Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBuilding Board of Appeals 1995 Minutes OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS of the CITY OF LANSING P � E' `}3 BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS LAINSliyu CITY CLERK September 12, 1995 The September meeting of the City of Lansing Building Board of Appeals was called to order by Vice Chairman Richard Jones at 2:00 p.m. The following members were in attendance: Richard Jones, Vice Chair David McAlvey Dean R. Taylor Members Absent: Richard Stuckman, Chairman Randall Kamm Staff members present: Christine Segerlind, Acting Secretary Les Hunter, Fire Inspector A motion was made by David McAlvey to approve the minutes of the August 8, 1995, meeting. Motion was seconded by Dean Taylor. Motion carried'. OLD BUSINESS CASE AB-019-95 - 1940 N Larch and 5035 N M L King Jr Blvd At the August 8, 1995, meeting the Board granted this appeal which allowed the reduction of the ventilation requirement subject to the Department and Design Engineer determining the most feasible location for the ventilation openings. The approval also required that CO detectors be installed. The Building Safety Office after consulting with Mr. Gordon Kline of the International Conference of Building Officials (I.C.B.0.) Mechanical Division, is requesting that the Board reconsider this case. Af ter consulting with Mr. Gordon Kline of the I.C.B.O. it is the Department's opinion that the Building Safety Office should draft a policy which addresses the different scenario's which have been encountered. Mr. Kline suggested that facilities which accomplish work where the engine is not running during the course of repair, be allowed to operate without meeting the requirements of Section 905(c) since the overhead doors provide sufficient ventilation. In like manner after reviewing the proposal submitted by Lentz Muffler the mechanical section feels that its effects would be negligible. It is our recommendation that CO detectors be installed in the facility for monitoring purposes should a problem develop during the winter. BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS SEPTEMBER 12, 1995 PAGE 2 Dave McAlvey moved to grant appeal to install CO detectors contingent on quantities determined by the mechanical section and to waive the approval from the August 8, 1995, meeting. Motion seconded by Dean Taylor. Motion carried.' CASE AB-022-95 - 612 S Magnolia This case was tabled at the August 8, 1995, meeting since the petitioner was not in attendance. An application for appeal has been filed by Mr. Mason Beasley. The petitioner seeks relief from Section 1460.13(a) of the Lansing Uniform Housing Code. On or about April 12, 1995, Mr. Michael Gillison, Code Compliance Officer for the City of Lansing, cited 612 S. Magnolia for noncompliance with Section 1460.13(a) of the Lansing Uniform Housing Code. In like manner the sleeping room does not comply with the minimum egress requirements of the Housing Code. Technical Information: Ceiling height: Peak - 89" (715") 36" Dimension - 62" (512") The above referenced windows do not comply with egress requirements of the Housing Code since the net clear opening height is inadequate. Mr. Beasley stated that he has owned this property for approximately 18 years. Mr. Beasley stated that he had applied for a permit 13 years ago to raise the roof but was turned down because the building is in the flood zone. Mr. Beasley further stated that the room is used by a 7 year old boy who has no problem getting into and out of the window. Dave McAlvey moved to grant this appeal provided that an egress window that meets the code is installed and hard wired smoke detection is installed as provided by code. Supported by Dean Taylor. Motion carried3. NEW BUSINESS CASE AB-024-95 - 1236/1238 N Turner An application for appeal has been filed by Ms. Marilyn Frye. The petitioner seeks relief from Section 1204 of the Uniform Building Code, 1991 edition (Section 310.4 of the 1994 edition) which states that bedrooms must be provided with an operable window approved for emergency escape or rescue. The petitioner was not present for this case. Vice Chairman Richard Jones read excerpts from the Appeal Docket for this appeal. Vice Chairman Jones determined that sufficient information had been provided to allow the Board to vote on this issue without the petitioner being present. The petitioner is requesting continued use of existing windows in sleeping rooms as egress windows. BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS SEPTEMBER 12, 1995 PAGE 3 The petitioner currently has a building permit to convert a building located at 1236/1238 N. Turner to an art studio (1st floor) and apartments (2nd floor) . The Departments review required that the windows in the sleeping rooms on the second floor comply with egress requirements of the building code. Building Safety Office Analysis: 1. The units meet the requirements for an existing building as required by the building code. New code requirements were triggered due to the scope of the work. 2. Enlarging the openings in the masonry wall would be difficult and not cost effective. 3. The units are adequate size for Fire Department access. Dave McAlvey moved to grant this appeal. Supported by Dean Taylor. Motion carried4. CASE AB-025-95 - 430 N Larch This case was previously addressed in June of 1994, Case AB-004-94. The proposal at that time consisted of two elements. The first pertained to exiting from "Bed Units 1, 2 and 3" on the first floor. The second issue pertained to exiting from a second floor which at the time of the appeal was unfinished. The first element of the case was approved, the second element was tabled to afford the architect sufficient time to submit a proposal. Due to the length of time between the Board action and the submission the Department has assigned a new case number for disposition of the second element. Mr. Bob Smith and Ms. Margery Chapman were present for this appeal. Section 3309(c) of the Uniform Building Code (1009.4, 1994 edition) states that a stairway enclosure shall extend to the exit discharge. The only exception to the requirement is in Group B Division 2 offices where 50% of the occupant load may exit through a street floor lobby if the lobby is protected with an automatic sprinkler system. Mr. Smith stated that they are requesting to allow the occupants of the second floor space to be directed through Dining Room 127 when exiting the first floor level of Stair No. 1. This would constitute a secondary exit from the second floor with Stair No. 2 (which exits directly to the outdoors) serving as the primary exit. Additional safeguards, in the form of smoke detectors, exit lighting or signage, could be provided to identify the exit route. This scheme would appear to satisfy the requirements of 3303(e) . Mr. Smith further stated that the following had been completed as suggested by the Building Safety Office: 1. A fire suppression system was installed on the second floor and in dining area. 2. Smoke detection was installed on the entire second floor, both stairshafts and the dining area. 3. Exit illumination and signage was installed per code requirements. 4. A fire separation between the kitchen and the dining room shall be constructed. All detectors shall be wired to a fire alarm system installed in accordance with the fire code. Dean Taylor moved to grant this appeal with the provision that the passage door between the uses to be held open by a magnetic hold open device activated by smoke detection as suggested by the Building Safety Office. Motion supported by Dave McAlvey. Motion carrieds. BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS SEPTEMBER 12, 1995 PAGE 4 Being no other business Dave McAlvey moved to adjourn. Motion seconded by Dean Taylor. Motion carried6. Respectfully Submitted, l Christine Segerlind Acting Secretary DRAFT: APPROVED: BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS SEPTEMBER 12, 1995 PAGE 5 RECORD OF VOTES: #1 Record of Vote Yea Nay Richard Stuckman, Chair (Absent) Richard Jones, Vice Chair X Dean Taylor X Randall Kamm (Absent) (Absent) FDave McAlvey X #2 Record of Vote Yea Nay Richard Stuckman, Chair (Absent) Richard Jones, Vice Chair X Dean Taylor X Randall Kamm (Absent) Dave McAlvey X #3 Record of Vote Yea Nay Richard Stuckman, Chair (Absent) Richard Jones, Vice Chair x Dean Taylor X Randall Kamm (Absent) Dave McAlvey X #4 Record of Vote Yea Nay Richard Stuckman, Chair (Absent) Richard Jones, Vice Chair X Dean Taylor X Randall Kamm (Absent) Dave McAlvey X BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS SEPTEMBER 12, 1995 PAGE 6 #5 Record of Vote Yea Nay Richard Stuckman, Chair (Absent) Richard Jones, Vice Chair X Dean Taylor X Randall Kamm (Absent) Dave McAlvey X #6 Record of Vote Yea Nay Richard Stuckman, Chair (Absent) i Richard Jones, Vice Chair X Dean Taylor X Randall Kamm (Absent) Dave McAlvey X OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS I_.. _! r4 of the :. _ _ "; CITY OF LANSING 1 'r : � L :,SII BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS CITY CLE(;,� August 8, 1995 The August meeting of the City of Lansing Building Board of Appeals was called to order by Chairman Richard Stuckman at 2:00 p.m. The following members were in attendance: Richard Stuckman, Chair Richard Jones, Vice Chair David McAlvey Randall Kamm Dean R. Taylor Members Absent: NONE Staff members present: Jack A. Nelson, Secretary James Ballard, Fire Marshal A motion was made by Randall Kamm to approve the minutes of the July 11, 1995, meeting. Motion was seconded by Dean Taylor. Motion carried'. OLD BUSINESS CASE AB-019-95 - 1940 N Larch and 5035 N M L King Jr Blvd This appeal was tabled in the July 11, 1995, meeting to afford the petitioner an opportunity to find alternative means of ventilation. An application for appeal has been filed by Mr. Gregory Lentz. The petitioner seeks relief from Section 905(c) of the 1991 edition of the Uniform Building Code. Section 905(c) of the 1991 edition of the Uniform Building Code requires that all buildings used for the repair or handling of motor vehicles operating under their own power, must be provided with mechanical ventilation capable of exhausting a minimum of 1 cubic foot per minute per square foot of floor area. Each engine repair stall shall be equipped with an exhaust pipe extension duct, extending to the outside of the building, which, if over 10 feet in length, shall mechanically exhaust 300 cubic feet per minute. Connecting offices and waiting rooms shall be supplied with conditioned air under positive pressure. The Building Code also offers an exception to this provision. EXCEPTION: When approved, ventilating equipment may be omitted in repair garages, enclosed heliports and aircraft hangars when well-distributed unobstructed openings to the outer air of sufficient size to supply necessary ventilation are furnished. BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS AUGUST 8, 1995 PAGE 2 Mr. Lentz reiterated that this is a quick service auto repair facility (brakes, mufflers, shocks, etc. ) . Cars are only running when they are coming into or going out of the bay area where they are repaired. Mr. Lentz stated that he is proposing to use fans and a cross ventilation system. Unit will provide exhaust and in-take air. Mr. Lentz provided the Board members with architectural drawing showing his proposal. Mr. Lentz stated that the ventilation system at the N Larch store will provide 600 c.f.m. of in- take air and the S. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd. store will provide 800 c.f.m. in-take air. Mr. Stuckman asked if the office areas are under positive pressure. Mr. Lentz stated yes the offices are under positive pressure. Mr. Lentz reiterated that MIOSHA had originally required a unit that washes the brakes while they are on the car to prevent brake dust when they are removed. MIOSHA is no longer requiring this but the units have already been purchased and are being used. Richard Jones made a motion to grant appeal with the provision that the Mechanical Inspectors work with the architect/engineer to determine the location of the ventilation system. Supported by Randall Kamm. Randall Kamm amended the motion to required CO detectors to be installed as appropriate. Amended motion seconded by Dave McAlvey.. Motion carried.z NEW BUSINESS CASE AB-023-95 - 6545 Mercantile Way (Main level, Suites 1-4) An application for appeal has been filed by Mr. Brian Cappelli of Equity Office Properties. The petitioner seeks relief from Section 1005.7 of the Lansing Uniform Building Code. Request is hereby made to reduce the requirement of installing a 2 hour separation wall in place of an existing 1 hour wall between suites #2 and 3. Three existing openings will be filled in to meet the 1 hour requirements. Existing wall now exists from floor to bottom of covered roof trusses. Mr. Cappelli stated that there are exits to each suite which exit directly to the outside, an interconnecting smoke detection system will be installed throughout suites 1 - 4, communication doors are proposed to be "b" labeled openings with closers and magnetic hold open devices connected to smoke detection devices, and additional emergency lighting will be installed. Mr. Cappelli further stated that the building is fully sprinkled. A brief discussion followed. Randall Kamm moved to grant this appeal. Supported by Dean Taylor. Motion carried3. CASE AB-022-95 - 612 S Magnolia An application for appeal has been filed Mason Beasley. The petitioner seeks relief from Section 1460.13(a) of the Housing Code. BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS AUGUST 8, 1995 PAGE 3 On or about April 12, 1995, Mr. Michael Gillison, Code Compliance Officer for the City of Lansing, Cited 612 S. Magnolia for noncompliance with Section 1460.13(a) of the Lansing Uniform Housing Code. In like manner the sleeping room does not comply with the minimum egress requirements of the Housing Code. Mr. Beasley was not present for this case. Mr. Nelson requested that this appeal be tabled until the September 12, 1995, meeting. Randall Kamm moved to table this appeal until the September 12, 1995, meeting. Motion supported by Richard Jones. Motion carried4. Being no other business Richard Jones moved to adjourn. Motion seconded by David McAlvey. Motion carried5. Respectfully Su mittpd, Jelson S DRAFT: � hD APPROVED: BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS AUGUST 8, 1995 PAGE 4 RECORD OF VOTES: #1 Record of Vote Yea Nay Richard Stuckman, Chair X Richard Jones, Vice Chair X Dean Taylor X Randall Kamm X Dave McAlvey X #2 Record of Vote Yea Nay Richard Stuckman, Chair X Richard Jones, Vice Chair X Dean Taylor X Randall Kamm X Dave McAlvey X #3 Record of Vote Yea Nay Richard Stuckman, Chair X Richard Jones, Vice Chair X Dean Taylor X Randall Kamm X Dave McAlvey X #4 Record of Vote Yea Nay Richard Stuckman, Chair X Richard Jones, Vice Chair X Dean Taylor X Randall Kamm X Dave McAlvey X BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS AUGUST 8, 1995 PAGE 5 #5 Record of Vote Yea Nay Richard Stuckman, Chair X Richard Jones, Vice Chair X Dean Taylor X Randall Kamm X Dave McAlvey X OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS of the CITY OF LANSING BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS June 14 3 1995 The June meeting of the City of Lansing Building Board of Appeals was called to order by Chairman Richard Stuckman at 2:00 p.m. The following members were in attendance: Richard Stuckman, Chair David McAlvey Randall Kamm r- Dean R. Taylor Members Absent: C. ' c-) Richard Jones, Vice Chair t _ Staff members present: ' Jack A. Nelson, Secretary James Ballard, Fire Marshal A motion was made by Randall Kamm to approve the minutes of the May 9, 1995, meeting. Motion was seconded by David McAlvey.. Motion carried . OLD BUSINESS There was no old business. NEW BUSINESS CASE AB-014-95 - 831 N Washington An application for appeal has been filed by Mr. David Muylle. The petitioner seeks relief from the following provisions of the City of Lansing Uniform Building Code 1991 edition: 1. Usable Space under Floors Sec. 1703. Usable space under the first story shall be enclosed and such enclosure when constructed of metal or wood shall be protected on the side of the usable space as required for one-hour fire-resistive construction. Doors shall be self-closing, of noncombustible construction or solid wood core, not less than 1 3/4 inches in thickness. EXCEPTIONS: 1. Group R. , Division 3 and Group M Occupancies. 2. Vehicle service pits. The petitioner proposes the installation of a "smoke detection system" in the entire building in lieu of the separation required by Section 1703. BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS JUNE 13, 1995 PAGE 2 2. Exits Required Section 3303(a) . The second story shall be provided with not less than two exits when the occupant load is 10 or more. Occupants on floors above the second story and in basements shall have access to not less than two separate exits from the floor or basement. The third floor is provided with (1) one exit. Section 3303(a) of the code requires (2) two exits from the third floor. 3. Arrangement of Exits Section 3303(c) . Arrangement of Exits. If only two exits are required, they shall be placed a distance apart equal to not less than one half of the length of the maximum overall diagonal dimension of the building or area to be served measured in a straight line between exits. The basement is provided with two exits. The distance between the two exits does not comply with Section 3303(c) of the Building Code. This case is being brought before the Building Board of Appeals to prevent an exiting violation from being issued by the Fire Prevention Bureau at a later date. Mr. Muylle stated that each office will have (1) tenant. Mr. Muylle also stated that he did not anticipate there being more than (8) occupants in the building at one time. Mr. Muylle further stated that smoke detection will be monitored by Midnight Security Systems. Building Safety Office Analysis: The three appeal requests appear to have merit and are within the purview of Appeals Board authority for action. In relationship to the basement, the Board has issued several appeals for existing buildings where it can be substantiated that existing mechanical systems would prohibit the installation of a drywall assembly on the ceiling. The hard-wired smoke detection system would seem to equate with the protection required by Section 1703 of the code. In relationship to the arrangement of exits from the basement the Department raises an issue of proper authority. Based upon field review, no alterations were made to the building which would subject the facility to compliance. The work was limited to interior finishes as the basements prior use was commercial in nature. The Fire Marshal however has jurisdiction on existing buildings and citations could be issued at a later date. The owners not wishing potential closure are seeking disposition of this issue. BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS JUNE 13, 1995 PAGE 3 The issue of exiting from the third floor is similar to that of the basement, and appears to be under the purview of the Fire Code. The hazards may however be more acute than that of exiting from the basement since occupants from the third floor must exit one additional level. It would appear that a second exit from the second floor would mitigate this problem. The owner is opposed to its construction based upon the historic significance of the structure. Randall Kamm moved to grant this appeal. Motion seconded by Dean Taylor. Motion amended by Randall Kamm to state that appeal is granted based on the conditions stated by the petitioner. Motion seconded by Dean Taylor. Motion carried.z CASE AB-015-95 - 140 E Barnes An application for appeal has been filed by Mr. David Taylor. The petitioner seeks relief from the following provisions of the Codified Ordinances of the City of Lansing Section 1460.13 of the Housing Code: (c) Efficiency Dwelling Units. Nothing in this section shall prohibit the use of an efficiency dwelling unit within an apartment house meeting the following requirements: (1) The unit shall have a living room of not less than 220 square feet of superficial floor area. An additional 100 square feet of superficial floor area shall be provided for each occupant of such unit in excess of two. (2) The unit shall be provided with a separate closet. (3) The unit shall be provided with a kitchen sink, cooking appliance and refrigeration facilities, each having a clear working space of not less than thirty inches in front. Light and ventilation conforming to this chapter shall be provided. (4) The unit shall be provided with a separate bathroom containing a water closet, lavatory and bathtub or shower. Mr. Taylor stated that after measuring each of the rooms in the efficiency apartment he had calculated 235.59 sq.ft. (Living-room - 10.5x11, kitchen - 12.5x6, vestibule - 4x4, bathroom - 8x3, living-room closet - 4x2, and kitchen closet 1.75x1.5) Jack Nelson stated that James McCue, the Code Compliance Officer, had measured only habitable areas. The bathroom is not considered a habitable area. Mr. Taylor stated that without the bathroom he had about 211 sq.ft. Mr. Taylor further stated that there is a covered exterior stairway to enter the apartment and that hard-wired smoke detection was being installed. Mr. Nelson stated that the Board had looked at this kind of case before and had allowed use of the efficiency with the condition that only one (1) person could occupy the apartment. David McAlvey asked if there were any other violations. Mr. Nelson stated that no other violations had been noted by the Code Compliance Officer. BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS DUNE 13, 1995 PAGE 4 Randall Kamm moved to grant this appeal with the provision that it be occupied by only one (1) individual. Motion seconded by Dean Taylor. Motion seconded by Randall Kamm. Motion carried.s CASE AB-016-95 - 113 Pere Marquette An application for appeal has been filed by Mr. Todd Callaway. The petitioner seeks relief from Section 5-C of the Lansing Uniform Building Code which consists of the 1991 edition of the Uniform Building Code. This section requires that no opening be authorized within (5) five feet of the property line, and openings more than (5) five feet and less than (10) ten feet should be protected. In this case numerous window opening s are shown 9' from the centerline of the alley. The windows are not fire windows thus are not authorized. The petitioner also seeks a reversal or modification of the enforcing officers decision to require one additional water closet in the womans toilet room and one additional lavatory shall be provided in each toilet room on the first floor. This requirement is based upon Table 9-3 of the Lansing Uniform Plumbing Code. ISSUE #1 PETITIONERS ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF APPEAL: Wish to waive Table 5-C of the 1991 edition of the Uniform Building Code stating that all openings less than ten feet from the property line must be one hour rated or protected with an automatic fire suppression system. The exterior of the building is constructed with non-combustible materials and the cost to install such a system would far exceed the construction budget. BUILDING SAFETY OFFICE ANALYSIS: The petitioner offers no alternative which would equate to strict compliance of the code. The Board can not arbitrarily grant relief to a code provision which is a fire safety issue. The Department suggests that the applicant run a dedicated sprinkler line on the inside perimeter of the building and locate a head over each opening. This alternate would provide a degree of safety for the restaurant as well as adjoining owners to the south. Discussion followed as to the number of windows, location of present sprinkler heads, and window coverings. Randall Kamm stated that without offering alternatives there was no way the Board could approve this appeal. Mr. Kamm moved to deny Issue #1. Motion failed for lack of support. Richard Stuckman stated that it would be acceptable to ask for this issue to be tabled to afford the petitioner with time to come up with alternatives that would equate with strict compliance of the code. Mr. Kamm moved to table Issue #1 until the July 11, 1995, meeting. Motion supported by David ' McAlvey.. Motion carried . BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS JUNE 13, 1995 PAGE 5 Issue #2 The petitioner has installed another woman's toilet room in the basement. The installation of this toilet room brings the building into compliance. No action necessary on Issue #2. CASE AB-017-95 - 5100 S Waverly An application for appeal has been filed by Mr. Alan Martin. The petitioner seeks authority to construct a canopy over fuel dispensing pumps at the Quality Dairy store located at 5100 S Waverly Road. The petitioner proposes to construct the canopy 13' from the existing Quality Dairy store. Section 503(a) of the code places the following limitations on canopy's over fuel- dispensing pumps: A one-hour occupancy separation need not be provided between fuel-dispensing pumps covered with a canopy that is open on three or more sides, and a Group B, Division 2 Occupancy retail store having an area of less than 2,500 square feet when the following conditions exist: A. The Group B, Division 2 Occupancy is provided with two exits separated as required by Section 3303(c) and not located in the same exterior wall. B . Pump islands are not located within 20 feet of the Group B, Division 2 Occupancy retail store. Mr. Martin stated that proposal to cut canopy back 13' would make the nearest pumps 25' away from the building (from store to line of canopy 13' and from line of canopy to pump 121) . Mr. Nelson stated that another proposal was to develop an upside down parapet wall at the canopy to provide protection. A discussion followed on ways to install an upside down parapet wall. James Ballard stated that if there were two (2) clear means of egress with proper signage the safety factor would be provided. David McAlvey moved to grant the appeal based on a 13' clearance from the building. Motion was supported by Randall Kamm. Motion carrieds. CASE AB-018-95 - 815 Prospect An application for appeal has been filed by Mr. Dale Goodrich. The petitioner seeks relief from Section 3303(a) of the Lansing Uniform Building Code. Section 3303(a) authorizes an exit from the third floor of a dwelling unit when the floor area does not exceed 500 sq.ft. In this case the floor area is 550 sq.ft. on the third floor. Mr. Goodrich stated that this building was originally a three-unit dwelling. Since filing this appeal the building has been converted to a two-unit dwelling. The second and third floors have been combined and therefore make two means of egress. Mr. Nelson stated that the appeal now is to allow 550 sq.ft. on the third floor of the dwelling. BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS DUNE 13, 1995 PAGE 6 Mr. Goodrich further stated that hardwired smoke detection had been installed throughout the dwelling. Mr. Nelson stated that currently there a Zoning issue pending for this property. The Zoning issue is separate from the issue now being appealed. The Board may address the 550 sq.ft. area of the third floor. Randall Kamm moved to approve this appeal. Motion supported by Dean Taylor. Motion carried6. Being no other business David McAlvey moved to adjourn. Motion seconded by Randall Kamm. Motion carried'. Respectfully Submitted, ekA. e lsor�6j' �� DRAFT: APPROVED: BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS JUNE 13, 1995 PAGE 7 RECORD OF VOTES: #1 Record of Vote Yea Nay Richard Stuckman, Chair X Richard Jones, Vice Chair (absent) Dean Taylor X Randall Kamm X Dave McAlvey X #2 Record of Vote Yea Nay Richard Stuckman, Chair X Richard Jones, Vice Chair (absent) Dean Taylor X Randall Kamm X Dave McAlvey X #3 Record of Vote Yea Nay Richard Stuckman, Chair X Richard Jones, Vice Chair (absent) Dean Taylor X Randall Kamm X Dave McAlvey X #4 Record of Vote Yea Nay Richard Stuckman, Chair X Richard Jones, Vice Chair (absent) Dean Taylor X Randall Kamm X Dave McAlvey X BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS JUNE 13, 1995 PAGE 8 #5 Record of Vote Yea Nay Richard Stuckman, Chair X Richard Jones, Vice Chair (absent) Dean Taylor X Randall Kamm X Dave McAlvey X #6 F- Record of Vote Yea Nay Richard Stuckman, Chair X Richard Jones, Vice Chair (absent) Dean Taylor X Randall Kamm X Dave McAlvey X #7 Record of Vote Yea Nay Richard Stuckman, Chair X Richard Jones, Vice Chair (absent) Dean Taylor X Randall Kamm X Dave McAlvey X OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS of the CITY OF LANSING f ' `�`' �'' v BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS LANSINIo" CITY CLERK May 9, 1995 The March meeting of the City of Lansing Building Board of Appeals was called to order by Chairman Richard Stuckman at 2:00 p.m. The following members were in attendance: Richard Stuckman, Chair Richard Jones, Vice Chair David McAlvey Randall Kamm Dean R. Taylor Members Absent: None Staff members present: Jack A. Nelson, Secretary James Ballard, Fire Marshal A motion was made by Richard Jones to approve thy minutes of the April 11, 1995, meeting. Motion was seconded by David McAlvey. Motion carried . The following Old Business was addressed: CASE AB-007-95 - 1416 LENORE This case was tabled in the April 11, 1995, meeting to allow the petitioner, Mr. Lewis D. Johns II, to research different options for windows and costs. Mr. Nelson stated that Mr. Lewis D. Johns II had called and stated that he would not be attending the meeting but that he wished the Board to go ahead and issue a ruling. Mr. Johns further stated that he is going to install the egress windows and smoke detection as required by code. Randall Kamm moved to deny the Case AB-007-95 as requested but to grant approval to proceed with installation of the windows and smoke detection as required by code. Motion supported by Richard Jones. Motion carried.2 (30 days to bring to code/June 9, 1995) NEW BUSINESS CASE AB-012-95 - 106 W Allegan Hollister Building Mr. Steven Romsek was present for this case. David McAlvey stated that he would not be voting on this appeal as the organization he is employed with is involved in this project. BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS MAY 9, 1995 PAGE 2 A request has been made to authorize proposed renovation at the Hollister Building, 106 Allegan Street, to be designed to support a uniform live load of 80 p.s.f. The Uniform Building Code, Table 23-A requires that floors be designed for a live load of 50 p.s.f. live plus a dead load of 20 p.s.f. and a 100 p.s.f. in exit corridors. The petitioner seeks flexibility in tenant design in the future, which may cause exit corridors to be constructed in various locations. The floor is proposed to be designed for a total load of 80 p.s.f. which exceeds code loading requirements for floors which are not used as an element of exiting. Petitioners Arguments in Support of Appeal: Approximately one-half of the structure is constructed of reinforced concrete which has been analyzed for a live load capacity of 80 p.s.f. The remainder of the building is wood and steel framed which can be economically reinforced to meet alive load of 80 p.s.f. This is in compliance with the 1993 BOCA Code which requires corridors in office buildings to be designed for a live load of 80 p.s.f. Both codes require floor to be designed for a live load of 50 p.s.f. plus a dead load of 20 p.s.f. (70 p.s.f. total) which we are in compliance with. Richard Stuckman asked if there are any rated corridors. Mr. Romsek stated that it will be open with aisle-ways around each cubicle, but there would not be "corridors". Jack Nelson stated that the Department has no objection to the layout. The tenant would need to have an engineer submit measurements if they made changes in the layout. Jack Nelson further stated that the main concern is with the placement and number of fire cabinets, too many fire cabinets placed at mid-span would jeopardize the integrity of the structure. Mr. Romsek stated that extra reinforcement is being done where the files will be located. Mr. Romsek further stated that tests had been conducted to test the strength of the steel on the beams - found that beams are made of rod-iron rather than steel. Richard Jones moved to grant this appeal with the provision that a study be made on the file cabinets, after location is determined, for the capacity. Motion seconded by Randall Kamm. Motion carried. CASE AB-013-95 - 900 W Edgewood Mr. Craig Molton and Mr. Skip Corbin were present for this case. Richard Stuckman stated that the Board received copies of the information for this appeal. Skip Corbin stated that because of the way the plumbing was placed the open space is now a couple of inches less than required by code. Randall Kamm asked if the sink ran into the stack. The toilet is out further because of where the rough comes out. BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS MAY 9, 1995 PAGE 3 Jack Nelson stated that no barrier-free requirements are being violated and that the Department has no objection to allowing the use. Discussion on the plumbing layout followed. Randall Kammeade a motion to approve the appeal, motion was seconded by Dave McAlvey. Motion carried . Being no othe� business Randall Kamm moved to adjourn. Motion seconded by Dave McAlvey. Motion carried . Respectf 11 Submitted, Ja Nelson Se ret ry DRAFT: �S I q APPROVED: BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS MAY 9, 1995 PAGE 4 RECORD OF VOTES: #1 Record of Vote Yea Nay Richard Stuckman, Chair X Richard Jones, Vice Chair X Dean Taylor X Randall Kamm X Dave McAlvey X #2 Record of Vote Yea Nay Richard Stuckman, Chair X Richard Jones, Vice Chair X Dean Taylor X Randall Kamm X Dave McAlvey X #3 Record of Vote Yea Nay Richard Stuckman, Chair X Richard Jones, Vice Chair X Dean Taylor X Randall Kamm X Dave McAlvey ABSTAINED #4 Record of Vote Yea Nay Richard Stuckman, Chair X Richard Jones, Vice Chair X Dean Taylor X Randall Kamm X Dave McAlvey X BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS MAY 9, 1995 PAGE 5 #5 Record of Vote Yea Nay Richard Stuckman, Chair X Richard Jones, Vice Chair X Dean Taylor X Randall Kamm X Dave McAlvey X DRAFT OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS of the CITY OF LANSING16 BUILDING BOARD OF APPEAL'S"'�F''" CITY Ca ERi March 14, 1995 The March meeting of the City of Lansing Building Board of Appeals was called to order by Chairman Richard Stuckman at 2:00 p.m. The following members were in attendance: Richard Stuckman, Chair David McAlvey Randall Kamm Dean R. Taylor Staff members present: Jack A. Nelson, Secretary Charles Willis, Fire Inspector representing James Ballard, Fire Marshall Chairman Stuckman explained the rules of procedure to the audience stating: "A quorum of the Board shall be (3) three voting members. The Board consists of (5) members of which (4) four are in attendance at this meeting. The affirmative vote of (3) three members of the Board of Appeals are required on all matters to come before the Board." A motion was made by Randall Kamm to approve the minutes of the February 14, 1995, meeting. Motion was seconded by Dave McAlvey. Motion carried'. The following Old Business was addressed: CASE AB-037-94 - 3010 Stirling The case was tabled at the January 10, 1995, meeting and was inadvertently left off the agenda for February. An application for appeal has been filed by Mr. Max Terwilliger 8251 Round Lake Road, Laingsburg, Michigan, 48848. The petitioner seeks relief from the enforcing officers violation notice dated October 24, 1994, which stated that a single family residential unit at 3010 Stirling Avenue (3301-26-326-3225) did not comply with Section 1460.13 Room Dimensions(a) Ceiling Heights of the City of Lansing Uniform Housing Code. The report in part states that the second floor lacks proper ceiling height and egress windows to be used-as a sleeping room. The petitioner is aggrieved and requests a reversal or modification of the enforcing officers decision to replace the egress windows and modify the building in order to obtain sufficient ceiling height. Mr. Max Terwilliger addressed the Board and stated that there are two bedrooms subject to this action. Both bedrooms have casement windows. Neither of the windows comply with egress requirements, one has a net clear opening height of 22" with an openable area of 5.04 sq. ft. The second has a net clear opening height of 221" with an openable area of 4.21 sq. ft. The ceiling height is 612". BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS MARCH 14, 1995 PAGE 2 Randall Kamm asked if the Department had performed calculations to determine compliance with the boards policy. Mr. Nelson stated that the calculation was not performed since the Department was waiting for technical information on room sizes which was just submitted to the Board. Randall Kamm asked if there was only 1 window in each bedroom. Mr. Terwilliger stated that there was only 1 window in each bedroom. Richard Stuckman asked Jack Nelson if the Code Compliance Officer cited the stairway to the second floor as being inadequate. Mr. Nelson stated that the October 24, 1994, letter did not cite the stairway. David McAlvey stated that the ceiling in the second floor area may be too low to allow for the accumulation of smoke, and he has concerns about this request. Randall Kamm stated that this building has been like this for several years and conditions placed in the variance would placate potential concerns. Richard Stuckman requested the petitioner to draw the floor plan of the second floor on the board so the relationship between the bedroom and stairway could be discerned. NOTE: The drawing indicated that each bedroom has access to the stairway and the stairway is centrally located. The stairway is 36" wide and is open between floors. Randall Kamm moved to approve the variance subject to the installation of a smoke detection system in accordance with Section 1210 of the Building Code for new buildings and 1 egress window in each bedroom. Motion was seconded by David McAlvey. Chairman Stuckman asked for discussion on the motion. Dean Taylor asked the petitioner if he was aware of the following: The electrical repairs shall be done to code by a licensed electrical contractor with a permit from this office. Separate approvals are required from the electrical inspector if electrical work is performed, and from the building inspector if an egress window is being installed. The applicant acknowledged understanding the comments. Motion carried.2 CASE AB-004-95 - 1425 RENSEN An application for appeal has been filed by Mr. Paul Jacob, Architect on behalf of Lansing Community College. The petitioner seeks relief from the requirements of Section 3305G of the 1991 edition of the City of Lansing, Uniform Building Code. The petitioner proposes to construct two lounges which are separated from each other by a corridor. Each space, due to occupant load, requires 2 exits. The second exit for each space is through the corridor space. The building code requires the corridor to connect each exit discharge. Exception #8 in the 1994 edition of the Building Code, which is not currently in effect, would allow non-rated corridors in fully sprinkled office buildings. In the Departments opinion the use group of this facility is A-3. However, the rationale to use this exception on this use group is sound. BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS MARCH 14, 1995 PAGE 3 In the Departments opinion relief should be granted if a hard-wired interconnected smoke detection system is installed in the corridor leading to the exit discharge. Paul Jacob addressed the Board and provided the following analysis: The existing student lounge is located on the second floor of Gannon Vocational Technical building, east side. There exist two exits of ample capacity to serve the space, one each at the north and south ends of the lounge. The exits are both immediately serviced by stairwells. The existing lounge area is approximately 5,750 square feet, with an allowable occupant load of approximately 380 people (based upon 15 square feet/person) . The building is Non-combustible, type II F.R. construction, fully sprinkled. There is an existing fire alarm system with pull stations. The use group is "B" business (educational occupancies above 12th grade) . The separation of lounge area into two separate lounges, each remote from the other to separate quite and active uses proposed for each. The proposed separation by creation of office and conference space creates a 6' wide passage which links the proposed lounges without doors, physical barriers, or other obstructions. Arguments in support of Appeal: Proposed plan reduces a maximum potential occupant load from approximately 380 to approximately 300. Actual occupant load is projected to be less because a. Conference rooms will usually be set up classroom style with tables or desks (i.e. 20 square feet/person instead of 15 square feet/person) . b. Activity Lounge is proposed to house various video/table top games which reduce density of occupancy. c. Circulation from north to south end reduces actual area of each lounge which will contain furniture and therefore be occupied. Maximum actual occupant is projected to be only slightly more than 200 people. U.B. C. Section 1005.7, Exception #8 allows the construction of non-fire rated corridor walls when the space being served by the corridor has an occupant load of 100 or less, if the entire building is equipped with an automatic sprinkler system, which is true for this building. This appeal proposes to install an automatic smoke detection system in the entire lounge/conference/office area included in the plan to further enhance life safety and early warning capability of the fire alarm system. This smoke detection will be integrated into the building's fire alarm system. An additional exit door in Conference Room 213, southeast corner permits exiting into visually open space of proposed quiet lounge, lessening potential congestion in proposed "Passage". Proximity, visual openness and capacity of existing exits to the space. LCC is currently in the design phase of a project to upgrade the entire fire alarm system of the building to ADA standards which requires horns and strobes. This improvement would include the proposed construction in the student lounge area. BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS MARCH 14, 1995 PAGE 4 David McAlvey asked if the corridor walls were fire rated Paul Jacobs stated that they are non- combustible but not fire rated. Randall Kamm moved to approve the request, motion supported by Dave McAlvey. Chairman Stuckman asked for discussion. Mr. Nelson raised a point of clarification. Does the motion include the petitioners proposal to install a smoke detection system in the entire lounge/conference/office area, to include integration with the fire alarm system. Randall Kamm stated that the motion is based upon the petitioners proposal, consequently this smoke detection system is integral to the motion. Motion carried.3 CASE AB-005-95 - 1010 W. BARNES Mr. Nelson stated that Mr. Fuller contacted the Department and requested that the case be postponed until the April board meeting due to a scheduling conflict. Mr. Kamm moved to table action on Case AB-005-95 until the April 11, 1995, meeting. Motion seconded by Dave McAlvey. Motion carried.4 CASE AB-006-95 - 3200 DELTA RIVER DRIVE An application for appeal has been filed by Mr. Paul Hann, Building Committee Chairman, Immanuel Community Reformed Church. The petitioner seeks a reversal or modification to the mechanical inspectors order which requires ladder access to the attic. Second the distance from the access to the equipment exceeds that allowable by Section 708 of the Mechanical Code. Ralph Goff, Chief Mechanical Inspector, addressed the Board and presented the following; Section 708 Attic Furnace states: . . .The distance from the passageway access to the furnace shall not exceed 20 feet measured along the centerline of the passageway. The passageway shall be unobstructed and shall have a continuous solid flooring not less than 24" wide from the entrance of the furnace. In this case the contractor provided access in an alternate location which exceeded the 20' location. The petitioner alleges that the ladder in this location would add liability to the facility since children would have access to the ladder. The Department has reassessed its position and has determined that a ladder is not required since the furnace is located in an attic, however the distance to the access point still exceeds minimum code requirements. Jim Heinz addressed the Board and stated that they did not want to install an access ladder in the court since this area is used by children who may get injured climbing the ladder. He also stated BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS MARCH 14, 1995 PAGE 5 that they have no objection to moving the access opening but they are limited where the opening could be positioned due to roof elevations. It is possible to move the hatch in the foyer but the maximum distance would be exceeded by 31. Ralph Goff, Chief Mechanical Inspector, stated he had no objection to the location of the hatch since alternate locations are restricted due to fire walls in the attic and roof elevation. Randall Kamm moved to grant the appeal subject to moving the access opening to .the foyer. The opening will not require ladder access. Motion supported by David McAlvey. Chairman Stuckman asked for discussion. No discussion. Motion carried.5 CASE AB-007-95 - 1416 LENORE An application for appeal has been filed by Mr. Lewis D. Johns II, 316 E. Michigan Avenue, Lansing, Michigan, 48933. The petitioner seeks relief from Section 1460.13(a) and 1460.20(a)(11) of the City of Lansing Uniform Building Code. The petitioner seeks a reversal or modification of the enforcing officers decision to discontinue using the second floor of a one family dwelling as a sleeping area due to ceiling height and inadequate egress. Mr. Johns addressed the Board and stated that there were two bedrooms on the second floor. The stairway leading to the second floor is 36" in width. Battery operated smoke detectors are installed in the house. David McAlvey, after reviewing photographs, stated that it may not be possible to install a larger window due to the pitch of the roof. Randall Kamm stated that a casement window instead of a double-hung window may be able to meet the requirement. Mr. Johns asked if he could install a window in the rear bedroom only so as not to affect the appearance of the house from the front. Chairman Stuckman stated that an egress window would be required in each bedroom. Mr. Johns asked if he could remove the doors separating the two rooms and call it one room. Mr. Nelson stated that the doors as well as the wall system would have to be removed for it to be considered one room. Randall Kamm asked Mr. Johns if he would like the case postponed until the April 11, 1995, meeting in order to research options concerning window types and costs. Mr. Johns stated that he would like to case postponed. Randall Kamm moved that Case AB-007-95 be tabled to the April 11, 1995, meeting. Motion supported by Dean Taylor. Motion carried.6 CASE AB-008-95 - 1801 BASSETT Mr. Kevin Day, Plant Manager of Atmosphere Annealing and Mr. Peter Holz were in attendance representing Atmosphere Annealing. BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS MARCH 14, 1995 PAGE 6 Mr. Kevin Day addressed the Board stating that they have proposed to construct a 13,500 sq.ft. building 18' from the existing 44,424 sq.ft. plant. The purpose of the building is to construct a new auto line. The plant performs commercial heat treating functions. The addition will employ 15 - 20 new employees. Mr. Day stated that they do not want to sprinkle the facility because of the high temperature furnaces, water would cause an explosion. The entire facility was recently equipped with a fire alarm system. Mr. Nelson provided the following background information. On February 23, 1995, Mr. Kevin Day, Plant Manager of Atmosphere Annealing, filed an application for appeal seeking relief from the Building Safety Offices decision to deny a building permit for a 13,500 sq. ft. building on the site located at 1801 Bassett. The history of this facility includes a 1991 addition. At that time, it was noted that the size exceeded the allowable area for the construction type and occupancy for a non-sprinkled building. The only way Atmosphere Annealing got approval was through the appeal process during which the Appeal Board agreed to authorize Atmosphere Annealing to construct an addition providing they installed a fire alarm system. As the building exists, the area exceeds that allowed by Section 505 and 506 of the building code. Table 505 allows 12,000 square feet basic allowable area. Section 506(a)(2) allows the 12,000 square feet to be increased by 100 o for having separation exceeding 60 feet on three sides to 24,000 sq.ft. The existing building is 44,424 square feet. This far exceeds the allowable area of 23,000 square feet. I have researched the issue and have concluded that there are three viable options: Option One: In order to make any additions to this property, it will be required to install a fire suppression system in the existing facility. Sprinkling would allow the owner to build up to three times the 24,000 square foot base limit (i.e. 72,000 square feet) . In this case, the addition would be constructed with no separation between it and the existing building because the total .would fall within the allowable area. Option Two: In order to maintain the 60' separation on the west side of the existing building, the owner would have to purchase more land and maintain a 60' space between the addition and the existing building. Option Three: The area of the existing facility could be separated by fire walls which would reduce the allowable areas to within acceptable limits. It is the recommendation of the Building Safety Office that one of the options be approved. The options are consistent with sound building and fire code enforcement. Should the variance be approved, in the Departments opinion, the likelihood that conflagration could be controlled would be diminished. As currently constructed, fire access is only provided on the north side on Bassett Street and on the west side. An addition to the west would further diminish Fire Department access to that side of the building. In like manner, residences to the south and east are in such proximity that a catastrophic event would effect the adjoining residences. Compliance with option 1, 2, or 3 would ensure fire safety for adjoining uses. BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS MARCH 14, 1995 PAGE 7 There was moderate discussion concerning possible options. Mr. Holz requested that the case be tabled to afford his client time to research options. Randall Kamm moved to table Case AB-008-95 until April 11, 1995. Motion seconded by Dave McAlvey. Motion carried.' CASE AB-009-95 - 921 W HOLMES Attorney Mark Klouse, James Rundell, and Gary Shushtari were in attendance representing The Eyde Company. In this case the petitioner constructed a structure (gazebo) to be utilized as a smoking shelter. The structure is (3) three feet from the rear property line and consequently requires fire-rated construction. The petitioner is aggrieved and requests a reversal or modification of the enforcing officers decision to remove the structure or comply with Table 5-A of the City of Lansing Uniform Building Code. Mr. Klouse addressed the Board and stated that (3) tenants occupy the building at 921 W. Holmes Road: Krogers, I.R.S and G. C. Services. The tenants requested that the landlord provide an enclosure for smokers since smoking is not allowed in the building. The structure will have a roof but the sides are open. The building is 45 feet from the rear of the building and 3 feet from the rear property line. Jack Nelson stated that the Zoning Administrator, James Ruff, had requested that the zoning variance request be addressed prior to disposition by the Board. Mr. Klouse stated that in the interest of saving time for all parties since the issue is being heard, that the case be addressed at this time. Chairman Stuckman stated that he did not feel that the building posed a danger to adjoining structures. Jack Nelson informed Mr. Klouse that the plans for the construction of the building must be sealed by an architect or engineer. Randall Kamm moved to approve the variance provided that the matter was referred to the Board of Zoning Appeals, a building permit is obtained, and construction drawings are submitted which are sealed by an architect or engineer. Motion supported by Dean Taylor. Motion carried." Being no other business Randall Kamm moved to adjourn. Motion seconded by Dean Taylor. Motion carried9. Respectfully Submitted, � f /V Wla Wx a A. Nelson Se retary DRAFT: 3/A"`i—"' APPROVED: BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS MARCH 14, 1995 PAGE 8 RECORD OF VOTES: #1 Record of Vote Yea Nay Richard Stuckman, Chair x Richard Jones, Vice Chair g Dean Taylor X Randall Kamm % Dave McAlvey X #2 Record of Vote Yea Nay Richard Stuckman, Chair g Richard Jones, Vice Chair X Dean Taylor X Randall Kamm % Dave McAlvey % #3 Record of Vote Yea Nay Richard Stuckman, Chair g Richard Jones, Vice Chair g Dean Taylor X Randall Kamm X Dave McAlvey X #4 Record of Vote Yea Nay Richard Stuckman, Chair g Richard Jones, Vice Chair x Dean Taylor X Randall Kamm % Dave E McAlvey X BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS MARCH 14, 1995 PAGE 9 #5 Record of Vote Yea Nay Richard Stuckman, Chair X Richard Jones, Vice Chair X Dean Taylor X Randall Kamm X Dave McAlvey X #6 Record of Vote Yea Nay Richard Stuckman, Chair X Richard Jones, Vice Chair X Dean Taylor X Randall Kamm X Dave McAlvey X #7 Record of Vote Yea Nay Richard Stuckman, Chair X Richard Jones, Vice Chair X Dean Taylor X Randall Kamm X Dave McAlvey X #8 Record of Vote Yea Nay Richard Stuckman, Chair X Richard Jones, Vice Chair X Dean Taylor X Randall Kamm X Dave McAlvey X BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS MARCH 14, 1995 PAGE 10 #9 Record of Vote Yea Nay Richard Stuckman, Chair X Richard Jones, Vice Chair X Dean Taylor % Randall Kamm R Dave McAlvey X 95-02-22A09 : 25 RCVD OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS of the CITY OF LANSING BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS February 14, 1995 The January 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 David McAlvey Randall Kamm Staff members present: Jack A. Nelson, Secretary Jim Ballard, Fire Marshall Jack Nelson announced that this would be the last meeting that Joe Wilcox will be attending. Mr. Wilcox has tendered his resignation due to moving outside of the City. A motion was made by Richard Jones to approve the minutes of the January 10, 1995, meeting with two corrections: 1) Page 2, Sentence 2 should state "Mr. Nowicki stated that there were two windows in the room on the second floor, one at each end, and that the back window was above a roof over the kitchen/rear area of the house." 2) Page 3, Paragraph 5, Sentence 2, should read "Pastor Kamens further stated that there would be no increase in the traffic to and from the house, that the majority of their traffic was by telephone or fax machine." The motion was supported by Dave McAlvey. Motion carried'. CASE AB-001-95 - 1020 Long Blvd. Issue of Appeal: Requesting relief from Section 3305 of the Uniform Building Code The Petitioner proposed to combine Suite #10 and Suite #11, Holiday Office Park South. The combined square footage of the suites is 3,827 square feet. The calculated occupant load of the combined tenant space is 39. (Table 33-A, Occupant Load Factor, Office 100) . Section 3305 of the Building Code requires that corridors which serve an occupant load of 30 persons must be fire rated. Petitioners Analysis: We are requesting approval of an acceptable alternative solution in lieu of the required construction needed to comply with the rated construction of corridor walls within the suite. The proposed alternate is to install a 1 hour rated door and frame assembly complete with closer and smoke seals in an existing tenant separation wall. The existing wall in question already extends from floor to ceiling. Mr. Morris Stein from Keystone Design was present for this appeal. Mr. Stein stated that the tenant has been using both spaces for a while now. At some point during the tenants use they placed a 5' opening between the two spaces so that the spaces are somewhat connecting. BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS FEBRUARY 14, 1995 PAGE 2 Mr. Stein also stated that currently the walls go to the ceiling and that in order to fire rate the walls it would require going up to the deck and then through the ceiling which would cost considerably more. Mr. Stein further stated that each suite has its own exiting and that the occupant load is no more than 25 persons. The code allows for non-simultaneous use - meaning that the area of the restrooms and breakroom could be discounted as part of the total building space. Mr. Nelson stated that he agreed that the code does allow for non-simultaneous uses but that the breakroom would not count, this factor would still put the building square footage at a little over the 3,000 sq.ft. allowed. Mr. Nelson further stated that the second exit is through a tenant space. Mr. Stein agreed that it would put the building at about 3,400 sq.ft. Mr. Stein stated that as an alternative they would like to have smoke detection, as provided per code, put into the suites along with a fire-rated door. A discussion followed as to the construction of the building and types of doors. Joe Wilcox moved to grant the appeal provided that hard-wired smoke detection is installed, as per code, and that a magnetic hold opener is on the fire-rated door. The door must also be connected to the smoke detection so that an alarms sounds throughout the suite. Motion was supported by Randall Kamm. Motion carried.z CASE AB-002-95 - 1425 RENSEN Issue of Appeal: Requesting relief from Section 3802(f)(2) of the 1991 edition of the Uniform Building Code Section 3802 of the Building Code requires that Group H Division 4 occupancies which exceed 3,000 square feet must be equipped with an automatic fire suppression system. The Petitioner proposes a 1,900 sq.ft. addition to the existing 5,000 sq.ft. building. Mr. Morris Stein, Keystone Design, Mr. Matt O'Donnell, owner of premises, and Mr. John Parish, Parish Corporation, were present for this case. Mr. Stein stated that the existing building is a pre-engineered, steel building with steel frames, steel purlins, and metal roof and siding. The building is essentially all open except for two Barrier Free toilets and a small office. The proposed addition is primarily anew larger truck and car bay on the southerly end of the building and a small office addition projecting in front of the existing building. Mr. Stein further stated that when this group of buildings were built, all of them were handled with water leads to the building from a cul-de-sac on the end of Rensen Street. There are no large water mains within the development and the nearest main of the size which would serve this building is between 500 to 600 feet away. This main would have to be extended through the development primarily through existing drives and parking lots. This would be extremely costly and difficult to do, as it would disrupt operation of essentially all the other buildings. Mr. O'Donnell stated that he has complied with all of the requirements given to him by Quality Fire Protection to make sure that he has appropriate fire safety measures. Mr. O'Donnell stated that he has monthly safety meetings with his staff to ensure that everyone knows about safety BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS FEBRUARY 14, 1995 PAGE 3 regulations and procedures. Mr. O'Donnell further stated that everyone knows where the fire extinguishers are located and that in case of a fire they have been instructed that the person who sees the fire is to yell "FIRE" and the others are to get the fire extinguishers and put out the fire. Mr. Ballard asked the quantity of flammable materials stored within the building. Mr. O'Donnell stated that they have a metal cabinet that is marked "FLAMMABLES" with approximately 10 gallons of flammable material. Mr. O'Donnell further stated that they also have a 10,000 gallon storage tank for the oil they use. Mr. Ballard asked to what extend they do spray painting. Mr. O'Donnell stated that only a small amount of spray painting is done, they occasionally spray paint bumpers or things like that. Mostly it is touch up spray painting. Mr. Ballard stated that the fire code allows for spray painting if it is a small area to be painted such as bumpers. Mr. Nelson stated that the Building Office had done a building code review and that it shows that at the time that this building was built no fire suppression was required. Mr. Stein stated that the metal wall in the office area would be dry-walled. Also the building is equipped with a monitored security and smoke alarm system, so the building would have additional coverage during off hours. Richard Jones moved to approved the appeal. Mr. Nelson asked for a clarification. The old building will be separate from the new addition by a 2 hour separation wall. Motion supported by Joe Wilcox. Motion carried CASE AB-003-95 - Lansing Baseball Mr. Eric J. Piper and Mr. Paul Valotti were present for this appeal. Mr. Piper made a presentation to the Board using a model of the proposed stadium, showing were everything they are proposing will be. FIRST ITEM OF APPEAL: Building Code 1991 edition of U.B.C. The design proposes to utilize Type II Fire Resistive Construction. However, the architect proposes to delete the fire resistive rating on the roof and the floor ceiling assembly over the concourse. The applicable code sections for which a variance is requested are as follows: 1994 Code 1991 Code Table 6-A Table 5-C Basic Allowable Floor Areas Section 505 506(a) Allowable Area Increases Table 5-B 17-A Types of Construction The next lowest construction classification, Type II 1 hr, would allow 27,000 sq.ft. per floor, which is insufficient. The design is proposing 74,200 sq.ft. in total area. BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 4 FEBRUARY 14, 1995 Mr. Valotti stated that the concourse is basically a 30' wide sidewalk area with 4 concession stands branching off from it. For this reason they feel that fire resistive ratings on the roof and floor ceiling are unnecessary. The propose to sprinkler this area instead. Mr. Valotti further stated that the state code allows for stadiums to have a 0 fire-rating. Mr. Stuckman asked what was in the concession areas to protect the concession and the concourse. Mr. Valotti stated that the fire suppression is intended to protect the integrity of the building and its occupants. By sprinklering the concourse they will protect the structural integrity of the building. The basement, concourse, and second floor suite (if less costly and justifiable), would all be sprinklered. Mr. Valotti further stated that they will comply with NFPA 13. A discussion followed. Mr. Valotti stated that, just estimating, they would install approximately 150 sprinkler heads. Richard Jones moved to approved Item 1 of this appeal. Motion supported by Randall Kamm. Motion carried. SECOND ITEM OF APPEAL: The design proposes a maximum of 28 rows in a seating section. Code limitations on the length of aisles are intended to address exit time from the seating area, and limit conditions from which only one exit path is provided. This provision is often compared to "Dead End Corridor" situations. However, a "Dead End Aisle" has many outlets via adjacent rows. If an aisle or vomitory is blocked, patrons may access the adjacent aisles and vomitories as exits. This phenomenon is observed during exiting of similar facilities. Patrons within rows will often move toward the aisle which is less congested. Section 1021.7.3 of the 1994 U.B.C. addresses dead end aisles in open-air grandstands and bleachers. It allows vertical aisles up to 16 rows for permanent and 26 rows for temporary grandstands but does not offer provisions for increases. (3322(9)G(1) 1991 U.B.C. ) Section 1014.4 of the 1994 U.B.C. limits the length of dead end rows to 20 feet within indoor arenas. The exception to Section 1014.4 allows an unlimited dead end aisle (increased exit time) if rows are limited to 24 seats in length and the minimum 12 inch row spacing is increased 0.6 inches for each additional seat above seven. A 19.8 inch distance between the back of the chair in front and the closet part of the chair behind would be required. This provision for increasing aisle lengths was new to the 1991 edition of the U.B.C. No provision for aisle increase was provided prior to this edition and has not been introduced for outdoor stadiums. (3315(d) U.B.C. 1991) Mr. Valotti stated that the reasoning behind allowing only so many rows was to make sure that in an emergency people could quickly exit. A calculation was done to see approximately how long it would take to exit. It is estimated with vomitory seating 2,000 people, moving at 20 people per foot per minute, would take 10 or more minutes to exit. With the seating proposed 600 people with 4 foot wide aisles could exit in 8.5 to 9 minutes. A discussion followed. Mr. Valotti stated that presently they are proposing armed chairs. BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 5 FEBRUARY 14, 1995 Mr. Jones asked if the first rows would have access to the field. Mr. Valotti stated that they would not. Mr. Valotti corrected himself to say that for emergency purposes there was a ramp for barrier free exiting that went onto the field. Randall Kamm moved to approved Item 2 of this appeal. Motion supported by Richard Jones. Motion carried.s THIRD ITEM OF APPEAL: Uniform Plumbing Code Drinking Fountains Footnote 2 of Table 9-2 of the Plumbing Code requires one drinking fountain for each 500 persons. With 8,000 fixed stadium seats, 16 drinking fountains would be required on the concourse. The petitioner proposes to delete all of the drinking fountains since the sale of food and drink is integral to the stadium operation. Mr. Valotti stated that they would like to modify this portion of their request. The request is for a reduction in the number of drinking fountains required. Mr. Valotti stated that the request was being changed due to a conversation with Mr. Nelson in which Mr. Nelson asked what would happen if there was an event at which the concessions were not opened. Due to this unexpected possibility, Mr. Valotti stated that they can see the need for at least 4 drinking fountains in the concourse area. Mr. Valotti further stated that restaurants are exempt from this requirement since they operate to sell beverages and the like. The stadium will have a minimum of 10 drinking fountains located in the following areas: Number: Location: 1 Service area for Barrier Free 1 Upstairs 1 Dugout 1 Lower level 2 Outfield 4 Concourse Richard Jones moved to approved Item 3 of this appeal with the above noted number of drinking fountains in the locations listed. Motion supported by Randall Kamm. Motion carried.6 FOURTH ITEM OF APPEAL: Uniform Mechanical Code Use of UL Listed Fire Resistive Type I Duct Enclosure System Section 507.6 of the 1994 Uniform Mechanical Code requires ducts serving Type I grease hoods to be protected with fire resistive enclosures. These enclosures are required to provide two hour fire resistance with clearances from the duct of between three to twelve inches. The design proposes to utilize a UL Listed two hour fire resistive product which allows reduced clearances. The two products available to date include: BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS FEBRUARY 14, 1995 PAGE 6 o Pabco o Thermal Ceramics These types of products have been approved for use in the State of Michigan. The Pabco product has a recognized National Evaluation Report #NER-332, and Thermal Ceramics has a BOCA Report No.92-3. Copies of these reports have been included as Appendix C. Mr. Stuckman stated that in the materials provided he noted that Pabco is limited to Type III, IV, and V buildings using a 1-hour rating. Mr. Valotti stated that further in the paragraph it states that for Type I and II buildings a 2-hour rating is required. Mr. Valotti further stated that he understood that some other projects had been given approval to use the wrap. Mr. Nelson stated that the Board had approved the use of the wrap in 1994 for Sparrow Hospital and the Lansing Center. Mr. McAlvey asked what the reason was for not using the rated enclosures as required. Mr. Valotti stated that the cost was the only reason. Randall Kamm moved to approved Item 4 of this appeal. Motion supported by Richard Jones. Motion carried. CASE AB-037-94 - 3010 Stirling This case was tabled at the January 10, 1995, meeting and was unfortunately left off of the agenda for February. Mr. Max Terwilliger has asked that this appeal be tabled until the March 14, 1995, meeting. A motion was made by Richard Jones to table Case AB-037-95, 3010 Stirlin�, until the March 14, 1995, meeting. Motion was supported by Randall Kamm. Motion carried. Being no other business before the Board a motion for adjournment was entertained. Richard Jones moved to adjourn. Motion seconded by Joe Wilcox. Motion carried9. Respectfully Submitted, fkA. Nelson y DRAFT: APPROVED: BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS FEBRUARY 14, 1995 PAGE 7 RECORD OF VOTES: #1 Record of Vote Yea Nay FDave d Stuckman, Chair X d Jones, Vice Chair X lcox X Kamm X Alvey X #2 Record of Vote Yea Nay Richard Stuckman, Chair X Richard Jones, Vice Chair X Joe Wilcox X Randall Kamm X Dave McAlvey X #3 Record of Vote Yea Nay Richard Stuckman, Chair X Richard Jones, Vice Chair X Joe Wilcox X Randall Kamm X Dave McAlvey X #4 Record of Vote Yea Nay Richard Stuckman, Chair X Richard Jones, Vice Chair X Joe Wilcox X Randall Kamm X Dave McAlvey X BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS FEBRUARY 14, 1995 PAGE 8 #5 1 - Record of Vote Yea Nay MKamm n, Eha X Vice X X X X #6 Record of Vote Yea Nay FDave ard Stuckman, Chair X ard Jones, Vice Chair X Wilcox X all Kamm X McAlvey X #7 Record of Vote Yea Nay Richard Stuckman, Chair X Richard Jones, Vice Chair X Joe Wilcox X Randall Kamm X Dave McAlvey X #8 Record of Vote Yea Nay Richard Stuckman, Chair X Richard Jones, Vice Chair X Joe Wilcox X Randall Kamm X Dave McAlvey X BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 9 FEBRUARY 14, 1995 #9 Record of Vote Yea Nay Richard Stuckman, Chair X Richard Jones, Vice Chair R Joe Wilcox X Randall Kamm X Dave McAlvey X OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS of the CITY OF LANSING F, j 1I�� Y, �:,F�s" Cl�i�► cLER,1 BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS February 14, 1995 The January 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 David McAlvey Randall Kamm Staff members present: Jack A. Nelson, Secretary Jim Ballard, Fire Marshall Jack Nelson announced that this would be the last meeting that Joe Wilcox will be attending. .Mr. Wilcox has tendered his resignation due to moving outside of the City. A motion was made by Richard Jones to approve the minutes of the January 10, 1995, meeting with two corrections: 1) Page 2, Sentence 2 should state "Mr. Nowicki stated that there were two windows in the room on the second floor, one at each end, and that the back window was above a roof over the kitchen/rear area of the house." 2) Page 3, Paragraph 5, Sentence 2, should read "Pastor Kamens further stated that there would be no increase in the traffic to and from the house, that the majority of their traffic was by telephone or fax machine." The motion was supported by Dave McAlvey. Motion carried'. CASE AB-001-95 - 1020 Long Blvd. Issue of Appeal: Requesting relief from Section 3305 of the Uniform Building Code The Petitioner proposed to combine Suite #10 and Suite #11, Holiday Office Park South. The combined square footage of the suites is 3,827 square feet. The calculated occupant load of the combined tenant space is 39. (Table 33-A, Occupant Load Factor, Office 100) . Section 3305 of the Building Code requires that corridors which serve an occupant load of 30 persons must be fire rated. Petitioners Analysis: We are requesting approval of an acceptable alternative solution in lieu of the required ,construction needed to comply with the rated construction of corridor walls within the suite.. The propose.0 alternate is to install a 1 hour rated door and frame assembly complete with closer and smoke seals in an existing tenant separation wall. The existing wall in question already extends from floor to ceiling. Mr. Morris Stein from Keystone Design was present for this appeal. Mr. Stein stated that the tenant has been using both spaces for a while now. At some point during the tenants use they placed a 5' opening between the two spaces so that the spaces are somewhat connecting. BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS FEBRUARY 14, 1995 PAGE 2 Mr. Stein also stated that currently the walls go to the ceiling and that in order to fire rate the walls it would require going up to the deck and then through the ceiling which would cost considerably more. Mr. Stein further stated that each suite has its own exiting and that the occupant load is no more than 25 persons. The code allows for non-simultaneous use - meaning that the area of the restrooms and breakroom could be discounted as part of the total building space. Mr. Nelson stated that he agreed that the code does allow for non-simultaneous uses but that the breakroom would not count, this factor would still put the building square footage at a little over the 3,000 sq.ft. allowed. Mr. Nelson further stated that the second exit is through a tenant space. Mr. Stein agreed that it would put the building at about 3,400 sq.ft. Mr. Stein stated that as an alternative they would like to have smoke detection, as provided per code, put into the suites along with a fire-rated door. A discussion followed as to the construction of the building and types of doors. Joe Wilcox moved to grant the appeal provided that hard-wired smoke detection is installed, as per code, and that a magnetic hold opener is on the fire-rated door. The door must also be connected to the smoke detection so that an alarms sounds throughout the suite. Motion was supported by Randall Kamm. Motion carried.2 CASE AB-002-95 - 1425 RENSEN Issue of Appeal: Requesting relief from Section 3802(f) (2) of the 1991 edition of the Uniform Building Code Section 3802 of the Building Code requires that Group H Division 4 occupancies which exceed 3,000 square feet must be equipped with an automatic fire suppression system. The Petitioner proposes a 1,900 sq.ft. addition to the existing 5,000 sq.ft. building. Mr. Morris Stein, Keystone Design, Mr. Matt O'Donnell, owner of premises, and Mr. John Parish, Parish Corporation, were present for this case. Mr. Stein stated that the existing building is a pre-engineered, steel building with steel frames, steel purlins, and metal roof and siding. The building is essentially all open except for two Barrier Free toilets and a small office. The proposed addition is primarily a new larger truck and car bay on the southerly end of the building and a small office addition projecting in front of the existing building. Mr. Stein further stated that when this group of buildings were built, all of them were handled with water leads to the building from a cul-de-sac on the end of Rensen Street. There are no large water mains within the development and the nearest main of the size which would serve this building is between 500 to 600 feet away. This main would have to be extended through the development primarily through existing drives and parking lots. This would be extremely costly and difficult to do, as it would disrupt operation of essentially all the other buildings. Mr. O'Donnell stated that he has complied with all of the requirements given to him by Quality Fire Protection to make sure that he has appropriate fire safety measures. Mr. O'Donnell stated that he has monthly safety meetings with his staff to ensure that everyone knows about safety BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS FEBRUARY 14, 1995 PAGE 3 regulations and procedures. Mr. O'Donnell further stated that everyone knows where the fire extinguishers are located and that in case of a fire they have been instructed that the person who sees the fire is to yell "FIRE" and the others are to get the fire extinguishers and put out the fire. Mr. Ballard asked the quantity of flammable materials stored within the building. Mr. O'Donnell stated that they have a metal cabinet that is marked "FLAMMABLES" with approximately 10 gallons of flammable material. Mr. O'Donnell further stated that they also have a 10,000 gallon storage tank for the oil they use. Mr. Ballard asked to what extend they do spray painting. Mr. O'Donnell stated that only a small amount of spray painting is done, they occasionally spray paint bumpers or things like that. Mostly it is touch up spray painting. Mr. Ballard stated that the fire code allows for spray painting if it is a small area to be painted such as bumpers. Mr. Nelson stated that the Building Office had done a building code review and that it shows that at the time that this building was built no fire suppression was required. Mr. Stein stated that the metal wall in the office area would be dry-walled. Also the building is equipped with a monitored security and smoke alarm system, so the building would have additional coverage during off hours. Richard Jones moved to approved the appeal. Mr. Nelson asked for a clarification. The old building will be separate from the new addition by a 2 hour separation wall. Motion supported by Joe Wilcox. Motion carried.3 CASE AB-003-95 - Lansing Baseball Mr. Eric J. Piper and Mr. Paul Valotti were present for this appeal. Mr. Piper made a presentation to the Board using a model of the proposed stadium, showing were everything they are proposing will be. FIRST ITEM OF APPEAL: Building Code 1991 edition of U.B .C. The design proposes to utilize Type II Fire Resistive Construction. However, the architect proposes to delete the fire resistive rating on the roof and the floor ceiling assembly over the concourse. The applicable code sections for which a variance is requested are as follows: 1994 Code 1991 Code Table 6-A Table 5-C Basic Allowable Floor Areas Section 505 506(a) Allowable Area Increases Table 5-B 17-A Types of Construction The next lowest construction classification, Type II 1 hr, would allow 27,000 sq.ft. per floor, which is insufficient. The design is proposing 74,200 sq.ft. in total area. BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS FEBRUARY 14, 1995 PAGE 4 Mr. Valotti stated that the concourse is basically a 30' wide sidewalk area with 4 concession stands branching off from it. For this reason they feel that fire resistive ratings on the roof and floor ceiling are unnecessary. The propose to sprinkler this area instead. Mr. Valotti further stated that the state code allows for stadiums to have a 0 fire-rating. Mr. Stuckman asked what was in the concession areas to protect the concession and the concourse. Mr. Valotti stated that the fire suppression is intended to protect the integrity of the building and its occupants. By sprinklering the concourse they will protect the structural integrity of the building. The basement, concourse, and second floor suite (if less costly and justifiable), would all be sprinklered. Mr. Valotti further stated that they will comply with NFPA 13. A discussion followed. Mr. Valotti stated that, just estimating, they would install approximately 150 sprinkler heads. Richard Jones moved to approved Item 1 of this appeal. Motion supported by Randall Kamm. Motion carried.a SECOND ITEM OF APPEAL: The design proposes a maximum of 28 rows in a seating section. Code limitations on the length of aisles are intended to address exit time from the seating area, and limit conditions from which only one exit path is provided. This provision is often compared to "Dead End Corridor" situations. However, a "Dead End Aisle" has many outlets via adjacent rows. If an aisle or vomitory is blocked, patrons may access the adjacent aisles and vomitories as exits. This phenomenon is observed during exiting of similar facilities. Patrons within rows will often move toward the aisle which is less congested. Section 1021.7.3 of the 1994 U.B.C. addresses dead end aisles in open-air grandstands and bleachers. It allows vertical aisles up to 16 rows for permanent and 26 rows for temporary grandstands but does not offer provisions for increases. (3322(9)G(1) 1991 U.B.C.) Section 1014.4 of the 1994 U.B.C. limits the length of dead end rows to 20 feet within indoor arenas. The exception to Section 1014.4 allows an unlimited dead end aisle (increased exit time) if rows are limited to 24 seats in length and the minimum 12 inch row spacing is increased 0.6 inches for each additional seat above seven. A 19.8 inch distance between the back of the chair in front and the closet part of the chair behind would be required. This provision for increasing aisle lengths was new to the 1991 edition of the U.B.C. No provision for aisle increase was provided prior to this edition and has not been introduced for outdoor stadiums. (3315(d) U.B.C. 1991) Mr. Valotti stated that the reasoning behind allowing only so many rows was to make sure that in an emergency people could quickly exit. A calculation was done to see approximately how long it would take to exit. It is estimated with vomitory seating 2,000 people, moving at 20 people per foot per minute, would take 10 or more minutes to exit. With the seating proposed 600 people with 4 foot wide aisles could exit in 8.5 to 9 minutes. A discussion followed. Mr. Valotti stated that presently they are proposing armed chairs. BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS FEBRUARY 14, 1995 PAGE 5 Mr. Jones asked if the first rows would have access to the field. Mr. Valotti stated that they would not. Mr. Valotti corrected himself to say that for emergency purposes there was a ramp for barrier free exiting that went onto the field. Randall Kamm moved to approved Item 2 of this appeal. Motion supported by Richard Jones. Motion carried.s THIRD ITEM OF APPEAL: Uniform Plumbing Code Drinking Fountains Footnote 2 of Table 9-2 of the Plumbing Code requires one drinking fountain for each 500 persons. With 8,000 fixed stadium seats, 16 drinking fountains would be required on the concourse. The petitioner proposes to delete all of the drinking fountains since the sale of food and drink is integral to the stadium operation. Mr. Valotti stated that they would like to modify this portion of their request. The request is for a reduction in the number of drinking fountains required. Mr. Valotti stated that the request was being changed due to a conversation with Mr. Nelson in which Mr. Nelson asked what would happen if there was an event at which the concessions were not opened. Due to this unexpected possibility, Mr. Valotti stated that they can see the need for at least 4 drinking fountains in the concourse area. Mr. Valotti further stated that restaurants are exempt from this requirement since they operate to sell beverages and the like. The stadium will have a minimum of 10 drinking fountains located in the following areas: Number: Location: 1 Service area for Barrier Free 1 Upstairs 1 Dugout 1 Lower level 2 Outfield 4 Concourse Richard Jones moved to approved Item 3 of this appeal with the above noted number of drinking fountains in the locations listed. Motion supported by Randall Kamm. Motion carried-6 FOURTH ITEM OF APPEAL: Uniform Mechanical Code Use of UL Listed Fire Resistive Type I Duct Enclosure System Section 507.6 of the 1994 Uniform Mechanical Code requires ducts serving Type I grease hoods to be protected with fire resistive enclosures. These enclosures are required to provide two hour fire resistance with clearances from the duct of between three to twelve inches. The design proposes to utilize a UL Listed two hour fire resistive product which allows reduced clearances. The two products available to date include: BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS FEBRUARY 14, 1995 PAGE 6 o Pabco o Thermal Ceramics These types of products have been approved for use in the State of Michigan. The Pabco product has a recognized National Evaluation Report #NER-332, and Thermal Ceramics has a BOCA Report No.92-3. Copies of these reports have been included as Appendix C. Mr. Stuckman stated that in the materials provided he noted that Pabco is limited to Type III, IV, and V buildings using a 1-hour rating. Mr. Valotti stated that further in the paragraph it states that for Type I and II buildings a 2-hour rating is required. Mr. Valotti further stated that he understood that some other projects had been given approval to use the wrap. Mr. Nelson stated that the Board had approved the use of the wrap in 1994 for Sparrow Hospital and the Lansing Center. Mr. McAlvey asked what the reason was for not using the rated enclosures as required. Mr. Valotti stated that the cost was the only reason. Randall Kamm moved to approved Item 4 of this appeal. Motion supported by Richard Jones. Motion carried.' CASE AB-037-94 - 3010 Stirling This case was tabled at the January 10, 1995, meeting and was unfortunately left off of the agenda for February. Mr. Max Terwilliger has asked that this appeal be tabled until the March 14, 1995, meeting. A motion was made by Richard Jones to table Case AB-037-95, 3010 Stirlinp until the March 14, 1995, meeting. Motion was supported by Randall Kamm. Motion carried. Being no other business before the Board a motion for adjournment was entertained. Richard Jones moved to adjourn. Motion seconded by Joe Wilcox. Motion carried9. Respectfully Submitted, Qfu J k A. Nelson S cretary DRAFT: IJ APPROVED: I BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS FEBRUARY 14, 1995 PAGE 7 RECORD OF VOTES: #1 Record of Vote Yea Nay Richard Stuckman, Chair X Richard Jones, Vice Chair X Joe Wilcox X Randall Kamm X Dave McAlvey X #2 Record of Vote Yea Nay Richard Stuckman, Chair X Richard Jones, Vice Chair X Joe Wilcox X Randall Kamm X Dave McAlvey X #3 Record of Vote Yea Nay Richard Stuckman, Chair X Richard Jones, Vice Chair X Joe Wilcox X Randall Kamm X Dave McAlvey X #4 Record of Vote Yea Nay Richard Stuckman, Chair X Richard Jones, Vice Chair X Joe Wilcox X Randall Kamm X Dave McAlvey X BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS FEBRUARY 14, 1995 PAGE 8 #5 Record of Vote Yea Nay Richard Stuckman, Chair X Richard Jones, Vice Chair X Joe Wilcox X Randall Kamm X Dave McAlvey X #6 Record of vote Yea Nay Richard Stuckman, Chair X Richard Jones, Vice Chair X Joe Wilcox X Randall Kamm X Dave McAlvey X #7 Record of Vote Yea Nay Richard Stuckman, Chair X Richard Jones, Vice Chair X Joe Wilcox X Randall Kamm X Dave McAlvey X #8 Record of vote Yea Nay Richard Stuckman, Chair X Richard Jones, Vice Chair X Joe Wilcox X Randall Kamm X Dave McAlvey X BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS FEBRUARY 14, 1995 PAGE 9 #9 Record of vote Yea Nay Richard Stuckman, Chair X Richard Jones, vice Chair X Joe Wilcox X Randall Kamm X Dave McAlvey X OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS of the .i fir':~ CITY OF LANSING I ✓ rt;i I I ' 4,8 BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS February 14, 1995 The January 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 David McAlvey Randall Kamm Staff members present: Jack A. Nelson, Secretary Jim Ballard, Fire Marshall Jack Nelson announced that this would be the last meeting that Joe Wilcox will be attending. Mr. Wilcox has tendered his resignation due to moving outside of the City. A motion was made by Richard Jones to approve the minutes of the January 10, 1995, meeting with two corrections: 1) Page 2, Sentence 2 should state "Mr. Nowicki stated that there were two windows in the room on the second floor, one at each end, and that the back window was above a roof over the kitchen/rear area of the house." 2) Page 3, Paragraph 5, Sentence 2, should read "Pastor Kamens further stated that there would be no increase in the traffic to and from the house, that the majority of their. traffic was by telephone or fax machine." The motion was supported by Dave McAlvey. Motion carried". CASE AB-001-95 - 1020 Long Blvd. Issue of Appeal: Requesting relief from Section 3305 of the Uniform Building Code The Petitioner proposed to combine Suite #10 and Suite #11, Holiday Office Park South. The combined square footage of the suites is 3,827 square feet. The calculated occupant load of the combined tenant space is 39. (Table 33-A, Occupant Load Factor, Office 100) . Section 3305 of the Building Code requires that corridors which serve an occupant load of 30 persons must be fire rated. Petitioners Analysis: We are requesting approval of an acceptable alternative solution in lieu of the required construction needed to comply with the rated construction of corridor walls within the suite. The proposed alternate is to install a 1 hour rated door and frame assembly complete with closer and smoke seals in an existing tenant separation wall. The existing wall in question already extends from floor to ceiling. Mr. Morris Stein from Keystone Design was present for this appeal. Mr. Stein stated that the tenant has been using both spaces for a while now. At some point during the tenants use they placed a 5' opening between the two spaces so that the spaces are somewhat connecting. BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS FEBRUARY 14, 1995 PAGE 2 Mr. Stein also stated that currently the walls go to the ceiling and that in order to fire rate the walls it would require going up to the deck and then through the ceiling which would cost considerably more. Mr. Stein further stated that each suite has its own exiting and that the occupant load is no more than 25 persons. The code allows for non-simultaneous use - meaning that the area of the restrooms and breakroom could be discounted as part of the total building space. Mr. Nelson stated that he agreed that the code does allow for non-simultaneous uses but that the breakroom would not count, this factor would still put the building square footage at a little over the 3,000 sq.ft. allowed. Mr. Nelson further stated that the second exit is through a tenant space. Mr. Stein agreed that it would put the building at about 3,400 sq.ft. Mr. Stein stated that as an alternative they would like to have smoke detection, as provided per code, put into the suites along with a fire-rated door. A discussion followed as to the construction of the building and types of doors. Joe Wilcox moved to grant the appeal provided that hard-wired smoke detection is installed, as per code, and that a magnetic hold opener is on the fire-rated door. The door must also be connected to the smoke detection so that an alarms sounds throughout the suite. Motion was supported by Randall Kamm. Motion carried.Z CASE AB-002-95 - 1425 RENSEN Issue of Appeal: Requesting relief from Section 3802(f)(2) of the 1991 edition of the Uniform Building Code Section 3802 of the Building Code requires that Group H Division 4 occupancies which exceed 3,000 square feet must be equipped with an automatic fire suppression system. The Petitioner proposes a 1,900 sq.ft. addition to the existing 5,000 sq.ft. building. Mr. Morris Stein, Keystone Design, Mr. Matt O'Donnell, owner of premises, and Mr. John Parish, Parish Corporation, were present for this case. Mr. Stein stated that the existing building is a pre-engineered, steel building with steel frames, steel purlins, and metal roof and siding. The building is essentially all open except for two Barrier Free toilets and a small office. The proposed addition is primarily a new larger truck and car bay on the southerly end of the building and a small office addition projecting in front of the existing building. Mr. Stein further stated that when this group of buildings were built, all of them were handled with water leads to the building from a cul-de-sac on the end of Rensen Street. There are no large water mains within the development and the nearest main of the size which would serve this building is between 500 to 600 feet away. This main would have to be extended through the development primarily through existing drives and parking lots. This would be extremely costly and difficult to do, as it would disrupt operation of essentially all the other buildings. Mr. O'Donnell stated that he has complied with all of the requirements given to him by Quality Fire Protection to make sure that he has appropriate fire safety measures. Mr. O'Donnell stated that he has monthly safety meetings with his staff to ensure that everyone knows about safety BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS FEBRUARY 14, 1995 PAGE 3 regulations and procedures. Mr. O'Donnell further stated that everyone knows where the fire extinguishers are located and that in case of a fire they have been instructed that the person who sees the fire is to yell "FIRE" and the others are to get the fire extinguishers and put out the fire. Mr. Ballard asked the quantity of flammable materials stored within the building. Mr. O'Donnell stated that they have a metal cabinet that is marked "FLAMMABLES" with approximately 10 gallons of flammable material. Mr. O'Donnell further stated that they also have a 10,000 gallon storage tank for the oil they use. Mr. Ballard asked to what extend they do spray painting. Mr. O'Donnell stated that only a small amount of spray painting is done, they occasionally spray paint bumpers or things like that. Mostly it is touch up spray painting. Mr. Ballard stated that the fire code allows for spray painting if it is a small area to be painted such as bumpers. Mr. Nelson stated that the Building Office had done a building code review and that it shows that at the time that this building was built no fire suppression was required. Mr. Stein stated that the metal wall in the office area would be dry-walled. Also the building is equipped with a monitored security and smoke alarm system, so the building would have additional coverage during off hours. Richard Jones moved to approved the appeal. Mr. Nelson asked for a clarification. The old building will be separate from the new addition by a 2 hour separation wall. Motion supported by Joe Wilcox. Motion carried.s CASE AB-003-95 - Lansing Baseball Mr. Eric J. Piper and Mr. Paul Valotti were present for this appeal. Mr. Piper made a presentation to the Board using a model of the proposed stadium, showing were everything they are proposing will be. FIRST ITEM OF APPEAL: Building Code 1991 edition of U.B.C. The design proposes to utilize Type II Fire Resistive Construction. However, the architect proposes to delete the fire resistive rating on the roof and the floor ceiling assembly over the concourse. The applicable code sections for which a variance is requested are as follows: 1994 Code 1991 Code Table 6-A Table 5-C Basic Allowable Floor Areas Section 505 506(a) Allowable Area Increases Table 5-B 17-A Types of Construction The next lowest construction classification, Type II 1 hr, would allow 27,000 sq.ft. per floor, which is insufficient. The design is proposing 74,200 sq.ft. in total area. BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS FEBRUARY 14, 1995 PAGE 4 Mr. Valotti stated that the concourse is basically a 30' wide sidewalk area with 4 concession stands branching off from it. For this reason they feel that fire resistive ratings on the roof and floor ceiling are unnecessary. The propose to sprinkler this area instead. Mr. Valotti further stated that the state code allows for stadiums to have a 0 fire-rating. Mr. Stuckman asked what was in the concession areas to protect the concession and the concourse. Mr. Valotti stated that the fire suppression is intended to protect the integrity of the building and its occupants. By sprinklering the concourse they will protect the structural integrity of the building. The basement, concourse, and second floor suite (if less costly and justifiable), would all be sprinklered. Mr. Valotti further stated that they will comply with NFPA 13. A discussion followed. Mr. Valotti stated that, just estimating, they would install approximately 150 sprinkler heads. Richard Jones moved to approved Item 1 of this appeal. Motion supported by Randall Kamm. Motion carried.° SECOND ITEM OF APPEAL: The design proposes a maximum of 28 rows in a seating section. Code limitations on the length of aisles are intended to address exit time from the seating area, and limit conditions from which only one exit path is provided. This provision is often compared to "Dead End Corridor" situations. However, a "Dead End Aisle" has many outlets via adjacent rows. If an aisle or vomitory is blocked, patrons may access the adjacent aisles and vomitories as exits. This phenomenon is observed during exiting of similar facilities. Patrons within rows will often move toward the aisle which is less congested. Section 1021.7.3 of the 1994 U.B.C. addresses dead end aisles in open-air grandstands and bleachers. It allows vertical aisles up to 16 rows for permanent and 26 rows for temporary grandstands but does not offer provisions for increases. (3322(9)G(1) 1991 U.B.C.) Section 1014.4 of the 1994 U.B.C. limits the length of dead end rows to 20 feet within indoor arenas. The exception to Section 1014.4 allows an unlimited dead end aisle (increased exit time) if rows are limited to 24 seats in length and the minimum 12 inch row spacing is increased 0.6 inches for each additional seat above seven. A 19.8 inch distance between the back of the chair in front and the closet part of the chair behind would be required. This provision for increasing aisle lengths was new to the 1991 edition of the U.B.C. No provision for aisle increase was provided prior to this edition and has not been introduced for outdoor stadiums. (3315(d) U.B.C. 1991) Mr. Valotti stated that the reasoning behind allowing only so many rows was to make sure that in an emergency people could quickly exit. A calculation was done to see approximately how long it would take to exit. It is estimated with vomitory seating 2,000 people, moving at 20 people per foot per minute, would take 10 or more minutes to exit. With the seating proposed 600 people with 4 foot wide aisles could exit in 8.5 to 9 minutes. A discussion followed. Mr. Valotti stated that presently they are proposing armed chairs. BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS FEBRUARY 14, 1995 PAGE 5 Mr. Jones asked if the first rows would have access to the field. Mr. Valotti stated that they would not. Mr. Valotti corrected himself to say that for emergency purposes there was a ramp for barrier free exiting that went onto the field. Randall Kamm moved to approved Item 2 of this appeal. Motion supported by Richard Jones. Motion carried.s THIRD ITEM OF APPEAL: Uniform Plumbing Code Drinking Fountains Footnote 2 of Table 9-2 of the Plumbing Code requires one drinking fountain for each 500 persons. With 8,000 fixed stadium seats, 16 drinking fountains would be required on the concourse. The petitioner proposes to delete all of the drinking fountains since the sale of food and drink is integral to the stadium operation. Mr. Valotti stated that they would like to modify this portion of their request. The request is for a reduction in the number of drinking fountains required. Mr. Valotti stated that the request was being changed due to a conversation with Mr. Nelson in which Mr. Nelson asked what would happen if there was an event at which the concessions were not opened. Due to this unexpected possibility, Mr. Valotti stated that they can see the need for at least 4 drinking fountains in the concourse area. Mr. Valotti further stated that restaurants are exempt from this requirement since they operate to sell beverages and the like. The stadium will have a minimum of 10 drinking fountains located in the following areas: Number: Location: 1 Service area for Barrier Free 1 Upstairs 1 Dugout 1 Lower level 2 Outfield 4 Concourse Richard Jones moved to approved Item 3 of this appeal with the above noted number of drinking fountains in the locations listed. Motion supported by Randall Kamm. Motion carried.6 FOURTH ITEM OF APPEAL: Uniform Mechanical Code Use of UL Listed Fire Resistive Type I Duct Enclosure System Section 507.6 of the 1994 Uniform Mechanical Code requires ducts serving Type I grease hoods to be protected with fire resistive enclosures. These enclosures are required to provide two hour fire resistance with clearances from the duct of between three to twelve inches. The design proposes to utilize a UL Listed two hour fire resistive product which allows reduced clearances. The two products available to date include: BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS FEBRUARY 14, 1995 PAGE 6 o Pabco o Thermal Ceramics These types of products have been approved for use in the State of Michigan. The Pabco product has a recognized National Evaluation Report #NER-332, and Thermal Ceramics has a BOCA Report No.92-3. Copies of these reports have been included as Appendix C. Mr. Stuckman stated that in the materials provided he noted that Pabco is limited to Type III, IV, and V buildings using a 1-hour rating. Mr. Valotti stated that further in the paragraph it states that for Type I and II buildings a 2-hour rating is required. Mr. Valotti further stated that he understood that some other projects had been given approval to use the wrap. Mr. Nelson stated that the Board had approved the use of the wrap in 1994 for Sparrow Hospital and the Lansing Center. Mr. McAlvey asked what the reason was for not using the rated enclosures as required. Mr. Valotti stated that the cost was the only reason. Randall Kamm moved to approved Item 4 of this appeal. Motion supported by Richard Jones. Motion carried.' CASE AB-037-94 - 3010 Stirling This case was tabled at the January 10, 1995, meeting and was unfortunately left off of the agenda for February. Mr. Max Terwilliger has asked that this appeal be tabled until the March 14, 1995, meeting. A motion was made by Richard Jones to table Case AB-037-95, 3010 Stirlin , until the March 14, 1995, meeting. Motion was supported by Randall Kamm. Motion carried. Being no other business before the Board a motion for adjournment was entertained. Richard Jones moved to adjourn. Motion seconded by Joe Wilcox. Motion carried9. Respectfully Submitted, fAJkNelson y DRAFT: IJ APPROVED: BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS FEBRUARY 14, 1995 PAGE 7 RECORD OF VOTES: #1 IE-- Record of Vote Yea Nay Richard Stuckman, Chair X Richard Jones, Vice Chair X Joe Wilcox X Randall Kamm X Dave McAlvey X #2 Record of Vote Yea Nay Richard Stuckman, Chair X Richard Jones, vice Chair X Joe Wilcox X Randall Kamm X Dave McAlvey X #3 �Reco=dof7ote Yea Nay Richard Stuckman, Chair X Richard Jones, Vice Chair X Joe Wilcox X Randall Kamm X Dave McAlvey X #4 Record of Vote Yea Nay Richard Stuckman, Chair X Richard Jones, Vice Chair X Joe Wilcox X Randall Kamm X Dave McAlvey X BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS FEBRUARY 14, 1995 PAGE 8 #5 Record of Vote Yea Nay Richard Stuckman, Chair X Richard Jones, Vice Chair X Joe Wilcox X Randall Kamm X Dave McAlvey X #6 Record of Vote Yea Nay Richard Stuckman, Chair X Richard Jones, Vice Chair X Joe Wilcox X Randall Kamm X Dave McAlvey X #7 Record of Vote Yea Nay Richard Stuckman, Chair X Richard Jones, Vice Chair X Joe Wilcox X Randall Kamm X Dave McAlvey X #8 Record of Vote Yea Nay Richard Stuckman, Chair X Richard Jones, Vice Chair X Joe Wilcox X Randall Kamm X Dave McAlvey X BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS FEBRUARY 14, 1995 PAGE 9 #9 Record of Vote Yea Nay Richard Stuckman, Chair X Richard Jones, Vice Chair X Joe Wilcox X Randall Kamm X Dave McAlvey X OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS R'! ��_ ,,i�-C of the CITY OF LANSING V il`► C Y CL9VLDING BOARD OF APPEALS January 10, 1995 The January 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 David McAlvey ' Members Absent: Randall Kamm Staff members present: Gary Brydges, Secretary Jim Ballard, Fire Marshall A motion was made by Richard Jones to approve the minutes of the December 13, 1994, meeting with one correction: Page 2, Paragraph 4 should state "A general discussion followed on how Ms. Lesher could reasonably make the wall to code without having a lot of construction or cost." The motion was supported by Joe Wilcox. Motion carried'. CASE AB-037-94 - 3010 Stirling Mr. Max Terwilliger called and asked that this appeal be tabled until the February 14, 1995, meeting. A motion was made by Joe Wilcox to table Case AB-037-95, 3010 Stirling, until the February 14, 1995, meeting. Motion was supported by Richard Jones. Motion carried CASE AB-039-94 - 525 Fairfield Requesting relief from the requirements of Section 1460.13 - 1460.20(a) of the City of Lansing Housing Code. On November 23, 1994, Delores Fuller, Code Compliance Officer, cited the petitioner for non compliance with the Housing Code. The Housing Code sets a minimum height of 7'4" in existing buildings. In this case the ceiling height is 519" measured at the 316" width. Mr. & Mrs. Thomas Nowicki were present for this case. Mrs. Nowicki presented pictures of the inside of 525 Fairfield. Mrs. Nowicki stated that Mr. Nowicki and herself had made numerous improvements to this house for their children to live in. BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS JANUARY 10, 1995 PAGE 2 Mr. Nowicki stated that there were two windows in the room on the second floor, one at each end, and that the back window was above the roof. Mr. Nowicki stated that he was willing to install egress windows at both ends of the room and to also install proper smoke detection. Mr. and Mrs. Nowicki further stated that all the code violations listed in the November 23, 1994, letter from the Code Compliance Officer would be corrected, but that he had been told by the Code Compliance Officer not to do any more work until they had been to the Board for a variance on the ceiling height. A discussion followed of all the improvements that had been made to the property. Joe Wilcox moved to grant the appeal provided proper egress windows are installed on both ends of the room and that hard-wired smoke detection is also 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 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.3 Richard Stuckman moved to amend the motion to include that this variance is being allowed due to the family relationship, which is closer than a regular landlord/tenant rental. Amended motion was supported by Richard Jones. Motion carried. t Mr. and Mrs. Nowicki had 30 days or until February 10, 1995, for compliance with the code. CASE AB-040-94 - 1018 W. Lapeer Requesting relief from the requirements of Section 1460.13 - 1460.20(a) of the City of Lansing Housing Code. On October 14, 1993, the Board of Appeals (reference Case AB-029-93) granted permission to utilize the first floor of the facility on a temporary basis for an office for the Greater Lansing Housing Coalition which is operating in the general neighborhood of this residence rehabilitating BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS JANUARY 10, 1995 PAGE 3 homes for a lease purchase program for low income families. In the past year the staff has doubled requiring additional office space. The Executive Director of the Coalition is requesting authority to utilize the second floor. Condition #2 of the Appeals Board ruling of October 13, 1993, prohibited the use of the second floor. Pastor Kamens and the Executive Director for the Housing Coalition were present for this case. Richard Stuckman stated that from reading the minutes of the October 14, 1993, meeting, more specifically page 5 paragraph 2, he had the understanding that James Ruff of the Zoning Department had put the restrictions on the use of this building. Mr. Stuckman stated that Pastor Kamens would also need to see James Ruff to get a variance. Pastor Kamens stated that he had talked to Jack Nelson and that he was told that Mr. Nelson had talked to Mr. Ruff and that he had no problem with granting the variance. Mr. Nelson was not at this meeting for comment. Pastor Kamens stated that he believed that at the time of the first variance request the concern was on the amount of traffic that would be in and out of the house and the number of people who could occupy the second floor at one time. Pastor Kamens further stated that there would be no increase in the .traffic to and from the house, that the majority of there traffic was by telephone or fax machine. Richard Jones moved to grant the appeal. Motion supported by Joe Wilcox. Motion carried5. 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, QMR Brydges Acting Secretary BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS JANUARY 10, 1995 PAGE 4 RECORD OF VOTES: #1 Record of Vote Yea Nay Richard Stuckman, Chair X Richard Jones, Vice Chair X Joe Wilcox X Randall Kamm (absent) Dave McAlvey X #2 Record of Vote Yea Nay Richard Stuckman, Chair X Richard Jones, Vice Chair X Joe Wilcox X Randall Kamm (absent) Dave McAlvey X #3 Record of Vote Yea Nay Richard Stuckman, Chair X Richard Jones, Vice Chair X Joe Wilcox X Randall Kamm (absent) Dave McAlvey X #4 Record of Vote Yea Nay Richard Stuckman, Chair X Richard Jones, Vice Chair X Joe Wilcox X Randall Kamm (absent) Dave McAlvey X BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS JANUARY 10, 1995 PAGE 5 #5 Record of Vote Yea Nay Richard Stuckman, Chair X Richard Jones, Vice Chair X Joe Wilcox X Randall Kamm (absent) Dave McAlvey X #6 Record of Vote Yea Nay Richard Stuckman, Chair X Richard Jones, Vice Chair X Joe Wilcox X Randall Kamm (absent) Dave McAlvey X