved an one-hour floor ceiling assembly for the bottom cord of a pitched roof truss. Chairman Stuckman consulted with Mr. Phil Baker of U.S. Gypsum Company concerning the use of proper connectors. It was recommended that the current Policy be modified to read as follows: Insulated Bottom Cord Area: One Hour Fire Resistive Ceiling (with insulation) Assembly: Base Layer Application. 5/8" high performance gypsum will board (U.S. Gypsum type "c") applied at right angles to the lower cord of a pitched roof truss. Using 8 penny nails or 1 5/8" screws 7" o.c. Resilient Furring Channel or Hat Track Installation. Install channel 24" o.c. at right angles to joists with 8 penny nails or 1-5/8 inch drywall screws. Install one nail or screw per joist. Face Layer Application. Face layer consists of 5/8" high performance gypsum drywall applied at right angles to channel or hat track with 1 inch type "S" drywall screws spaced 7" o.c. Un-insulated Bottom Cord Area: One Hour Fire Resistive Ceiling Assembly (no insulation) . The one hour fire resistive ceiling assembly consists of one layer of 5/8" high performance gypsum drywall applied to resilient furring channel or hat track. Using the attachment patterns as delineated under the above referenced ceiling assembly. BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS MAY 10, 1994 PAGE 7 In compliance with Section 204 of the Uniform Building Code, 1991 Edition, a unanimous vote of the Building Board of Appeals members to allow the above described methods of construction and/or alternate materials was obtained. A motion was made by Joe Wilcox and seconded by Richard Jones to adjourn the meeting. Motion Carried8. Meeting adjourned at 3:40 p.m. Respectfully Submi ted, rac . n I BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS MAY 10, 1994 PAGE 8 RECORD OF VOTES: #1 Record of Vote Yea Nay Richard Stuckman, Chair X Richard Jones, Vice Chair X Joe Wilcox X Randall Kamm (absent) #2 Record of Vote Yea Nay Richard Stuckman, Chair X Richard Jones, Vice Chair X Joe Wilcox X Randall Kamm (absent) #3 Record of Vote Yea Nay Richard Stuckman, Chair X Richard Jones, Vice Chair X Joe Wilcox X Randall Kamm (absent) #4 Record of Vote Yea Nay Richard Stuckman, Chair X Richard Jones, Vice Chair X Joe Wilcox X Randall Kamm (absent) BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS MAY 103 1994 PAGE 9 #5 F_ Record of Vote Yea Nay Richard Stuckman, Chair X Richard Jones, Vice Chair X Joe Wilcox X Randall Kamm (absent) #6 Record of Vote Yea Nay Richard Stuckman, Chair X Richard Jones, Vice Chair X Joe Wilcox X Randall Kamm (absent) #7 Record of Vote Yea Nay Richard Stuckman, chair X Richard Jones, Vice Chair X Joe Wilcox X Randall Kamm (absent) #8 Record of Vote Yea Nay Richard Stuckman, Chair X Richard Jones, Vice Chair X Joe Wilcox X Randall Kamm (absent) 05-0 4 'A08 : 35 CITY OF LANSING BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS 119 N. WASHINGTON SQUARE, LOWER LEVEL LANSING, MICHIGAN 48933 APPEAL DOCKET NO. AB-009-94 PETITIONER, Mr. Anthony Porter House Renters of Lansing vs RESPONDENT, City of Lansing Building Safety Office Jack A. Nelson, Building Officer Delores Fuller, Code Compliance Officer Pursuant to the authority in Section 14 of Act 230 of 1972 , as amended, Section 204 of the Lansing Uniform Building Code as amended, and Section 1460 . 08 of the Lansing Uniform Housing Code, as amended, a hearing will be held in response the request of Mr. Anthony Porter to appeal a decision of the Code Compliance Officer. Date: Tuesday, May 10, 1994 Time: 2 :00 p.m. Place: 119 N. Washington Square, Lansing, Michigan 2nd Floor Conference Room Issue of Appeal : Requesting relief from the requirements of Section 1460 .20 of the Lansing Uniform Housing Code. The petitioner seeks authority to occupy the second floor of an existing rental dwelling which has a ceiling height less than authorized by the Housing Code . Second, the petitioner seeks relief from Section 1460 . 14E hallways of the Housing Code which if approved would authorize the use of an existing stairway which does not have adequate width and rise and run. The residence in question is located at 1526 Lansing St. TECHNICAL CODE REQUIREMENTS : CEILING HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS : 7 ' 4" - See 1460 .20 Lansing Uniform Housing Code HALLWAY WIDTH: 36" - Section 1460 . 14E Lansing Uniform Housing Code Page 2 Mr. Anthony Porter AB-09-94 : 1526 Lansing St. Building Board of Appeals RISE AND RUN OF STAIRWAY: 8" max. rise/9" min. run - Section 3306 U.B.C. ACTUAL DIMENSIONS Ceiling Height - 7 ' 0" Hallway width - 32" Rise & run of stairway - 6Z" run/82" run Ceiling height meets Board policy which allows approval by Department subject to installation of a complying egress window and a hand wired smoke detector. The parties shall be given an opportunity to present oral and written arguments on issues of law and policy and an opportunity to present evidence and arguments on issues of fact. A CONTINUANCE IS GRANTED ONLY UPON A SHOWING OF GOOD CAUSE. Dated: /��/�,} , By: J A. Nelson, Secretary C t of Lansing, Building Board of ppeals Filed `I� ' Appeal eal No. � '✓ �v� -/ �� ,Hearing Date fflO U-311-744 1�4:441pR1A of �l105oo7 BD OFCHlpt L City of Lansing BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS Lower Level, Washington Square Annex 119 North Washington Square Lansing, Michigan 48933 Telephone: (517) 483-4355 (Please type or print clearly) The Building Board of Appeals meets the second Tuesday of each month at 2:00 p.m. in the Conference Room of the Building Safety Division.Appeals,accompanied by a non-refundable fee of$50.00,must be on file with the Building Safety Division 20 days before the meeting date. Make checks payable to the City of Lansing. Address of Property for Appeal_ __— _ 15 Z6 LAtJS f N 6 Owner's Name 000SC— R_,_�S � ERS 01P Applicant's Name_ Ong POR- Telephone 37� -28�p p�C� Pp �� - ----- Telephone 34�-�f9�or a�� Applicant's Address�• O• Z?4�q L�st1Vl� &AI 4gq peg �qD�e (Attach additional sheets, if necessary) Request is hereby made to G�A o&) (AP S771�R- � u T This is contrary to Section f`��a• ZQ of the Lansing Uniform Building Code. Arguments in support of this appeal: YUA--F AAlb //U 7N15 Coit_/D(-1,7pn). Signed 0_0__q/C?C/ Date ACTION TAKEN BY THE BOARD BUILDING AND CODE COMP: NCE OFFICE Department of Planning and Neighborhood Development Lower Level, Washington Square Annex 119 North Washington Square Lansing, MI 48933 * 'f (517)483-4355 �►�Cu�6P�I► March 11, 1994 House Renters DBA/Jay Vincent 3510 Inverary Lansing MI 48911 Dear Jay Vincent: RE: 1526 Lansing 3301-08-228-111-4 On March 7, 1994, a certification inspection of the structure located at the above referenced address was made. This inspection revealed certain violations of the Lansing Uniform Housing Code, Chapter 1460 of the Code of Ordinances, which constitute threats to the life, health, and/or safety of persons living in or visiting the structure. Please correct the following identified violations: BASEMENT Section 1460.20(a) (5) Hazardous Plumbing 1. No stand pipe for washing machine, install to code. 2. Open waste line by dryer, repair. 3. Water heater vent pipe stained & corroded. Water heater must by tested for proper venting & Proper operation by a licensed plumbing contractor & repaired. Provide verification to this office. 4. Clean out cover at main waste line doesn't fit tight, repair. All plumbing repairs are to be done to code by a licensed plumbing contractor with a permit from this office. Section 1460.20(a) (4) Hazardous Electrical Wiring 1. Missing junction box cover in ceiling over dryer outlet, replace. 2. Missing junction box cover near water heater, replace. Section 1460.20(a) (6) Hazardous Mechanical Equipment 1. Unsupported gas line at incoming point, install additional support straps. 2. Dryer gas line shut off valve 20' from dryer, install gas line shut off valve within 3' of dryer. All mechanical repairs are to be done to code by a licensed mechanical contractor with a permit from this office. House Renters DBA/Jay Vincent 1526 Lansing Page 2 March 11, 1994 Section 1460.20(a) (7) Faulty Weather Protection 1. Broken window pane near dryer, replace. Section 1460.20(a) (2) Structural Hazards 1. Broken off & split tread on stairs, replace. 2. Inadequate hand rail, replace. FIRST FLOOR Section 1460.20(a) (7) Faulty Weather Protection 1. Broken kitchen window pane, replace. 2. Broken front bedroom window pane, replace. 3. Broken dining room window pane, replace. Section 1460.20(a) (5) Hazardous Plumbing 1. Tilting wall mounted bathroom sink, repair. 2. Loose toilet, secure to floor. Section 1460.20(a) (1) Inadequate Sanitation 1. Broken medicine cabinet mirror, replace or remove. 2. Hole in bathroom wall at switch, repair. Section 1460.20(a) (2) Structural Hazards 1. Rotted, soft floor under toilet, repair. Section 1460.20(a) (4) Hazardous Electrical Wiring 1. Bathroom GFCI outlet doesn't trip, repair. 2. Missing front bedroom outlet cover plate. SECOND FLOOR Section 1460.20(a) (2) Structural Hazards 1. Holes in walls & ceilings, repair. 2. Unfinished doors to bedrooms, no casing, no doors, repair. 3. Stairwell guard rail 27 1/2" high, install to code (36" high) . 4. Stairs 32" wide with a run of 6 1/2" & a rise of 8 1/211. 5. ceiling height is 71 . 2nd floor is not habitable area, you may request a variance from the Building Board of Appeals. Section 1460.20(a) (4) Hazardous Electrical Wiring 1. Missing switch cover plate, replace. House Renters DBA/Jay Vincent 1526 Lansing Page 3 March 11, 1994 EXTERIOR Section 1460.20(a) (4) Hazardous Electrical Wiring 1. Sinking front porch, SW corner worst, install footing. 2. No hand rail for steps to front porch, install. 3. Sinking back porch, repair. 4. Rotted roof on back porch, repair. 5. Back steps hand rail too low & loose, install to code. 6. Crumbling chimney, repair. A building permit is required. Section 1460.20(a) (7) Faulty Weather Protection 1. Worn & peeling paint, repair. 2. Missing siding, replace. All repairs are to be done in a workmanlike manner with approved materials by April 11, 1994. Please contact me prior to that date to set up an appointment to meet and recheck the structure on the identified date. This dwelling has been declared to be a SUBSTANDARD BUILDING as defined in Section 1460.20 of the Lansing Uniform Housing Code. Should this dwelling become vacant before all repairs are completed, said dwelling shall remain vacant until all repairs have been completed and results thereof approved by this division. FAILURE TO COMPLY WITHIN THE ALLOTTED TIME SHALL LEAVE THIS OFFICE NO ALTERNATIVE BUT TO SUBMIT THIS MATTER TO THE CITY ATTORNEY WITH A REQUEST TO TARE WHATEVER LEGAL ACTION NECESSARY TO SECURE COMPLIANCE. This inspection does not guarantee discovery or reporting of all code violations or property defects, manifest or latent, that exist at the property inspected. The City of Lansing, its officers and employees, shall not be liable for any injury or damage, including incidental or consequential damages, claimed to be a result of any failure to discover or report code violations or property defects. If you have any questions regarding this matter, you may contact me at this office Monday through Friday between the hours of 8:00 and 9:00 a.m. or 1:00 and 2:00 p.m. Sincerely, Delores Fuller Code Compliance Officer jr 05-04-94A0 : 35 RCVD CITY OF LANSING BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS 119 N. WASHINGTON SQUARE, LOWER LEVEL LANSING, MICHIGAN 48933 APPEAL DOCKET NO. AB-010-94 PETITIONER, Mr. Anthony Porter House Renters of Lansing vs RESPONDENT, City of Lansing Building Safety Office Jack A. Nelson, Building Officer Delores Fuller, Code Compliance Officer Pursuant to the authority in Section 14 of Act 230 of 1972 , as amended, Section 204 of the Lansing Uniform Building Code as amended, and Section 1460 . 08 of the Lansing Uniform Housing Code, as amended, a hearing will be held in response the request of Mr. Anthony Porter to appeal a decision of the Code Compliance Officer. Date : Tuesday, May 10, 1994 Time: 2 : 00 p.m. Place: 119 N. Washington Square, Lansing, Michigan 2nd Floor Conference Room Issue of Appeal : Requesting relief from the requirements of Section 1460 .20 of the Lansing Uniform Housing Code. The petitioner seeks authority to occupy the second floor of an existing rental dwelling which has a ceiling height less than authorized by the Housing Code. Second, the petitioner seeks relief from Section 1460 . 14E hallways of the Housing Code which if approved would authorize the use of an existing stairway which does not have adequate width and rise and run. The residence in question is located at 1414 Chestnut St. TECHNICAL CODE REQUIREMENTS: CEILING HEIGHT: 7 ' 4" See 1460 . 20 Lansing Uniform Housing Code HALLWAY WIDTH: 36" - Section 1460 . 14E Lansing Uniform Housing Code Page 2 Mr. Anthony Porter AB-010-94 : 1414 Chestnut St. Building Board of Appeals ACTUAL DIMENSIONS *Ceiling Height - 6 ' 9" Hallway width - 23" The ceiling height in this unit complies with the Boards policy for approval if smoke detection is installed in accordance with Section 12010 of the Uniform Building Code, and the unit complies with Section 1204 of the Uniform Building Code for egress . The parties shall be given an opportunity to present oral and written arguments on issues of law and policy and an opportunity to present evidence and arguments on issues of fact. A CONTINUANCE IS GRANTED ONLY UPON A SHOWING OF GOOD CAUSE. Dated: 177 By: Ja k A: a ori,' Secretary 0 Ci y f Lansing, Building Board of A peals Filed W` Appeal No. D l Hearing Date CF10 T c:iR7 HI $1.00 a 00 CHK i 3 M0101 City of Lansing CGf:CC BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS Lower Level, Washington Square Annex 119 North Washington Square Lansing, Michigan 48933 Telephone: (517) 483-4355 (Please type or print clearly) The Building Board of Appeals meets the second Tuesday of each month at 2:00 p.m. in the Conference Room of the Building Safety Division.Appeals,accompanied by a non-refundable fee of$50.00,must be on file with the Building Safety Division 20 days before the meeting date. Make checks payable to the City of Lansing. Address of Property for Appeal__� 1�4 Owner's Name �11�1)S "_� � _���JSIt�� Telephone _ 374-Z9gQ OFy1c6 Applicant's Name_AA T_b!�� _ Telephone 313-q97Q*k4 Applicant's Address 7`FS�_ LA�tJSinJG itll. qRgo9 (Attach additional sheets, if necessary) Request is hereby made to 4 VA(LA AticE 00 A yyA AR. WPM TU �[l G c�►J�u (��9tze�on�� ttit Di jr "USE Tj+r- tfikt,l� (AA-4 IS Z " w t hg� This is contrary to Section k 4Go•20 of the Lansing Uniform Building Code. Arguments in support of this appeal: 140uSSE UJ,4-& 6ulUE 774-15 Av.Jn GcJr45 6411of-&vto vS 5W7� e-<, Sa MAC/ A2 2 - p v H/4-yer �{ 61A1Z,14AX 9 Oti Tu 7a i2�- Signed /L� Date ACTION TAKEN BY THE BOARD BUILDING SAFETY DI 3I0N ° �ii9►� Department of Planning and Neighborhood Development (I �� IIrr Lower Level, Washington Square Annex 1Y� 119 North Washington Square Lansing, MI 48933 (517)483-4355 November 18, 1993 Jay F. Vincent . PO Box 27459 Lansing, Michigan 48909 Dear Mr. Vincent: RE: 1414 U. Chestnut 3301-09-179-001-2 On November 17, 1993, a safety inspection of the structure located at the above referenced address was made. This inspection revealed certain violations of the Lansing Uniform Housing Code, Chapter 1460 of the Code of Ordinances, which constitute threats to the life, health, and/or safety of persons living in or visiting the structure. Please correct the following identified violations: BASEMENT Section 1460.20(a) (6) Hazardous Mechanical Equipment * 1. Furnace vent pipe apart, furnace not venting properly, repair. 2. Furnace vent pipe runs down hill, repair. 3. Furnace vent pipe 2" from combustibles, repair. 4. No gas line shut off valve to furnace, install to code. 5. Copper gas line to water heater range and incinerator, replace with approved material. 6. Open hole in chimney, seal. 7. Unused incinerator, vent unhooked, remove gas line and cap. All mechanical repairs are to be done to code by a licensed mechanical contractor with a permit from this office. Section 1460.20(a) (5) Hazardous Plumbing 1. Copper gas line to water heater, replace with approved material. 2. Rusted waste line at main, replace. 3. Clean out cap not secure, properly seal opening. * 4. Water heater not venting, repair. All plumbing repairs are to be done to code by a licensed plumbing contractor with a permit from this office. Section 1460.20 (a) (8) Fire Hazards 1. Wood, cardboard and debris in back room, remove. Jay F. Vincent 1414 N. Chestnut Page 2 November 18, 1993 Section 1460.29(a) (b) (c) Smoke Detectors 1.Inoperable smoke alarm, repair. Section 1460.20(a) (4) Hazardous Electrical Wirin 1. Missing junction box cover near stairs, replace. Section 1460.20(a) (2) Structural Hazards 1. No hand rail for lower half of stairs, install. 2. Falling ceiling covering, secure or remove. FIRST FLOOR Section 1460.20(a) (4) Hazardous Electrical Wiring 1. Exposed wires over kitchen sink, repair. Section 1460.20(a) (2) Structural Hazards 1. Soft, water damaged bathroom floor, repair. Section 1460.20(a) (1) Inadequate Sanitation I. Holes in bathroom floor tile, replace. 2. Mildewed bathroom walls and ceiling, clean and sanitize. Section 1460.20(a) (5) Hazardous Plumbing 1. Leaking bathtub faucet, repair, Section 1460.20(a) (7) Faulty Weather Protection 1. Broken dining room window pane, replace. 2. Broken living room window pane, replace. Section 1460.29(a) (b) (c) Smoke Detectors 1. No smoke alarm, install in living room within 6" to 12" of ceiling. SECOND FLOOR Section 1460.20(a) (2) Structural Hazards 1. No hand rail for stairs, install. 2. Ceiling height is 619 110 volt smoke alarm with battery back up required in each bedroom. 3. Loose door stop to SW bedroom secure in place. 4. Hall way is 23" wide, code calls for 36", Second Floor is not habitable space, you may request a variance from. the Building Board of Appeals to find out what requirements there would be to use the second floor. Jay F. Vincent 1414 N. Chestnut Page 3 November 18, 1993 Section 1460.20(a) (4) Hazardous Electrical Wiring 1. Broken bulb in socket in light in SE bedroom, remove. Section 1460.20(a) (7) Faulty Weather Protection 1. Broken window pane in SW bedroom, replace. 2. Hole in attic access door, replace. EXTERIOR Section 1460.20(a) (7) Faulty Weather Protection 1. Worn peeling paint on facia, soffit and trim, repair. Section 1460.20(a) (2) Structural Hazards 1. Open joints in foundation walls, tuck point. Section 1460.20(a) (4) Hazardous Electrical Wirin 1. Missing cover on conduit fitting under meter, replace. GARAGE Section 1460.20(a) (7) Faulty Weather Protection 1. Worn and falling off insulbrick siding, remove worn siding and protect all exposed wood. 2. Worn paint on trim, repair. Section 1460.20(a) (2) Structural Hazards 1. Rotted ends of rafter and facia and soffit, repair. Item 1 under the Hazardous Mechanical Equipment heading under the basement and item 4 under the Hazardous Plumbing heading under the basement constitute immediate threats to the safety of the occupants. These repairs will need to be completed immediately or this office will have no alternative but to vacate the building. The remainder of the repairs must be made by December 18, 1993. Please contact me by December 18, 1993 to set up a reinspection appointment. At that time, we can set up a time to recheck the remainder of the repairs. This dwelling has been declared to be a SUBSTANDARD BUILDING as defined in Section 1460.20 of the Lansing Uniform Housing Code. Should this dwelling become vacant before all repairs are completed, said dwelling shall remain vacant until all repairs have been completed and results thereof approved by this division. FAILURE TO COMPLY WITHIN THE ALLOTTED TIME SHALL LEAVE THIS OFFICE NO ALTERNATIVE BUT TO SUBMIT THIS MATTER TO THE CITY ATTORNEY WITH A REQUEST TO TARE WHATEVER LEGAL ACTION NECESSARY TO SECURE COMPLIANCE. This inspection does not guarantee discovery or reporting of all code violations or property defects, manifest or 'latent, that exist at the property inspected. Jay F. Vincent 1414 N. Chestnut Page 4 November 18, 1993 The City of Lansing, its officers and employees, shall not be liable for any injury or damage, including incidental or consequential damages, claimed to be a result of any failure to discover or report code violations or property defects. If you have any questions regarding this matter, you may contact me at this office Monday through Friday between the hours of 8:00 and 9:00 a.m. or 1:00 and 2:00 p.m. Sincerely, D A., 7A , Delores Fuller Code Compliance Officer jr cc: House Renter of Lansing 1623 E. Kalamazoo Lansing, MI 48912 cc: Occupants 1414 N. Chestnut Lansing, MI 48906 b� '�4jfy,� '•'t ilf: F it l,y„i i p 05-04-94AUU- : 35 Rcvo CITY OF LANSING BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS 119 N. WASHINGTON SQUARE, LOWER LEVEL LANSING, MICHIGAN 48933 APPEAL DOCKET NO. AB-011-94 PETITIONER, Mr. Alexander Bolt vs RESPONDENT, City of Lansing Building Safety Office Jack A. Nelson, Building Officer Michael Gillison, Code Compliance Officer Pursuant to the authority in Section 14 of Act 230 of 1972 , as amended, Section 204 of the Lansing Uniform Building Code as amended, and Section 1460 . 08 of the Lansing Uniform Housing Code, as amended, a hearing will be held in response the request of Mr. Alexander Bolt to appeal a decision of the Code Compliance Officer. Date: Tuesday, May 10, 1994 Time : 2 :00 p.m. Place: 119 N. Washington Square, Lansing, Michigan 2nd Floor Conference Room Issue of Appeal : Requesting relief from the requirements of Section 1460 . 13 and/or 1460 . 14 of the Lansing Uniform Housing Code . The petitioner seeks continued occupancy of the second floor of a rental dwelling which has a hallway height less than authorized by the Housing and Building Code . Section 1460 . 13 of the Housing Code states that hallways and corridors shall have a ceiling height of not less than 7 feet measured to the lowest projection of the ceiling. In this case the ceiling height in the hallway leading to the bedroom on the second floor is 6 ' 4" in height. The residence in question is located at 1216 W. Mt. Hope Ave. Page 2 Mr. Alexander Bolt AB-011-94 : 1216 W. Mt. Hope Ave . Building Board of Appeals The parties shall be given an opportunity to present oral and written arguments on issues of law and policy and an opportunity to present evidence and arguments on issues of fact. A CONTINUANCE IS GRANTED ONLY UPON A SHOWING OF GOOD CAUSE. Dated: Y B j' Ja A. Nelson, Secretary Ci y�of Lansing, Building Board of Appeals - Filed '' Appeal No. � J Hearing Date { City of Lansing BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS Lower Level, Washington Square Annex 119 North Washington Square Lansing, Michigan 48933 Telephone: (517) 483-4355 (Please type or print clearly) The Building Board of Appeals meets the second Tuesday of each month at 2:00 p.m. in the.,,Q. riee#joom oilthblUA i _Building Safety Division.Appeals,accompanied by a non-refundable fee of$50.00,must be on file .v. �ithth $c�i�ding Safe :l,nt Division 20 days before the meeting date. Make checks payable to the City of Lansing. lil(A t"9 /�- y l�J. /�I o �yc'. '3T 1:-0 T d o Address of Property for Appeal-__- �._�pe Owner's Name A2/e xa/1,-r✓G r (30 /7 G ,t Telephone �Q Applicant's Name_ T e I e hone fe r Applicant's Addresses -3 — �o �� , j� p 3p� 7"3-2.z (Attach additional sheets, if necessary) Reques} !s hereby made to QS k' �o r rJc7 iQ 4c e Go h c e v-►� r y C{ © „ -f- f7 /e R m/ -f e C e L) -fvs ,'� c h es a/�d a v This is contrary to Section Z of the Lansing Uniform Building Code. Argufnents ii support of this appeal: a o ff jj 7 4e u c 71"—/b H P_ Af- e e !, A—P o f G' c Signed Date_��/� ACTION TAKEN BY THE BOARD i ADDRESS INSPECTED I? lG W. A-r yof INSPECTOR 7 ITIM DATE INSPECTED �,q f{ 30 �y To 22 d1 F('oc/ , G 'Ll QF LqM BUILDING AND CODE COMP 1NCE OFFICE y �►� Department of Planning and Neiy.,00rhood Development Lower Level, Washington Square Annex 11� 119 North Washington Square Lansing, MI 48933 (517)483-4355 4416 March 31, 1994 Alexander Bolt 2914 Quincy Lane Lansing MI 48910 Dear Mr Bolt: RE: 1216 W MT Hope 3301-20-457-101-7 On March 30, 1994, a re-inspection of the structure located at the above referenced address was made. This inspection revealed certain violations of the Lansing Uniform Housing Code, chapter 1460 of the Code of ordinances, which constitute threats to the life, health, and/or safety of persons living in or visiting the structure. The following actions must be taken to correct the identified violations: Chapter 1460.13 Room Dimensions 1. Second floor hall way connecting stair case to bedroom lacks proper ceiling height. Its continued use will have to be approved by the Building Board Of Appeals. All repairs are to be done in a workmanlike manner with approved materials by May 9, 1994. Please contact me prior to that date to set up an appointment to meet and recheck the structure on the identified date. This dwelling has been declared to be a SUBSTANDARD BUILDING as defined in Section 1460.20 of the Lansing Uniform Housing Code. Should this dwelling become vacant before all repairs are completed, said dwelling shall remain vacant until all repairs have been completed and results thereof approved by this division: FAILURE TO COMPLY WITHIN THE ALLOTTED TIME SHALL LEAVE THIS OFFICE NO ALTERNATIVE BUT TO SUBMIT THIS MATTER TO THE CITY ATTORNEY WITH A REQUEST TO TARE WHATEVER LEGAL ACTION NECESSARY TO SECURE COMPLIANCE. This inspection hoes not guarantee discovery or reporting of all code violations or property defects, manifest or latent, that exist at the property inspected. The City of Lansing, its officers and employees, shall not be liable for Any injury or damage, including incidental or consequential damages, claimed to be a result of any failure to discover or report code violations or property defects. Alexander -Bolt: 1216 W MT Hope Page 2 March 31, 1994 If you have any questions regarding this matter, you may contact me at this office Monday through Friday between the hours of 8:00 and 9:00 a.m. or 1:00 and 2:00 p.m. Si a el , L im McCue' Code Compliance Officer jr CC: Alexander Holt 1230 Reo Rd Lansing MI 48910-5137 m� BUILDING AND CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICE Department of Planning and Neighborhood Development Lower Level, Washington Square Annex 119 North Washington Square Lansing, MI 48933 * t * (517)483-4355 March 31, 1994 Alexander Bolt 2914 Quincy Lane Lansing MI 48910 Dear Mr Bolt: RE: 1216 W MT Hope 3301-20-457-101-7 On March 30, 1994, a re-inspection of the structure located at the above referenced address was made. This inspection revealed certain violations of the Lansing Uniform Housing Code, Chapter 1460 of the Code of Ordinances, which constitute threats to the life, health, and/or safety of persons living in or visiting the structure. The following actions must be taken to correct the identified violations: Chapter 1460.13 Room Dimensions • 1. Second floor hall way connecting stair case to bedroom lacks proper ceiling height. Its continued use will have to be approved by the Building Board of Appeals. All repairs are to be done in a workmanlike manner with approved materials by May 9, 1994. Please contact me prior to that date .to set up an appointment to meet and recheck the structure on the identified date. This dwelling has been declared to be a SUBSTANDARD BUILDING as defined in Section 1460.20 of the Lansing Uniform Housing Code. Should this dwelling become vacant before all repairs are completed, said dwelling shall remain vacant until all repairs have been completed and results thereof approved by this division. FAILURE TO COMPLY WITHIN THE ALLOTTED TIME SHALL LEAVE THIS OFFICE NO ALTERNATIVE BUT TO SUBMIT THIS MATTER TO THE CITY ATTORNEY WITH A REQUEST TO TARE WHATEVER LEGAL ACTION NECESSARY TO SECURE COMPLIANCE. This inspection does not guarantee discovery or reporting of all code violations or property defects, manifest or latent, that exist at the property inspected. The City of Lansing, its officers and employees, shall not be liable for any Injury or damage, including incidental or consequential damages, claimed to be a result of any failure to discover or report code violations or property defects. Alexander -Bolt 1216 W MT Hope Page 2 March 31, 1994 If you have any questions regarding this matter, you may contact me at this office Monday through Friday between the hours of 8:00 and 9:00 a.m. or 1:00 and 2:00 p.m. Si a el , j�i[ram im Mccue" Code Compliance Officer jr cc: Alexander Bolt 1230 Reo Rd Lansing MI 48910-5137 1�3 a.I rr � tt r 1 r I i s +j t ti trj., "fit >� .,,—�^•�,, r, 'r I ����:��� �,: �;,,,� �� �,�• yr y + mil'44 '5-04-94A03 : 35 PCVD CITY OF LANSING BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS 119 N. WASHINGTON SQUARE, LOWER LEVEL LANSING, MICHIGAN 48933 APPEAL DOCKET NO. AB-012-94 PETITIONER, Mr. Bob Smith, Architect Hobbs & Black Associates , Inc . vs RESPONDENT, City of Lansing Building Safety Office Jack A. Nelson, Building Officer Jon Wadsworth, Building Inspector Ralph Goff, Chief Mechanical Inspector Pursuant to the authority in Section 14 of Act 230 of 1972 , as amended, Section 204 of the Lansing Uniform Building Code as amended, and Section 1460 . 08 of the Lansing Uniform Housing Code, as amended, a hearing will be held in response the request of Mr. Bob Smith to appeal a decision of the Code Compliance Officer. Date: Tuesday, May 10, 1994 Time: 2 : 00 p.m. Place: 119 N. Washington Square, Lansing, Michigan 2nd Floor Conference Room Issue of Appeal : Requesting relief from Chapter 20 of the Uniform Mechanical Code as amended, which requires shaft protection from grease ducts . The Petitioner purports that the hood in question is mainly for steam kettles and ovens . The hood is a water wash, high efficiency hood and the chance of grease accumulation is extremely small . Requesting relief from Section 3305 (2 ) of the Lansing Uniform Building Code as amended. Petitioner has installed glazing in a corridor which is required to have a 1 hour fire resistance rating. The glazing exceeds that allowed by the Building Code. The petitioner is requesting that fire suppression be provided on each side of the glazing to stabilize the system under fire conditions . Page 2 Mr. Bob Smith AB-012-94 : 333 E . Michigan Ave. Building Board of Appeals Requesting relief from Section 3305 (h) Doors , of the Lansing Uniform Building Code as amended. Petitioner is requesting authorization to delete the fire rating of a vertical lift door which leads from the exhibition hall to an exit corridor. The door is an oversize door and can not obtain certification. The building in question is located at 333 E . Michigan Ave . The parties shall be given an opportunity to present oral and written arguments on issues of law and policy and an opportunity to present evidence and arguments on issues of fact. A CONTINUANCE IS GRANTED ONLY UPON A SHOWING OF GOOD CAUSE. Dated: �,t/.�- 1 � � Y U J A." Nelson, Secretary C t of Lansing, Building Board o A peals J � ,t6 Filed � .�/ 1 �-� � ��� � � Appeal No. Hearing Date City of Lansing BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS Lower Level, Washington Square Annex 119 North Washington Square Lansing, Michigan 48933 Telephone: (517) 483-4355 (Please type or print clearly) The Building Board of Appeals meets the second Tuesday of each month at 2:00 p.m. in the Conference Room of the Building Safety Division.Appeals,accompanied by a non-refundable fee of$50.00,must be on file with the Building Safety Division 20 days before the meeting date. Make checks payable to the City of Lansing. Address of Property for Appeal.__-_.. 333 East__Michi-gan,- L.ansin.g__ Owner's Name Telephone Applicant's Name_J:Lo-bb t..B.l-a-c-k--AsSQc_ia-t.es-,_In.c_-_—. Telephone _(517) 4R4-4R70 Applicant's Address_115 Sy_14B-sh]11g_t.o-n-,__S1.ute_12D-,-LanSing MT 4R933 (Attach additional sheets, if necessary) Request is hereby made to 1 _ Eliminate "shaft" protertinn fnr 0Te-exh&ust hood in-kitchen_. _2__l?_noj._de_s rinkLer-s on each-sine of g1a7Pd rnrridor wall that- % - _0 a 7 i-n-g- 3_._Clarif-y-that-v_ert i c a 1 1 i f t d o o rod.00r 106) does--not r e qui r e a—"D" label - This is contrary to Section 4�_2._W2 2) 33-05h of the Lansing Uniform Building Code. € 3) 3305 Arguments in support of this appeal: —_ ____j_� 7rtis oad_i_s_nainly for steam__kettlar, and nverls The hand is a w t`er wash, high _-efJic.i-en.cy—h-o.o-d—and--tbP chance of greTSR aCcumulatinn is extremely%' small _ 2) .Sp-rtnkle.rswiLL.{iro tide equal pr.ote. .nn 3)—D.aor_s_a_r_.e-...s.i_mil_a.r to e x i�±i n-g_vzr-ti.cam_]i_f"cLo-r-s. Signed 'L f r � _% { t� Date ACTION TAKEN BY THE BOARD 1991 UNIFORM MECHANICAL CODE 2001-2002 Chapter 20 COMMERCIAL HOODS AND KITCHEN VENTILATION Definitions Sec.2001.For the purpose of this chapter the following definitions shall apply: COM11fERCIA11, FOOD IIEAT-PROCESSING EQUIPMENT is equip- ment used in a food eslablishrnenl for heal-processing food or utensils and which produces grease vapors,steam, fumes,smoke or odors which are required to be removed through a.local exhaust ventilation system. CONIPENSATING 1100D is a hood that has an outside air supply with air delivered below or within the hood.When makeup air is diffused directly into the exhaust within the hood cavity,it becomes a shore-circuit hood. a GREASE EXTRACTOR is a device designed to remove a large percentage of 8 grease and other contaminants from the air before it enters (he ducts stem. A lnMtl,., Y listed grease extractor is one complying with the standard identified in Appendix C,Reference Standards. "t2 GREASE FILTER is a device used to capture by entrapment, impingement, adhesion or similar means, grease and similar contaminants before they enter a duct system. HOOD is an air-intake device connected to a mechanical exhaust system for collecting and removing grease,vapors,fumes,smoke,steam,heat orodors from commercial food heat-processing equipment. 7ype'l Hood is a kitchen hood for collecting and removing grease and smoke. Type II Ilood is a general kitchen hood for collecting and removing steam, vapor,heat or odors. Kitchen Ventilation Systems Sec.2002.(a)1lfalerials. 1. Grease ducts.Grease ducts and plenums serving a Type I hood shall be constructed of at least 0.055-inch-thick (No. 16 manufac- turer's standard gage)steel or stainless at leas(0.044 inch in thickness. Exhaust fan housings serving a Type 1 hood shall be constructed of steel. EXCEPTION: Fans listed as"Power Roof Ventilators for Restaurant Cooking " ) Appliances." J Joints and seams shall be made with a continuous liquid-tight weld or braze �t r- made on the external surface of the duct system. A vibration isolation connector may be used, provided it consists of noncombustible packing in a metal sleeve joint of approved design. Duct bracing and su ores shall be of noncombustible material securely at- tached to the structure and designed to carry gravity and lateral loads within the .'�N ✓ stress limitations of(Ice Building Code.Bolts,screws,rivets and other mechanical fasteners shall not penetrate duct walls. 2. Ducts, nongrease. Ducts and plenums serving "type H hoods shall be constructed of rigid metallic materials asset forth in Chapter 10.Duct bracing and -" 151 r' 2002 1991 UNIFORM MECHANICAL CODE supports shall comply with Chapter 10.Ducts subject to positive pressure shall be adequately sealed. 3. Corrosion protection. Ducts exposed to the outside atmosphere or subject to a corrosive environment shall be protected against corrosion.Galvanization of metal parts, protection with noncorrosive paints and waterproof insulation are considered acceptable methods of protection. (b)Prevention of Grease Accumulation.Duct systems serving a Type I hood shall be so constructed and installed that grease cannot become pocketed in any portion thereof, and the system shall slope not less than Ua inch per lineal foot toward the hood or toward an approved grease reservoir. Where horizontal ducts exceed 75 feet in length the slope shall be not less than 1 inch per lineal foot.When " a centrifugal fan is used it shall be positioned so the discharge outlet is either vertical or bottom horizontal with the air so diverted that there will be no impingement on the roof, other equipment or parts of the structure. A vertical discharge fan shall be manufactured with an approved drain outlet at the bottom of . ',t -[C� the housing to permit drainage of grease to an approved collection device. When a centrifugal fan with bottom horizontal discharge is located outside the building,a duct or duct fitting that diverts the discharge from the grease exhaust duct system in an upward direction may be connected to the fan outlet,provided the following conditions are met: 1. The duct or duct fitting shall be constructed of metal as set forth in Tables Nos. 10-A and 10-B or U.M.C. Standard No. 10-2. 2. The maximum total developed length of the duct or duct fitting measured along the center line shall not exceed three times the vertical dimension of the fan outlet. 3. The duct or duct fitting shall be provided with openings at the lowest point to permit drainage of grease to an approved collection device. (c) Cleanouts and Other Openings. Grease duct systems shall not have openings therein other than those required for proper operation and maintenance of the system.Any portion of such system having sections inaccessible from the duct entry or discharge shall be provided with adequate ceanout openings. Cleanout openings shall be equipped with tight-fitting doors constructed of steel having a thickness not less than that required for the duct.Doors shall be equipped with a substantial method of latching,sufficient to hold the door tightly closed. Doors shall be so designed that they can be opened without the use of a tool. (d)Duct Enclosure. A grease duct serving a Type 1 hood which penetrates a ceiling, wall or floor shall be enclosed in a duct enclosure from the point of penetration. A duct may only penetrate exterior walls at locations where unpro- tected openings are permitted by the Building Code. Duct enclosures shall be constructed as the Building Code requires shaft enclosures to be constructed. Duct enclosures shall be of at least one-hour fire-resistive construction in all buildings and shall be of two-hour fire-resistive construction in Types I and II fire- resistive buildings.The duct enclosure shall be sealed around the duct at the point of penetration and vented to the exterior through weather-protected openings.The enclosure shall be separated from the duct by at least 3 and not more than 12 inches and shall serve a single grease exhaust duct system. 152 1991 UNIFORM MECHANICAL CODE 2003 vertical distance between the lip of the hood and the cooking surface shall not exceed 4 feet. EXCEPTION: Listed grease extractors are to be installed in accordance with the terms of their listing and manufacturer's installation instructions- (g)Capacity of Moods.Canopy-type commercial cooking hoods shall exhaust through (lie hood a minimum quantity of air determined by application of the following formulas: WIJERE: A = the horizontal surface area of the hood, in square feet. P = that part of the perimeter of the hood that is open,in feet. " D = distance in feet between the lower lip of the hood and the cooking surface. Q =quantity of air, in cubic fee(per minute. When cooking equipment is installed back to back and is covered by a common island-type hood, the airflow required may be calculated using the formula for three sides exposed.When all appliances are electric,the airflow required may be reduced to 80 percent of the formula value. Type 11 hood airflow requirements shall be in accordance with the requirements for low-temperature appliance hoods. l.Type I hoods for use over charcoal and other solid-fuel charbroilers shall be provided with separate exhaust systems. Undefined cooking equipment other than charcoal and solid-fuel charbroilers may be installed under a common hood. The minimum airflow for charcoal-, solid-fuel and grease-burning charbroilers and undefined equipment shall be: Number of Exposed Sides Formula 4(island or central hood) Q = 300A 3 or less Q = 200A Alternate formula Q = IOOPD 2.Type I hoods when the cooking equipment includes high-temperature appli- ances such as deep-fat fryers: Number of Exposed Sides Formula 4(island or central hood) Q = 150A 3 or less Q = 100A Alternate formula Q = IOOPD 3. Type I hoods where the cooking equipment includes medium-temperature appliances such as rotisseries,grills and ranges. Number of Exposed Sides Formula 4(island or central hood) Q = 100A 3 or less Q = 75A Alternate formula Q = 50PD 155 2003-2004 1991 UNIFORM MECHANICAL CODE 4.Type I hoods where the cooking equipment includes low-temperature appli- ances such as medium-to-low-lemperalure ranges,roasters,roasting ovens,pas- try ovens and equipment approved for use under a Type 11 hood, such as pizza ovens. Number of Exposed Sides Formula 4(island or central hood) Q = 75A 3 or less Q = 50A Alternate formula Q = 50PD EXCEPTION: listed grease extractors are to be installed in accordance with the terms of their listing and the manufacturer's installation instructions. (h)Capacity for Noncanopy Iloods. In addition to all other requirements for . hoods specified in this section, the volume of air exhausting through a noncanopy-type hood to the duel system shall be not less than 300 cubic feet per minute per lineal foot of cooking equipment.Listed grease extractors,filters and collector hoods shall be sized and installed in accordance with the terms of their listing and the manufacturer's installation instructions. (i) Makeup Alt. Each room provided with an exhaust system shall have air supplied to the room equal to the amount of air to be exhausted.Makeup diffusers shall be located to prevent a short-circuiting of air furnished to the exhaust system.Windows and doors shall not be used for the purpose of providing makeup air. The exhaust and makeup air systems shall be connected by an electrical J interlocking switch. Compensating hoods shall meet the airflow requirements specified in Sections 2003(g)2 through 4. Compensating hoods shall extract at least 20 percent of their required exhaust airflow from the kitchen area. 0)Exhaust Outlet. An exhaust oullet within the hood shall be so located as to optimize the capture of particulate matter. Each outlet shall serve not more than a 12-fool section of hood. EXCEPTION: Listed grease extractors are to be installed in accordance with terms of their listing and the manufacturer's installation instructions. (k) Performance Test. Upon completion and before final approval of the installation of a.ventilation system serving commercial food heat-processing equipment,a performance test may be required to verify the rate of airflow and proper operation as specified in this chapter. The perinitee shall furnish the necessary test equipment and devices required to perform the tests. Motors,Fans and Safety Devices See. 2004. (a) General. Motors and fans shall be of sufficient capacity to provide the required air movement as specified in this chapter. Electrical equip- ment shall be approved for the class of use as provided in the Electrical Code. Motors and fans shall be accessible for servicing or maintenance.Motors shall not be installed within ducts or under hoods. F (b)Fire-extinguishing Equipment for Protection of Kitchen Grease Hoods jI and Duels. I. Where Required. Approved fire-extinguishing systems shall be provided for the protection of commercial food heat-processing equipment. 156 CITY OF LANSING BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS 119 N. WASHINGTON SQUARE, LOWER LEVEL LANSING, MICHIGAN 48933 APPEAL DOCKET NO. AB-013-94 PETITIONER, Mr. Mark Sager vs RESPONDENT, City of Lansing Building Safety Office Jack A. Nelson, Building Officer Dan David, Code Compliance Pursuant to the authority in Section 14 of Act 230 of 1972 , as amended, Section 204 of the Lansing Uniform Building Code as amended, and Section 1460 .08 of the Lansing Uniform Housing Code, as amended, a hearing will be held in response the request of Mr. Mark Sager to appeal a decision of the Code Compliance Officer. Date : Tuesday, May 10, 1994 Time: 2 : 00 p.m. Place : 119 N. Washington Square, Lansing, Michigan 2nd Floor Conference Room Issue of Appeal : Requesting relief from the requirements of Section 1460 .20 of the Lansing Uniform Housing Code . The Petitioner seeks relief from requirements which require that the minimum ceiling height in habitable rooms is 7 ' 4" . The ceiling height in the second floor bedroom of this rental is 6 ' 5" measured at the 3 ' 6" width. The Petitioner has represented that a window complying with egress requirements of the Building Code would be installed if the variance was granted. In like manner the owner has no objection to installing hardwired smoke detection. 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 714" in existing buildings . Bedrooms in existing buildings must have operable rescue/egress windows with a net clear opening of five square feet, a minimum set clear opening height of 22 inches , and a maximum sill height of 48 inches . There are numerous dwelling throughout the City with rooms as well as entire floors being used as habitable space which do not comply with these 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 Page 2 Mr. Mark Sager AB-013-94 : 133 Clifford Building Board of Appeals helping to ensure that safe housing is being provided to residents of the City. This policy is, therefore, being implemented with the purpose of balancing the City's need for affordable housing with the requirement to comply with Codes adopted by ordinance . The policy is divided into three stages . The procedure is dependent upon the degree of compliance. A. Inspector Approval 1 . Code Compliance Officer ' s are authorized to grant exceptions in the field as they pertain to ceiling heights when the following standards can be achieved. a. Minimum ceiling height shall be 6 ' 8" and the ceiling must be at least 316" in width at that height across the length of the room. b. 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. C . 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. B. The Building Official may issue an Administrative Modification when statements b & c are met and when the room achieves 83% of the required area. In this case the room does not comply with statement a, consequently relief can only be granted by the Board. The residence in question is located at 133 Clifford St. The parties shall be given an opportunity to present oral and written arguments on issues of law and policy and an opportunity to present evidence and arguments on issues of fact. A CONTINUANCE IS GRANTED ONLY UPON A SHOWING OF GOOD CAUSE. -1 17 Dated: i �,( ( �` By J A. Nelson, Secretary C 0 f Lansing, Building Board o Jack Filed (- Appeal No. Hearing DateJj BD.q,. RPPI_nL i•`n rt -1. j i - City of Lansing 0 '101 BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS CHK -' Lower Level, Washington Square Annex t?J. 119 North Washington Square Lansing, Michigan 48933 Telephone: (517) 483-4355 (Please type or print clearly) The Building Board of Appeals meets the second Tuesday of each month at 2:00 p.m. in the Conference Room of the Building Safety Division.Appeals,accompanied by a non-refundable fee of$50.00,must be on file with the Building Safety Division 20 days before the meeting date. Make checks payable to the City of Lansing. Address of Property for Appeal_ 33 G1t "La_, - ��� ► a Owner's Name Applicant's Name_ Telephone 1�_ P_�, _ Telephone A S1-1 3'J! t3�nr� Applicant's Address_c�ll1 �_ ► h��, �r� yLiT� c�g��g> (Attach additional sheets, if necessary) Request is hereby ade to V C I ,rtiC �.I a p } Ck,5_CRjbPd a Lc:rtr � l;)rY_\tk, .^5 wi Acce%jt),I," on be, rhos df yLI� A. �s(aRtL I5 '0ADAL0 +. d N,r►eck C1 n -J iS r> > t v-n L,.r� 1 P410C Cti2 StCCk2� al This is contrary to Section of the Lansing Uniform Building Code. Arguments in support of this appeal: 7h � 6nL&LS a I'S D t e ,riVL,, 0. pi.Y\C{ —CS (I C+i iCl'I l L.l U<iZ --� DOLLFLo I S A �) n!q.k C eO L t+i'F� �f�c + :A ,ir2 �} i� &) -r—' U ° vciFs� cat. �.n I�Zc - + off.f +et,� i4 S FI- I��SP) d r. Cu ` L r_5`5 i t rrC YL rI ��� C 1 cam { A A f / v LSigned Date / ACTION TAKEN BY THE BOARD BUILDING SAFETY DIVIS")N Lower Level, Washington Sq� a Annex 119 North Washington Square Lansing, Michigan 48933 (517) 483-4355 April 21 , 1994 Mark Sager 2117 E. Grand River L.iiisiiig, MI 48912 Dear Mr. Sager: I have reviewed your Buildhig Board of Appeals Application and have determined that insufficient iufor.mation has been submitted to permit an informed review. According to the application you are requesting a variance from the Lansing Ilousing code concerning the ceiling height of a bedroom(s) . The Board of Appeal Members request that the following information be submitted with each appeal application. This information must be submitted no than April 281 1994, in order to be reviewed at the next Building Board of Appeals meeting. I . A sketch of the floor glair of the areas involved, including dimensions. 2. A sketch of a sectioir through the room or rooms involved, giving dimensions of room width at floor, wall heights, ceiling width at the high point and ceiling height at high point. 3. Photographs which show the exterior of the building and the room. 4. '.1'he size of the bedrootr, windows to include clear width and height when the sash is open, and net clear open area and sill height. . Should you have auy questions, please contact me. Sincerely, ack A. Nelson airager of Building officeJAN/kdw M BUILDING SAFETY DIVISION �� Department of Municipal and Neighborhood Development Lower Level, Washington Square Annex 119 North Washington Square Lansing, MI 48933 (517)483-4355 Chia /r Hamm. pr May 26, 1993 Mark Sager 7 120 N. Washington Sq. , Ste. 805 J\ Lansing, Michigan 48933 Dear Mr. Sager: RE: 133 Clifford 3301 15 402 091 5 On t4ay 25, 1993, a certification inspection of the structure located at the above referenced address was made. This inspection revealed certain violations of the Lansing Uniform Housing Code, Chapter 1460 of the Code of Ordinance's. The following actions must be taken to correct the identified violations: Section 1460..20(a) (2) Structural Hazards Install handrail on the basement steps and rear porch steps to code. j Replace the broken kitchen window and second 3- Install a floor window. smoke detector. in the basement and second floor to code. 4. Remove the bedroom from ttre second floor due to the low ceiling height (71 ) , and lack of egress. window. Tuck point the rear porch block joints. �6t Cut the tree limb laying on the garage roof. Section 1460.20(a) (4) Hazardous Electrical Wirin /1'.' Install 100 amp electrical service to replace the 60 amp 4 circuit with two 220 lines and 20 amp fuse. Bring to code. f2% Install another plug outlet in the kitchen countertop area. �- Wire new garage disposal to code. Install a G.F. I. plug outlet in the bathroom; no plug outlet at time of inspection. • Install a grounded plug outlet for the washer. All electrical repairs are to be done to code by a licensed electrical contractor with a permit from this office. Section 1460.20(a)(5) Hazardous Plumbing Plumbin k• Install a garbage disposal on the new PVC drain line. ',,Z* Replace missing covers on the open sewer lines in the basement. Install a washer stand pipe for the washer to drain into. Clean the basement floor of all sewage backup. Repair kitchen countertop where the bare wood is, with an approved non-absorbent covering. All plumbing repairs are to be done to code by a licensed plumbing contractor with a permit from this office. 12 for /S /9 O W r fir. i I) -�/'0 6 � Mark Sager Page 2 RE: 133 Clifford May 26, 1993 All repairs are to be done in a workmanlike manner with approved materials by July 25, 1993. Please contact me prior to that date to set up an appointment to meet and recheck the structure on the identified date. This inspection does not guarantee discovery or reporting of all code violations or property defects, manifest or latent, that exist at the property inspected. The City of Lansing, its officers and employees, shall not be liable for any injury or damage, including incidental. or consequential damages, claimed to be a result of any failure to discover or report code violations or property defects. FAILURE TO COMPLY WITHIN THE ALLOTTED TIME SHALL LEAVE THIS OFFICE NO ALTERNATIVE BUT TO SUBMIT THIS MATTER TO THE CITY ATTORNEY WITH A REQUEST TO TARE Wf1ATEVER LEGAL ACTION NECESSARY TO SECURE COMPLIANCE. This dwelling has been declared to be a SUBSTANDARD BUILDING as defined in Section 1460.20 of the Lansing Uniform Housing Code. Should this dwelling become vacant before all repairs are completed, said dwelling shall remain vacant until all repairs have been completed and results thereof approved by this division. If you have any questions regarding this matter, you may contact me at this office Monday through Friday between the hours of 8:00 and 9:00 a.m, or 12:00 noon and 1:00 p.m. Sincerely /,�J I 'CLJL Dan David Code Compliance Officer rbm form NV l ! on MIN a r d � A i `yt 1, .� •� fir• ����� �~� � a NA h . qF �l AR •' f i•4\ i .1 A• ' i �, I � � x i r. 0':_-2u [ CITY CLERK OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS of the CITY OF LANSING BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS Tuesday, April 12, 1994 The April meeting of the City of Lansing Building Board of Appeals was called to order promptly at 2:00 p.m. by Chairman Richard Stuckman. The following members were in attendance: Richard Stuckman, Chair Richard Jones, Vice Chair Joe Wilcox Randall Kamm The following members were absent: Christine D'Alecy Staff members present: James Ballard, Fire Marshall Gary Brydges, Acting Secretary A motion was made by Mr. Jones with a second by Mr. Wilcox to approve the minutes of the January meeting. x Motion Carried. A motion was made by Mr. Jones, seconded by Mr. Wilcox, to approve the minutes of the February meeting. * Motion Carried. Case AB-006-94, 413 South Fairview Mr. Brydges advised the Board that the first case on the Agenda, AB-006-94, pertaining to 413 S. Fairview, had been withdrawn by the applicant at his request. No further action was taken by the Board on this matter. Case AB-007-94, 325 S. Walnut This appeal was filed by Larry Cross on behalf of David Alderson, owner of the property at 325 S. Walnut. This property was originally a single family dwelling but most recently contained several small apartment units. Mr. Anderson proposes to convert the structure to office use on the first and second floor with a single apartment unit on the third floor. Mr. Cross, Mr. Anderson, and Kevin Lovell were in attendance for this appeal. Mr. Wilcox began the discussion by asking if smoke detectors would be installed in the building. Mr. Anderson stated that both smoke and heat detectors would be installed at appropriate locations in the building. Mr. Cross pointed out that 3 new furnaces would be installed in the building to replace the single existing furnace. Building Board of Appeals April 12, 1994, Page 2 At Mr. Stuckman's suggestion, the Board agreed to consider the separate items of the appeal individually and in the order of their listing in Mr. Cross's letter. 1. Basement Stair: The existing basement stairs are to be replaced. Due to the constraints of a grade door landing and existing floor joist configuration the new stairs could not be made to meet current rise and run requirements of Section 3306(c) without extensive structural changes. Mr. Cross stated the basement would be used only for service of the building and possibly a small storage area for the first floor tenant. Following a short discussion, Mr. Jones moved that the stairs be allowed to be replaced without other alterations and that the rise and run and headroom combination be as close to Code as existing conditions will allow. The motion was supported by Mr. Wilcox. The vote was unanimous for approval. * Motion Carried. 2. Stair - first floor to second floor: The existing stairs are to remain as they are. Existing rise and run do not meet requirements of Section 3306(c) for a commercial building although it would comply for residential. Secondly, a stair handrail exists on the interior sides of the U-shaped stairwell but there is currently no handrail on the other side of the stairwell as would be required by Section 3306(i) . Thirdly, the headroom at the bottom of the middle stair run does not comply with Section 3306(o) of the Code. Mr. Anderson had several photographs of the existing stairwell area which the Board members examined. It was noted that the stairs, handrails and newel posts were of natural finished wood. The plans call for no alterations in the stairwell in order to preserve the original appearance and character of the stairs. When built, the stairs would have met all the requirements for a residential structure. Mr. Stuckman asked Mr. Brydges if the Building Office would have an objection to the stairs remaining as they are. Mr. Brydges stated there would be no objection. Following a further short discussion, Mr. Wilcox moved that the stairs be allowed to remain as existing with no required alterations or additions. Mr. Jones supported the motion. The vote was unanimous for approval. * Motion Carried. 3. Main Entry Foyer: The main entry foyer is located at the bottom of the stairs to the second floor. This stairway serves as a part of one of the required exits from the third floor apartment unit, although not directly connected to it. The original foyer had a pair of french doors that lead to an adjacent room as well as a single french door leading to another adjacent room. The pair of french doors are still in place as they originally existed. The applicant asks that these doors be allowed to remain in place although they don't provide proper separaton between the proposed office space and the foyer with stairway. The actual occupancy of both first and second floors is not expected to exceed 10 persons. Mr. Anderson stated these doors would normally be closed since they separate the foyer from an office tenant space. Mr. Stuckman suggested the active door leafs could have a closer installed with the stationary leaf pinned at top'and bottom. Mr. Ballard pointed out that the entire building would be smoke detected and further tied to a central alarm company. Mr. Wilcox moved the doors be allowed to remain as requested provided closers are installed on the active doors and that the stationary leaf be pinned. Motion supported by Mr. Jones. Vote was unanimous for approval. " Motion Carried. Building Board of Appeals April 12, 1994, Page 3 4. Interior stair second to third floor: The applicant seeks relief from Sections 3306(b) and 3306(c) to allow the existing stairs to the third floor to remain as they presently ' exist. Stair rises vary from 8" to 8 1/4" and the run is 8 1/2". The width at one point is 33". This stairway would serve as the required second exit from the third floor apartment. Following a brief discussion, Mr. Jones moved the stairs be allowed to remain. Motion supported by Mr. Kamm. Vote was unanimous for approval. Motion Carried. 5. Third floor headroom: Ceiling height in this existing apartment is 6'9" and does not meet the requirement of Section 1207(a) . Egress window will be provided and the entire building will be smoke detected. Mr. Kamm moved that the appeal be granted to allow the ceiling height to remain as existing. Motion supported by Mr. Jones. Vote was unanimous for approval. * Motion Carried. 6. North side windows: Applicant seeks relief from Section 504(b) and Table 5-A to allow windows on the north side of building to remain in place. One window is approximately 4'2" from the property line. It was pointed out that the adjacent property on that side is a parking lot for a funeral home. It has been that way for many years and is likely to remain that way. Mr. Kamm moved to grant the appeal allowing the window openings to remain as they currently exist without opening protection. Motion supported by Mr. Wilcox. Vote was unanimous for approval. Motion Carried. Case AB-008-94, 815 FMey f This appeal has been filed by Charles Spadafore and involves the erection of a 12' x 16' addition to a warehouse. This addition would be classified as an H-3 occupancy and be served only by an 8' x 8' overhead door with no exit door. Applicant seeks relief from Sections 3304 and 3319 and from 33-A to allow the exit door to be eliminated. The space would be used for the storage of solvents. Mr. Spadaf ore stated that the space would only be accessed approximately every three weeks to put in or take out containers of solvent. The overhead door would not be closed during this transfer of materials and the applicant therefore felt a 310" exit door would be unpractical and wasteful in such a small space. Mr. Ballard expressed his concern about the hazardous use of the space and felt the 3'0" exit door should be installed. The room would be equipped with an explosion proof light fixture and an exhaust fan tied to the same switch on the exterior wall. Mr. Jones pointed out the likelihood of an exit door being blocked off on the inside by stored materials, given the type of use of the space. Further discussion centered on the possible installation of an electric door opener operated by either a remote or fixed button. It was also noted that a fire extinguishing system would betnstalled in the proposed space. Mr. Wilcox moved to support the appeal to eliminate the 3'0" exit door upon the condition that activation of the fire extinguishing system sets off the sprinkler alarm in the main building. Motion was supported by Mr. Jones. Vote was unanimous for approval. X Motion Carried. On another matter not on the agenda, Mr. Brydges asked the Board informally for a clarification of a Board decision issued in March of 1986. The decision involved a fire resistive ceiling assembly on the bottom chord of a pitched roof truss. The assembly called for a layer of 5/8" type X drywall to be installed, then channel or hat track, followed by a second layer of 5/8" type X drywall. The channel was to be installed with either 8 penny nails or 1 7/8" drywall screws, one fastener per truss member. Building Board of Appeals April 12, 1994, Page 4 Mr. Brydges explained that on a current project the applicator had used 1 5/8" drywall screws on a portion of the work. These screws would provide approximately one inch of penetration into wood rather than 1 1/411. Mr. Brydges asked if the Board members felt this was adequate. The consensus was that one inch of penetration by a drywall screw was probably at least as good as the penetration of a smooth 8 penny nail. None of the members felt there would be a problem with this current project. Mr. Stuckman offered to contact Phil Baker, a technical representative for U.S. Gypsum, for his comments. This matter could be discussed and the issue clarified at the next meeting. Mr. Jones moved to adjourn the meeting. Supported by Mr. Wilcox. * Motion Carried. Meeting was adjourned at 3:55 p.m. Re ,pectfully bmi to Gary R. irydges, Actin retary Building Board of Appeals Board Minutes approved on Building Board of Appeals April 12, 1994, Page 5 RECORD OF VOTES: #1 Record of Vote Yea Nay Richard Stuckman, Chair X Richard Jones, Vice Chair X Joe Wilcox X Christine D'Alecy (absent) Randall Kamm X #2 Record of Vote Yea Nay Richard Stuckman, Chair X Richard Jones, Vice Chair X Joe Wilcox X Christine D'Alecy (absent) Randall Kamm X #3 Record of Vote Yea Nay i I Richard Stuckman, Chair X Richard Jones, Vice Chair X Joe Wilcox X Christine D'Alecy (absent) Randall Kamm X #4 Record of Vote Yea Nay Richard Stuckman, Chair X Richard Jones, Vice Chair X Joe Wilcox X Christine D'Alecy (absent) Randall Kamm X Building Board of Appeals April 12, 1994, Page 6 #5 Record of Vote Yea Nay i Richard Stuckman, Chair X Richard Jones, Vice Chair X I Joe Wilcox X i Christine D'Alecy (absent) Randall Kamm X #6 Record of Vote Yea Nay Richard Stuckman, Chair X Richard Jones, Vice Chair X Joe Wilcox X i Christine D'Alecy (absent) Randall Kamm X Record of Vote Yea Nay Richard Stuckman, Chair X Richard Jones, Vice Chair X Joe Wilcox X Christine D'Alecy (absent) Randall Kamm X �8 Record of Vote Yea Nay Richard Stuckman, Chair lip X Richard Jones, Vice Chair X Joe Wilcox X Christine D'Alecy (absent) Randall Kamm X Building Board of Appeals April 12, 1994, Page 7 #9 Record of Vote Yea I Nay Richard Stuckman, Chair X Richard Jones, Vice Chair X Joe Wilcox X Christine D'Alecy (absent) Randall Kamm X #10 Record of Vote Yea I Nay Richard Stuckman, Chair X Richard Jones, Vice Chair X Joe Wilcox X Christine D'Alecy (absent) Randall Kamm X i 03-24-94P'kP2 : %6 RCVD OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS of the CITY OF LANSING BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS Tuesday, March 15, 1994 A special meeting of the City of Lansing Building Board of Appeals was called to order by Chairman Richard Stuckman at 2:05 p.m. The following members were in attendance: Richard Stuckman, Chair Richard Jones, Vice Chair Joe Wilcox The following members were absent: Randall Kamm Christine D'Alecy Staff members present: James Ballard, Fire Marshall Jack A. Nelson, Recording Secretary It was moved by Dick Jones to defer the approval of the January 11, 1994, Board minutes to the next regular meeting. Motion seconded by Joe Wilcox. Motion carried. Chairman Stuckman notified the audience that an affirmative vote of 3 members of the Board is required to grant a variance. Since only 3 members are in attendance all members would have to vote in the affirmative. Chairman Stuckman also notified the Board that he was formerly a principal in the M.B.D.S. firm. The Architectural firm representing Michigan National Bank in Case AB-003-94 is his former firm. Mr. Nelson stated that he felt that action on the case by Mr. Stuckman would not be considered a conflict since he no longer is employed by the firm. There were no objections from any Board members. Chairman Stuckman requested that the agenda be amended to address case AB-004- 93 prior to AB-003-94. If another board member happens to attend it would resolve the conflict of interest issue. The board agreed to amend the agenda. Building Board of Appeals March 15, 1994, Page 2 Case AB-004-94, 430 N. Larch, Volunteers Of America An application for appeal has been filed by Mr. Robert Smith, Architect, Freeman, Smith and Associates, on behalf of the Volunteers of America, 430 N. Larch St. , Lansing, Michigan. The application, if approved, will authorize exiting from Bed Units 1, 2, 3, and the second floor through an unrated corridor system. This is contrary to Section 3305(g) of the Lansing Uniform Building Code, which states: Walls of corridors serving a Group R, Division 1 occupancy having an occupant load of 10 or more shall be not less than one hour construction. In lieu of the strict application of the Code, the architect proposes the following alternative which he feels will equate with the purpose and intent of the fire rated corridor provisions of the Building Code: 1. New emergency exit doors will be installed in the east exterior walls of the Bed Unit 1, 2, 3, giving direct access to the out of doors. 2. The west end of passage 133 will be smoke detected. Consequently, the entire exit passageway will be smoke detected. In addition to these protective measures, the building (new addition) is equipped with a fire suppression system. Second, the Construction type of the building is I-F.R. Section 3305(g)(5) of the Code permits the construction of an unrated corridor system in sprinkled buildings of Group B, when smoke detectors are installed in the corridors. The architect proposes this building construction alternative for a Group R, Division 1 use group. Mr. Bob Smith of Freeman, Smith and Associates was in attendance and presented his case. Mr. Smith stated that he is proposing to incorporate emergency exit doors in the east exterior walls of Bed Unit 1 and 3, both opening directly to the outside. Bed Units 1 and 2 will be occupied by men, Unit 3 by women. Mr. Smith stated that he would like to limit the number of doors to two since there is concern that entry may be made through one of these exit doors to another unit. Mr. Smith further stated that the second floor would be occupied by homeless families. They would either exit through a stairshaft directly to the outside, or through a stairshaft through the dining room. The exit path is protected with smoke deteption and the entire building is sprinkled. Chairman Stuckman stated that the case appears to have two elements. The first is the appeal which pertains to exiting from the Bed Units 1, 2, and 3. The second appeal pertains to exiting from the second floor. Joe Wilcox moved to approve the first variance predicated upon compliance with the architects submission. The motion was supported by Mr. Jones. Building Board of Appeals March 15, 1994, Page 3 F7— Record of Vote Yea Na Richard Stuckman, Chair X Richard Jones, Vice Chair X Joe Wilcox X Christine D'Alec (absent) Randall Kamm (absent) * Motion Carried. Dick Jones moved to table variance number two to afford the architect time to research alternatives. Motion was supported by Joe Wilcox. F— Record of Vote Yea Na Richard Stuckman, Chair X Richard Jones, Vice Chair X Joe Wilcox X Christine D'Alec (absent) Randall Kamm (absent) * Motion Carried. In support of this decision the Board makes the following findings of fact: All sleeping areas have direct access to the outside. The second exit passes through a passage which is protected by fire suppression and smoke detection. This is coupled with the fact that the environment is monitored by staff, and the building contains no combustible construction elements, will ensure that the exiting system complies with the purpose and intent of the Building Code. Case AB-003-94, 124 W. Allegan St. , Michigan National Bank An application for appeal has been filed by Mr. Paul C. Jacob, AIA, on behalf of Michigan National Bank, 124 W. Allegan Street, Lansing, Michigan. The applicant seeks relief from Section 1803(b) of the Lansing Uniform Building Code. The proposal, if granted, would authorize the replacement of existing window units on the north and east elevations of the tower. Refer to the attached description of existing conditions and proposed replacement, since there are numerous conditions. Building Board of Appeals March 15, 1994, Page 4 The applicable code section is as follows: CHAPTER 18, TYPE I FIRE RESISTIVE BUILDINGS: DEFINITION: EXTERIOR WALLS AND OPENINGS SECTION 1803(A) EXTERIOR WALLS. EXTERIOR WALLS AND ALL STRUCTURAL MEMBERS SHALL COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS SPECIFIED IN SECTION 504 AND THE FIRE-RESISTIVE PROVISIONS SET FORTH IN TABLE NO. 17-A. FOR GROUP H OCCUPANCIES, SEE ALSO TABLE NO. 9-C. (B)OPENINGS IN WALLS. ALL OPENINGS IN EXTERIOR WALLS SHALL CONFORM TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 504(B) AND SHALL BE PROTECTED BY A FIRE ASSEMBLY HAVING A THREE- FOURTHS-HOUR FIRE-PROTECTION RATING WHEN THEY ARE LESS THAN 20 FEET FROM AN ADJACENT PROPERTY LINE OR THE CENTER LINE OF A PUBLIC WAY. NO OPENINGS SHALL BE PERMITTED IN EXTERIOR WALLS OF GROUPS A, E, I, AND B, DIVISIONS 1, 2, AND 3 OCCUPANCIES LESS THAN 5 FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE, AND NO OPENINGS IN GROUPS B, DIVISION 4, R AND M OCCUPANCIES LESS THAN 3 FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE. FOR GROUP H OCCUPANCIES, SEE CHAPTER 9. On or about February 15, 1994, representatives from the bank requested authorization to replace the windows. The request has been denied by the Building Office. The applicant is aggrieved and requests a modification or reversal of the enforcing officers decision. Mr. Keith Kelley, representing Michigan National Bank and Mr. Paul Jacobs representing M.B.D.S. Architects were in attendance. Mr. Paul Jacobs described the different conditions in the building as follows: I. DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING CONDITIONS A. NORTH ELEVATION - WEST HALF (Original Building) Floors 2 and 3 have 4 double units each of copper clad hung windows with frosted wired glass. Wire in glass appears to be "chicken wire". Units bear UL label of time period. Distance from wall line to centerline of right-of-way to the north is 1l'-7 1/2" according to building construction drawings. B. NORTH ELEVATION - EAST HALF (1968 Annex) Floors 4 through 10 have existing aluminum frame hung windows with plate glass. Window openings are protected by a deluge system on the exterior designed to wash all openings if activated. Building Board of Appeals March 15, 1994, Page 5 Distance from wall line to centerline of right-of-way to the north is 7'-6" according to building construction drawings. C. EAST ELEVATION - 3rd & 4th FLOORS (1968 Annex) Existing aluminum frame hung windows with wire glass. Openings are protected by the deluge system. Distance from building wall to centerline of right-of-way is 1'-8 1/2" and distance to Hollister Building to the east is 1'-3 1/2". Total width of alley between buildings is 3'-011, all according to original building construction drawings. D. EAST ELEVATION - 5th through 10th Floors (1968 Annex) Existing windows are aluminum frame hung units with clear plate glass. Openings are protected by deluge system. Distances are same as described in "C." above, except beginning with the 5th Floor the window elevations are above the roof level of the Hollister Building to the east. II. PROPOSED REPLACEMENT OF WINDOWS The Owner wishes to replace all of the existing window units with new aluminum hung windows with thermal break construction and insulated Lo E Bronze glazing. All replacement work is scheduled for existing openings only; no new window locations are being proposed. Paul Jacobs submitted the following arguments in support of this appeal. ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF THIS APPEAL GENERAL The building is a landmark location in the City of Lansing. The original tower portion was constructed around 1930, with the Annex added around 1968. The window openings being discussed herein have been part of the building; the spaces are occupied; the , light and possible ventilation are part of the occupant's expectations. The Owner has worked diligently, and is still, to bring the Life Safety Features of the building to current standards. Among the improvements made are the following. . . An automatic fire suppression system has been installed and is operational in virtually every interior area of the building. A new smoke and fire detection system is being installed at this time, and will be integrated to the Fire Sprinkler System and supervised. Building Board of Appeals March 15, 1994, Page 6 - Virtually all the floors now have enclosed elevator lobbies as required by Code. In addition, the 1968 Annex was built with an exterior deluge system which washes the entire north and east walls in the event of fire. We offer the following arguments in support of the specific areas discussed in Part I. A. NORTH ELEVATION - WEST HALF - 2nd & 3rd Floors The current windows would not meet present day requirements for UL labeled fire rated windows; nor would the glazing. The Owner is proposing to furnish a sprinkler head directly in front of each window unit on the interior to provide specific protection at the existing openings. B. NORTH ELEVATION - EAST HALF - Floors 4 through 10 The openings are protected by the exterior deluge system. The new units are similar to the existing units relative to fire resistance (i.e. aluminum frames) . The interior spaces are all currently sprinkled. C. EAST SIDE - Floors 3 & 4 - The openings are protected by the deluge system. The interior spaces are all sprinkled. The existing frames are aluminum as are the proposed new frames. Jim Ballard, Fire Marshall, stated that he has no objection to the variance. Dick Jones moved to grant the appeal based upon the architects submission. Motion supported by Joe Wilcox. Record of Vote Yea Na Richard Stuckman, Chair X Richard Jones, Vice Chair X Joe Wilcox X Christine D'Alec (absent) Randall Kamm (absent) * Motion Carried. Building Board of Appeals March 15, 1994, Page 7 In support of this decision the Board makes the following findings of fact: The Board incorporates the findings of fact which were submitted by Paul Jacobs into their findings. Case AB-005-94, 937 McCullough An application for appeal has been filed by Ron and Elizabeth Garlock, 7587 Philwood, Grand Ledge, Michigan, 48917. The applicant seeks relief from Section 1460.20 of the Lansing Uniform Housing Code, which requires that the minimum ceiling height in a habitable room be 7'4". The Lansing Uniform Building Code requires a minimum ceiling height in habitable rooms of 716". The Lansing Housing Code sets a minimum height of 714" 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 still height of 48 inches. There are numerous dwellings throughout the City with rooms as well as entire floors being used as habitable space which do not comply with these 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 helping to ensure that safe housing is being provided to residents of the City. Code Compliance Officer's are authorized to grant exceptions in the field as they pertain to ceiling heights, when the ceiling height is at least 618". The Building Official is authorized to grant exceptions when the ceiling height and the room width achieves 830 of the required area as determined by computations. In this case, the unit does not comply with this minimum criteria; consequently, Appeals Board approval is required. The applicant has stated that he feels the appeal should be granted based upon the following findings of fact: 1. There is an adequate stairway leading to and from the area. 2. We are proposing to provide egress windows and smoke detectors for each bedroom. 3. The two rooms are very large (1016" x 13'6") . 4. The bedrooms have been used since the house was constructed in 1938. 5. If the property is limited to two bedrooms, it will be almost impossible to rent. Mr. Ron Garlock presented his case, and stated that he owns a rental at 937 McCullough Street. The ceiling height on the second floor is inadequate and wishes it to be used for 2 sleeping areas. Ron Vanzee, a Rental Rehabilitation Inspector for the City was in attendance and stated that the City was assisting in the rehabilitation of this structure. Building Board of Appeals March 15, 1994, Page 8 Joe Wilcox asked if the headroom in the exit stairway was adequate. Mr. Vanzee stated that the height was 614". Mr. Wilcox asked how many bedrooms were located on the first and second floors. Mr. Vanzee stated that two were located on the first and two on the second floor, but one bedroom on the first floor just meets the minimums. Joe Wilcox moved to grant the appeal, conditioned upon installing smoke detection in the entire building in conformance with Section 1210 of the 1991 U.B.C. Second an egress window complying with Section 1204 of the Code must be installed in each bedroom. Mr. Nelson asked for clarification on the smoke detection system. Mr. Wilcox stated that the system must be hard wired and all detectors interconnected. Motion was supported by Mr. Jones. Record of Vote Yea Na Richard Stuckman, Chair X Richard Jones, Vice Chair X Joe Wilcox X Christine D'Alec (absent) Randall Kamm (absent) * Motion Carried. In support of this decision the board makes the following findings of fact: The installation of smoke detection and egress windows will ensure that fire safety is not compromised. In other business the Board reviewed the Construction Upgrade Report ##2 concerning the Washington Square Building. It was the consensus of the Board that adequate progress has been made on the project, so as to negate the necessity for legal action. Building Board of Appeals March 15, 1994, Page 9 Being no further business, Joe Wilcox made a motion to adjourn. The motion was supported by Dick Jones. Motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 3:50. Respectfully submitted, g f ac A. Nelson, Secretary Bui ding Board of Appeals Board Minutes approved on CITY OF I, Ar1 INC ..y INTEROFFICE COMMUNICATION 02-01 -94P02 : 01 PCVD y Vale, TO: Building Board of Appeals Members I DATE: 01/31/ga FROM: Jack A. Nelson, Secretary, BBA i SUBJECT: February Meeting As there is no business to be conducted, there will be no February Board of Appeals meeting. Thank you. 02-01 -94P02 : 01 KCVO OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS of the CITY OF LANSING BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS Tuesday, January 11, 1994 The City of Lansing Building Board of Appeals was called to order by Vice-Chairman Jones at 2:04 p.m. The following members were in attendance: Richard Jones, Vice Chair Christine D'Alecy Randall Kamm Joe Wilcox The following members were absent: Richard Stuckman Staff members present: James Ballard, Fire Marshall Jack A. Nelson, Recording Secretary It was moved by Joe Wilcox and seconded by Christine D'Alecy to approve the minutes of the December 14, 1993 Appeals Board Meeting. Motion carried unanimously. Case AB 028-93, 109 W. Michigan Avenue, Locking System for Elevator Lobbies On August 26, 1993, Mr. Adam Fitzgerald, Architect of Victor Design, requested authorization to install a door unlocking system on the Elevator Lobbies on certain floors at 109 W. Michigan Avenue. The current configuration of the Washington Square Elevator Lobbies is such that there is currently access to only one (1) exit stair from the Elevator Lobby. This is due to the fact that those floors are single tenant floors and they need a locked security door at the stairwell, according to the applicant. This scenario, of course, does not comply with current Building Code requirements since access must be afforded to both exits. The current situation is untenable since the doors are locked. Should a fire occur, which renders the stair-shaft at the lobby unusable, individuals would be trapped in a locked Elevator Lobby. Building Board of Appeals January 11, 1994 , Page 2 On August 30, 1993, I issued an Administrative Modification to authorize the installation of the system on the Lobby Doors. The Modification was predicated upon compliance with seven (7) conditions, one of which required the applicable floor to be sprinkled. The Building is an unsprinkled high-rise building which is currently undergoing renovations. The Building Department has developed a five year compliance schedule which, when completed, would bring the building into substantial compliance with the 1807 high-rise requirements. On October 14, 1993, the Board of Appeals granted the appeal which will allow the installation of the locking doors on certain floors of the building. The appeal was granted subject to the submission of an accelerated time schedule for the installation of the fire suppression system on the Court of Appeals Floors, and compliance with Administrative Modification AM-13-93, issued on August 30, 1993. It was further stipulated that additional signage to acknowledge secondary exits beyond the suite door was required as well as a deadline of December 31, 1993 for installation of the door locking mechanisms. The purpose of this hearing is to review the fire suppression system installation schedule and review the status of the installation of the unlocking devices. The installation as submitted states: "We are currently in the process of obtaining bids for the required upgrading of elevator lobbies on all floors for compliance with Section 1807 of the current Uniform Building Code. This work is required to be performed in conjunction with the installation of the locking system for the Court of Appeals. Upon receipt of bids, we intend to initiate construction upgrading and locking system installations beginning with the Court of Appeals' floors as soon as the selected contractor can have crews available for this work. We anticipate completion for the Court of Appeals' floors by December 31, 1993, depending on contractor availability and scheduling. The completion of the upgrading of the elevator lobbies for the remaining floors will continue immediately following completion of the Court of Appeals work. Installation of the fire suppression system stand-pipe and activation of floors 1 and 7 will be tentatively scheduled to begin January 21, 1994. This work requires upgrading of the fire suppression main supply feed from 4" dia. to 6" dia. service. We are presently in the process of scheduling this portion of the work with the Board of Water and Light. We are currently negotiating potential renovations of floors 3 and 9 with the Court of Appeals. Upon completion of these negotiations, we anticipate installation of the fire suppression systems for these floors to begin in late spring or early summer of 1994. Building Board of Appeals January 11, 1994 , Page 3 Following completion of floors 3 and 9, installation for the remaining Court of Appeals' floors are anticipated to proceed as follows: 2nd floor, Wednesday, January 18, 1995; 4th floor, Wednesday, June 14, 1995; 5th floor, Wednesday, January 17, 1996; 6th floor, Wednesday, June 19, 1996, completing the floors presently occupied by the Court of Appeals." At the December 14, 1993, meeting, Dick Jones made a motion that the applicant be responsible for the submission of progress reports which correspond to the due dates established in the November compliance schedule; second, the applicant was requested to provide a report of compliance for this meeting, as to the status of the door unlocking mechanism. Bob Edgar submitted the following construction schedule update for review. WASHINGTON SQUARE CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE UPDATE: January 11, 1994 A. Elevator Lobbies: 1. Work to begin Monday, January 17, 1994. 2. Contracted to V.E. Construction. B. Locking Systems: 1. Work will hopefully resume next week. 2. The Court of Appeals has one man in charge of installing phone and electrical systems state-wide and will free him up for this project. 3. Work will be coordinated with lobby renovations. C. Fire Suppression Stand Pipe System: 1. Unable to contact Board of Water & Light for update on scheduling progress. 2. Installation is still tentatively scheduled for January 21, 1994 (to the best of my knowledge) . 3. Presently working with American Fire Protection on pricing. D. Renovation of Floors 3 & 9: 1. Preliminary planning is complete and out for pricing. 2. Next meeting is scheduled for January 12, at 10:30. E. Fire Alarm System: 1. Working with Magna Electric and B & D Electric regarding final pricing. 2. Installation will be coordinated with all other construction phases. Dick Jones stated that the Board has concern as to compliance. Christine D'Alecy would like a bi-weekly update of the construction progress. Bob Edgar indicated that he would do so. Building Board of Appeals January 11 , 1994 , Page 4 Christine D'Alecy moved to require bi-weekly updates of construction progress with monthly reports to the Board. The schedule was accepted into the record. The motion was seconded by Randall Kamm. Record of Vote Yea Nay Richard Stuckman, Chair (absent) Richard Jones, Vice Chair (abstained) Joe Wilcox X Christine D'Alecy X Randall Kamm X *Motion Carried. CASE AB-032-93, 618 LATHROP STREET An application for appeal has been filed by Mr. James Hood, 814 Lapeer Street, Lansing, Michigan. The applicant seeks a modification or reversal of the enforcing officers decision which disallows the use of the second floor for bedroom purposes. The citation was issued since the ceiling height does not comply with the minimum requirements of the Lansing Uniform Housing Code. The case was referred to the Building Safety Manager to determine if the request met the requirements of the Policy Statement for Ceiling Height Variances. After deliberation, it has been determined that the ceiling height achieves 86 0 of the required area as determined by the Policy. Consequently, the ceiling complies with the Boards policy for approval, but the headroom in the stairway does not comply with code requirements. The applicant is aggrieved and requests a modification or reversal of the enforcing officers decision. Randall Kamm moved to remove Case AB-032-93 from the table. The motion was supported by Joe Wilcox. --FRecord of Vote Yea I Nay Richard Stuckman, Chair (absent) Richard Jones, Vice Chair (abstained) Joe Wilcox X Christine D'Alecy X Randall Kamm X *Motion Carried Unanimously. Building Board of Appeals January 11, 1994 , Page 5 Joe Wilcox stated that in his opinion, the lack of headroom clearance at the top of the stairway creates a hazardous situation. Mr. Wilcox suggested that a dormer be constructed to rectify the situation. Mr. Nelson stated that the headroom clearance at the top of the stairway is 48". Mr. Nelson agreed that the current situation was unsafe. Section 3306(o) requires that every stairway shall have a headroom clearance of not less than 618". Mr. Hood stated that he would seal the room until he had the money to construct a dormer. Joe Wilcox moved to approve the appeal, subject to the correction of the stairway ceiling height limitation, installation of a hardwired smoke detector system which complies with current code requirements for new buildings, and installation of an egress window which complies with Section 1204 of the U. B. C. The room shall be sealed, until this is accomplished. The Motion was seconded by Christine D'Alecy. Record of Vote Yea Nay Richard Stuckman, Chair (absent) Richard Jones, Vice Chair (abstained) Joe Wilcox X Christine D'Alecy X Randall Kamm X *Motion Carried Unanimously. In support of this decision, the Board makes the following findings of fact: The ceiling height in the stair shaft will prevent safe exiting from the second floor. The Building Code requires a minimum ceiling height of 618". The actual ceiling height is 482" . In like manner, fire department personnel would not be able to negotiate the stair shaft when wearing their standard equipment. CASE AB-001-94 1801 E SAGINAW STREET An application for appeal has been filed by Mr. Paul Jacob, Architect, M.B .D.S. on behalf of East Saginaw Associates, 6005 W. St. Joseph St. Building Board of Appeals January 11 , 1994 , Page 6 The applicant seeks a modification or reversal of the enforcing officers decision to disallow a proposal to allow egress through an elevator lobby to gain access to a required exit. Section 3305(j) of the Code allows exiting through enclosed elevator lobbies if all areas of the building have access to at least one required exit without passing through the lobby. This exception is authorized only in fully sprinkled office buildings. In this case, the building is not equipped with a fire suppression system. The applicant is aggrieved and requests a modification or reversal of the enforcing officers decision. Mr. Jacobs addressed the Board and stated: The Building at 1801 East Saginaw Street is constructed so that no floor level is accessible for handicappers; i.e. , the first floor is approximately 30" below grade, and there is no elevator. The Owner desires to improve the facility by means of creating barrier free accessibility to both floors of the building via a new elevator. Placement of the elevator, and therefore the elevator lobby, are bound by the following constraints: specific limitations for placement to successfully service the two main floor levels from the lobby floor level. * double sided, or double entrance elevator required. * lack of flexibility to build into parking area resulting in reduction of parking spaces. * available land to north of existing building. * unsuitability for barrier free access to the south building entrance. The optimum placement of the elevator therefore created a situation in which the elevator lobby is created as part of the .corridor system, as would be allowed in a sprinkled building. This facility currently is not sprinkled. The building currently has a monitored smoke and fire detection system in all the suites. The owner has expressed a willingness to extend this system to the corridors and elevator lobby as part of the improvements being proposed. In our opinion, the facility will not be made less safe in any way as a result of the proposed plan; in fact, by the segregation of the proposed north stairwell, we are improving over the current, open stairwell. Building Board of Appeals January 11, 1994 , Page 7 We therefore respectfully request a variance from Code Requirement 3305(j) to permit the proposed layout. Refer to attached drawings. Joe Wilcox stated that his company constructed the building, consequently he is very familiar with the building. The existing corridors are fire rated. The ceilings are drywall, consequently the installation of the fire suppression system. Christine D'Alecy stated that it would be prudent to construct a separation at both ends of the corridor. Jim Ballard, Fire Marshall, stated that in his opinion, the building should be sprinkled. Mr. Jacobs stated that the piping would have to be surface mounted. Joe Wilcox moved to grant the appeal subject to the construction of a separation at the south stairway similar to the one which is proposed. Motion seconded by Randall Kamm. Record of Vote Yea Nay Richard Stuckman, Chair (absent) Richard Jones, Vice Chair (abstained) Joe Wilcox X Christine D'Alecy X Randall Kamm X *Motion Carried Unanimously. In support of this decision, the Board makes the following findings of fact: The Board concurs with the arguments stated in Mr. Jacobs' presentation and hereby incorporates them as findings of fact. CASE AB-002-94 120 EAST LENAWEE STREET An application for appeal has been filed by Mr. Pete Holz, Architect, on behalf of the Lansing State Journal, which is located at 120 East Lenawee Street. The applicant seeks a reversal or modification of the plan review letter dated January 6, 1994. the review letter was based upon a set of construction documents which was submitted for review and approval. The plans indicated that a training room and a lunch room was being created in the basement of the above referenced Building Board of Appeals January 11, 1994 , Page 8 building. The room has a calculated occupant load of 68 persons, and has one means of egress. In like manner, the area is not fire suppressed nor is the exit path protected. The architect has resubmitted a set of construction documents which addresses all of the concerns with the exception of the second exit from the space. The applicant is aggrieved and seeks a reversal or modification of the enforcing officers decision. Jack Nelson presented the case to the Board. Mr. Nelson stated that the department performed a plan review on the project and cited the following violations: Building Code Review -- Jack Nelson, Building Safety Manager 1. The altered area, to include the lobby, shall be equipped with a fire suppression system or provide fire department access in accordance with Section 3802. 2. The occupant load for the altered area is 68 persons. Two exits are required from the space. The proposed plan shows one exit. TABLE 33-A 3303 (a) Number of Exits 3. The elevator opens directly into a corridor'which serves an occupant load exceeding thirty persons. The elevator shall be provided with a lobby which separates the elevator from the exiting system. The lobby shall completely separate the elevators from the corridor by construction conforming to Section 3305(g) and 3305(h) . 4. The corridor which serves as an element of exiting from the lunch room to the stairshaft shall comply with the requirements of a fire rated corridor. Section 3305, U.B .C. 1991 5. The stairshaft between the basement and the first floor shall be enclosed. Doors shall be self-closing, of noncombustible construction or solid wood core, not less than 1 3/4" in thickness. Section 1703. U.B.C. 1991 6. All elements of construction shall consist of noncombustible material. Wood blocking may be used when of fire retardant material with the appropriate brand. TABLE 17-A, U.B.C. 1991 7. Exit illumination and signage shall be in accordance with Section 3313 and 3314. The location of exit lights is subject to field approval. Christine D'Alecy stated that she is concerned since there is not a protected means of egress to the exit discharge from the space. Building Board of Appeals January 11, 1994 , Page 9 Dick Jones asked if a second exit could be constructed through an adjoining portion of the basement. Mr. Nelson stated that it would be difficult to construct a rated corridor through the basement since there is a track system which transports newsprint rolls. Joe Wilcox moved to approve the variance request, which would authorize the construction activity, without providing the two exits. This approval is subject to compliance with the following conditions: 1. The project shall comply with items #1, #3, #4, #5, #6, and #7 of Mr. Nelsons plan review letter dated January 6, 1994. 2. The existing exit shall comply with Section 3305(g) of the Lansing Uniform Building Code pertaining to fire rated corridors. 3. The corridor shall be sprinkled in accordance with Section 3802 of the Lansing Building Code. The motion was supported by Randall Kamm. Record of Vote Yea Nay Richard Stuckman, Chair (absent) Richard Jones, Vice Chair (abstained) Joe Wilcox X Christine D'Alecy X Randall Kamm X *Motion Carried Unanimously. In support of this decision the Board makes the following findings of fact: 1. In the Boards opinion, the conditions under which this permit is issued will afford sufficient protection to the occupants of the affected area. 2. The area in question is currently used for assembly purposes. The alterations will vastly improve the fire safety of the space. Christine D'Alecy informed the Board that she has listed her house and will be moving outside the City. Consequently her term on the Board may be for a short duration of time. Building Board of Appeals January 11, 1994 , Page 10 Jack Nelson asked her Ms. D'Alecy to keep the Department updated on the status of her residency. Being no further business, Randall Kamm made a motion to adjourn. The motion was seconded by Joe Wilcox. Motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 3:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jack A. Nelson, Secretary Building Board of Appeals JAN/rbm Board Minutes approved on