Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBuilding Board of Appeals 1996 Minutes vPN S IA, q.11 2 CH1Gr Office of City Clerk Marilynn Slade City of Lansing City Clerk TO: Krista Williams, Building Safety Division FROM: Dixie L. Gilmore, City Clerk's Office SUBJECT: 1996 Minutes -Building Board of Appeals, Electrical Board, Mechanical Board & Plumbing Board DATE: January 3, 1997 Thank you for your prompt return of minutes we had indicated were missing for the above boards. There are just a few items which need clarification, however, so these are being listed as follows: BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS • We show that draft minutes are on file for the February 20 and June 11 meetings, however, we are not in receipt of approved minutes. Please file the approved minutes with our office. • No notice was received for posting which changed the meeting date of February 13 to February 20. Please advise. • No cancellation notices were received for the meeting dates of January 9, March 12, April 9, May 14 or November 12. ELECTRICAL BOARD • Our earlier memo indicated approved minutes were on file for the meetings of January 16 and February 20. Upon closer observation, however, we have confirmed that these are draft minutes only. Please provide us with approved minutes for these meetings as well as the meetings of March 19, August 20 and October 15. MECHANICAL BOARD • As noted in our previous memo, we only have draft minutes for March 12. Please forward a copy of the approved minutes. • No cancellation notices were received for posting for the meeting dates of June 11, July 9 and August 13. Please advise. Ninth Floor, City Hall, 124 W. Michigan Ave., Lansing, MI 48933-1695 • 517-483-4131 • 517-483-6066 FAX Y t1� PLUMBING BOARD • Upon continued review of this board's minutes, we find we have draft minutes only for the meetings of January 11, February 8 and June 13. -Please forward our office a copy of the approved minutes. • No change of meeting date notice was received for posting for the April 18 meeting. • No cancellation notices were received for posting for the July 11 or August 8 meetings. I am attaching a copy of the Open Meetings Act which may assist you in determining when to file draft minutes and approved minutes as well as any meeting change notices. Minutes should be original copies showing the date of approval and the signature of the chairperson. Also please note that Section 5-105.10 states in part: "No official action taken by any board at any meeting shall be valid or effective until a copy of the minutes at which the action was taken is filed with the Clerk." Again, thank you for your assistance in bringing these board records up to date for 1996. /dlg 14S1�, C dry r2 H1G Office of City Clerk Marilynn Slade City of Lansing TT Clerk T I`', �L- Krista Williams, Building Safety Division -'�/�,r •�'D :� Dixie Gilmore, City Clerk's office DATE: December 27, 1996 SUBJECT: 1996 Building Board of Appeals Minutes A review of our records indicates the following board minutes are not on file in the Clerk's Office: NO Vy-e Z'anuary 9 �b March 12 l q `''°Ma 14 pril 9 �pt►.e.�°` y July 9 (draft only)' August 13✓ • `v September 10✓ October 8✓ November 12 December 10 The last board minutes placed on file with our office were for the meeting of February 20, 1996. This meeting date does not coincide with the February 13, 1996 date on the 1996 meeting schedule posted with this office. Was a notice forwarded indicated a change of date for the February meeting? Please provide our office with a copy for the file. Would you please either provide the missing minutes or advise us of their status. Thank you for your cooperation in bringing this file up to date. /dlg ,0 P. l.Q� tQD b12 Y2[q� Ninth Floor, City Hall, 124 W. Michigan Ave., Lansing, MI 48933-1695 • 517-483-4131 • 517-483-6066 FAX OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY OF LANSING BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS DECEMBER 10, 1996 The December meeting of the City of Lansing Building Board of Appeals was called to order by Chairman Richard Stuckman at 2:05 p.m. The following members were in attendance: Richard Stuckman, Chairman Dean Taylor Randall Kamm Brian Taylor Staff Members Present: Jack A.Nelson, Secretary The October 8, 1996, board minutes were handed out at the meeting, consequently their approval was deferred until the next hearing in order to afford the Board adequate time to review the minutes. New Business: AB-011-96- 1415 Vine An application for appeal has been filed by Mr. David Muylle, 301 Rumsey, Lansing, Michigan. The petitioner seeks relief from Section 1460.13(9) of the City of Lansing Uniform Housing Code. The appeal if approved would allow the use of the basement of a single family residence for habitable space. Chair Stuckman requested Mr. Muylle to explain the case. Mr. Muylle stated that the house is a small, one bedroom residence. Mr. Muylle proposes to renovate the basement by constructing a living room, dining room, bedroom and kitchen. Mr.Nelson asked if the dwelling was being converted to a duplex. Mr. Muylle stated that it was not. Mr. Stuckman asked if the dwelling would be used as a rental. Mr. Muylle stated that it will be a rental. Mr. Muylle stated that access to the basement is through the garage, but they propose to install an additional interior stairway for access. Randall Kamm asked if the bedroom had a complying egress window and how large was the window well. Mr. Muylle stated that the window complied with egress requirements. Mr. Muylle asked how large the window well had to be. Mr. Kamm stated that escape windows with a finished sill height below the adjacent ground level must have a window well. The clear horizontal dimensions shall allow the window to be fully opened and provided a net clear opening of 9 square feet with a minimum dimension of 36 inches. If the window well is deeper than 44 inches it shall be equipped with a ladder. Mr. Muylle stated that the window well does not comply with the code but he would correct the situation. Chairman Stuckman asked if there were more questions. Mr. Kamm stated that he was ready to make a motion. Mr. Stuckman stated that if there were no more questions a motion would be in order. Mr. Kamm moved to grant the appeal subject to the following: 1. Smoke detection shall be installed in the entire residence in accordance with Section 310.9.1 of the Uniform Building Code, 1994 edition, for new buildings. 2. The egress window must comply with Section 310.4 of the Uniform Building Code, '1994 edition. 3. The window well must comply with Section 310.4 of the Uniform Building Code, 1994 edition. Motion seconded by Mr. Dean Taylor. Motion carried. Mr. Muylle asked the Board what the minimum width of the proposed stairway had to be. Mr. Muylle was informed that Section 1006.2 of the building code requires that minimum stairway width will be 36". Mr. Muylle requested the Board to grant him relief from the code which would allow the minimum width to be reduced to 30". Chairman Stuckman stated that he would allow Case AB-011-96 to be amended to authorize the Board to address the stairway issue. It was the consensus. of the Board that since there were (3) exits from the basement (egress window, garage stairway, and the proposed stairway)that the reduction to 30"would be satisfactory. Mr. Taylor moved to allow the construction of a stairway not narrower than 30". Motion seconded by Mr. Kamm. Motion carried. In support of this decision the Board makes the following findings of fact: The residence only has one bedroom. The construction of the second bedroom will increase the marketability of the property. The basement complies with all code requirements with the exception of the ceiling height and stairway width. The two code deficiencies which are fire safety concerns have been placated with the conditions of the appeal which in ude smoke detection and an existing stairway which complies with code requirements. Respectfully submi e , c A. Nelson, Secretary OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS DRAFT of the CITY OF LANSING BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS October 8, 1996 The September 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, Chairman Dean Taylor Randall Kamm Members Absent: None Staff members present: Jack Nelson, Secretary Casey Griggs, Acting Fire Marshal A motion was made by Randall Kamm to approve the minutes of the September 10, 1996, meeting. Motion was seconded by Dean Taylor. Motion carried'. Chairman Stuckman explained that there are currently only 3 Board members. A majority vote (3) is.required in order to have appeal approved. Mr. Ross asked if he would have a second chance in front of a full Board if his appeal isn't approved in this meeting. Jack Nelson explained that the chance of a full Board hearing would probably be a long way off. An application was recently submitted to the Mayors Office and is pending. A full Board consists of five members. NEW BUSINESS AB-010-96 - Washington Park John Ross was present for this appeal. The City of Lansing Parks and Recreation Department proposes to construct a 27,336 square foot air-supported structure to be used as an enclosed skating rink at Washington Park. The Uniform Building Code allows air-supported structures when in compliance with the requirements of Division 11 of Appendix Chapter 31 of the Uniform Building Code. The membrane structure has been classified as Type V-N Construction. The Use Group is A-4. Assuming the structure is located in an area which provides 60' of open perimeter on 3 sides, the base allowable area of the dome could be increased 100% to 12,200 square feet. The proposed dome is in excess of 27,000 square feet, consequently it does not comply with Table 5-B. BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS OCTOBER 8, 1996 PAGE 2 Mr. Ross gave some background information about the financing, ownership and operation of the "Dome". There is currently no air-supported structures in the City of Lansing. There is one being constructed in Allegan County and one proposed for the M.A.C. in Meridian Township. The proposed "Dome" is semi-circular and goes from ground to ground. The "Dome" is 36' high in the center and is all open space. The U.B.C. classifies this structure as A-3 occupancy, V-N construction and flame resistant or flame retardant, but not non-combustible. There are two attachments off of one side of the "Dome" - one being the air-lock door used to move the zamboni in and the other being the vestibule/main entry. The main entry/vestibule is desinned to have masonry walls and metal roofing. The "Dome" structure is manufactured, constructed, and installed by the manufacturer. There is a separate mechanical plant outside which comes prepackaged. The "Dome" is designed with six exit doors at five locations providing exiting for up to 900 persons. It is anticipated that there will be no more than 400 persons at any one event. There was a discussion on the proposed uses, the number of occupants anticipated that those events, and the time it would take for the "Dome" to collapse in the event of some malfunctions or intentional damage to the structure. Mr. Ross informed the Board that he had asked some questions of the manufacturer concerning the "Dome" settlement: 1. If all the doors were open would that cause lose of air and collapse of structure? The structure is designed so that if one door is left open the mechanical system would make-up the air loss and the structure would stay in place. If all the doors were open and the air were off, it would take a minimum of 30 minutes to settle. 2. If the structure is cut with a sharp object would that cause collapse of the structure? The structure is lap joined at the seams and is a two membrane structure with a heavy outer membrane and a thinner inner membrane, with some air in-between the two membranes. There could be a horizontal cut of 90' to 100' or a vertical cut of 20', before the dome would start to fall. Mr. Ross stated that there are two back-up systems one being an air supply, wherewith loss of air pressure, sensors would start the back-up inflation system. The other back-up system being an automatic power supply, where a generator would kick on if there is any loss of power to the structure. At this time there is no warning system for the occupants. BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS OCTOBER 8, 1996 PAGE 3 The code also requires that there be an internal mechanical means to support the structure of at least 7' high to allow occupants to exit. Mr. Ross stated that there are five lights on each side that are 8' high and a wall board that goes around the rink that is 8' or 9' high. Mr. Ross further stated that the lights and wall board are, according to the manufacturer, designed to support the membrane. Mr. Griggs asked why there is no rating for the light fixtures if they will support the structure. Mr. Ross stated that he did not know why there was no rating. Mr. Nelson asked if the manufacturer had an internal support system designed. Mr. Ross stated that there was one but the cost was approximately $11,000. Mr. Ross further stated that it would have to be designed and installed to go high enough to prevent it being hit by hockey sticks and having people climbing or hanging off of it. Chairman Stuckman asked why the code is written with specific area limitations if this is the typical construction. Mr. Nelson stated that this is an appendix chapter that was adopted by the City of Lansing. In most cases the structure is deemed as temporary, meaning it will be used for 180 days or less, and that was why they were allowed. Mr. Nelson stated that the Building Department would be agreeable to this appeal provided the following was provided: 1. Occupancy load limited to 500 persons. 2. Additional exit doors providing 24 lineal feet of exiting. 3. Alternate uses must be approved by the Building Official and Fire Marshal. 4. Must comply with all other provisions of the building code. 5. Exit illumination an signage provided and subject to field review. 6. Alarm system installed for when system goes downs that is connected to a public announcement system. Randall Kamm moved to grant this appeal provided: 1. .Occupancy load limited to 500 persons. 2. Additional exit doors providing 24 lineal feet of exiting. 3. Alternate uses must be approved by the Building Official and Fire Marshal. 4. Must comply with all other provisions of the building code. 5. Exit illumination an signage provided and subject to field review. 6. Alarm system installed for when system goes downs that is connected to a public announcement system. Supported by Dean Taylor. Randall Kamm amended his motion to limit occupancy to 499 persons and allow exiting doors of 18 lineal feet. Amendment supported by Dean Taylor. Motion carried2. OLD BUSINESS None. BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS OCTOBER 8, 1996 PAGE 4 OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Nelson present the Board with a proposal for approval of parapet walls (copy attached) . After a brief discussion, Randall Kamm moved to approve the proposal as a new policy for the Building Safety Office. Motion seconded by Dean Taylor. Motion carried3. Being no other business, Randall Kamm moved to adjourn. Motion seconded by Dean Taylor. Motion carried4. Respectfully Submitted, Jac e so DRAFT: October 11, 1996 Sec et ry APPROVED: 'BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 5 OCTOBER 8, 1996 RECORD OF VOTES: #1 Record of Vote Yea Nay Richard Stuckman, Chair X Dean Taylor X Randall Kamm X #2 FFRecord of Vote Yea Nay Richard Stuckman, Chair X Dean Taylor X Randall Kamm X #3 Record of Vote Yea Nay Richard Stuckman, Chair X Dean Taylor X Randall Kamm X #4 Record of Vote Yea Nay Richard Stuckman, Chair X Dean Taylor =±--7 X Randall Kamm X OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS of the CITY OF LANSING r. BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS CLcf September 10, 1996 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 Chairman Dean Taylor Randall Kamm Members Absent: Richard Stuckman, Chairman Staff members present: Christine Segerlind, Acting Secretary Dennis George, Fire Prevention Bureau A motion was made by Dean Taylor to approve the minutes of the August 13, 1996, meeting. Motion was seconded by Randall Kamm. Motion carried'. NEW BUSINESS AB-006-96 - 1128 Dakin The petitioner, Anh Baur, was present for this appeal. The Petitioner requests the continued use of a second floor bedroom which as a ceiling height which does not comply with the minimum requirements of Section 1460.18 Exits. The City of Lansing Code Compliance Office has notified the owner of the violation. The owner is aggrieved and seeks a modification or reversal of the Code Compliance Officers decision. Ms. Baur stated that she has a new tenant in this dwelling. Ms. Baur further stated that the new tenant will only be using this space as a storage area, not as a bedroom. This was a brief discussion as to the room size, window size and ceiling height. Mr. Kamm explained to Ms. Baur that this appeal would be for present or further use of this room as a bedroom and that if it is not approved the area could not be used as a bedroom even with further tenants. 'Ms. Baur stated that she had no wish to see the space used as a bedroom and that whatever the Board decided would be fine with her. 2 Mr. Kamm moved to deny this appeal. Motion seconded by Dean Taylor. Motion Carried . BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 2 SEPTEMBER 10, 1996 CASE AB-008-96 - 705 E OAKLAND James Drake was present for this appeal. The petitioner purposes to construction a 2,000 sq.ft. addition on a 112,000 sq.ft. building which is too large for its construction type. The building code allows one story fully sprinkled buildings of certain construction types to be unlimited in area when open space is provided around the entire building. In this case the petitioner has 3 buildings on a site which has open space on approximately 70% of the perimeter. The petitioner is seeking authority to apply applicable building code provisions to allow an unlimited area building even though 100% of the perimeter is not open. Mr. Drake stated that all three buildings are fully sprinkled, with masonry and steel construction with wood roof decks. Mr. Drake further stated that as separate buildings the property owners cannot do alterations or improvements to any of the buildings because of the footage between the buildings, if the buildings were considered as one building they could do improvements. Dennis George stated that there was no problem with the fire department getting into the area in the event of a fire. Mr. George further stated that he would like to see some of kind of test on the sprinkler system to verify the workings and he would like the addition, for which plans have been submitted, to be fully sprinkled. Randall Kamm moved to approve this appeal provided that a sprinkler system report is completed for the fire department and that the addition be fully sprinkled. Seconded by Dean Taylor. Motion carried3. CASE AB-009-96 - 2001 W MT HOPE Mr. Howard Corbin was present for this appeal. The petitioner seeks relief from Section 1005.7 Corridors and Section 1005.10 Elevators of the 1994 edition of the City of Lansing Uniform Building Code. The petitioner is requesting authority to eliminate the elevator lobby on the first floor. Second the petitioner proposes to delete the openings on the library/lounge. Mr. Corbin stated that this building is fully sprinkled all wood building. Mr. Corbin also stated that he can't see a reason for elevator lobby smoke protection on the first floor since the upper floors have the smoke areas and if there was a fire, or smoke, the elevator would go to the first floor and stop. Mr. Corbin stated that he has priced smoke shutters and the cost is about $6,000.00. Mr. Corbin further stated that in an office building the code does not call for a smoke lobby on the first floor. Christine Segerlind stated that the Building Safety Office would like to see the opening in the floor between the first and second floor closed in if the smoke lobby is eliminated. The Building Safety Office would also like to see a supervised sprinkler system. There was a discussion on where smoke would go in the case of a fire and exit routes that the residents would take. BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 3 SEPTEMBER 10, 1996 Randall Kamm moved to approve this appeal provided that the opening between the first and second floor is closed, an egress door is put in the outside wall of the library/lounge and that a "NO SMOKING" sign be placed in the library/lounge. Motion seconded by Dean Taylor. Motion carried4. OLD BUSINESS CASE AB-007-96 - 320 N Sycamore The petitioner for this appeal Edward Liebler, petitioner, and Vince Cantrell, Code Compliance Officer, were present. The minutes of the August 13, 1996, minutes were read which reflected the motion and approval made in regards to this appeal. Richard Jones moved to keep the case open to allow the petitioner to investigate methods for exterior escapes. Secondly, Mr. Jones moved that the petitioner: complete the stairshaft to code to include 1-hour fire rating and install hard-wired smoke detection in stairways, basement, and at least 1 at each level of the dwelling. Mr. Jones further moved that the petitioner be allowed the use of the larger apartment after the completion of all work required by the Field Correction Notice, a certification rental inspection conducted by the City of Lansing Code Compliance Office, and that Mr. Liebler contact the Building Safety Office before the next meeting, with a report on his progress in finding alternative methods to exit the third floor. Mr. Liebler passed a brochure to the Board members that showed a ladder that he had been able to find that was used for exiting from second and third floor apartments. The brochure showed a wooden ladder on the cover and a chain type ladder on the inside with an explanation on how to install it. There was no rating and no mention of the actual material the ladder was constructed of. Mr. Liebler further stated that he had been thinking of ways to build a ladder that could be used to exit and could be stored on the side of the dwelling and would look somewhat like a downspout when not in use. There was some discussion on ladders. Vince Cantrell stated that there was no smoke detection in the basement. Mr. Liebler stated that there is a battery operated smoke detector within 10 feet of the furnace on "his" side of the basement and that there is a hard wired smoke detector at the top of the approximately 4 steps leading to the basement of the "tenant" side of the basement which is a laundry room. Mr. Liebler stated that he had at no time agreed to place hard-wired smoke detection in the basement of the dwelling because of the work involved and the dry-wall he would have to tear-out and replace to install the smoke detectors. Mr. Liebler further stated that the minutes were inaccurate if they reflected that he would install hard-wired smoke detection in the basement. iq ILDING BOARD OF APPEALS SEPTEMBER 10, 1996 "'It AGE 4 was pointed out that the approval by the Board called for hard-wired smoke detection ZY stairways and the basement, so the smoke detector located at the top of the 4 steps would not count as being in the basement, since that was required by the Board. Mr. Kamm asked Mr. Cantrell if all of the items required by the Board had been completed by Mr. Liebler.. Mr. Cantrell stated that all of the items from the original correction notice had not been completed, but that he had conducted a rental inspection on September 9, 1996, and there were additional corrections required. Mr. Liebler asked if the Board would allow him to go ahead and rent the large apartment (#3) . Mr. Kamm moved to allow the use of the #3 apartment provided all of the corrections in the September 9, 1996, correction notice be completed. Mr. Taylor objected to the motion and moved to amend the motion to add allowing the Fire Marshal and the Building Safety Office to inspect the dwelling for placement of the smoke detectors and approve the locations of the smoke detectors and then allow occupancy of the #3 apartment. Motion with amendment carried . OTHER BUSINESS Being no other business Dean Taylor moved to adjourn. Motion carried6. Motion seconded by Randall Kamm. Respectfully Submitted, Xetary son DRAFT: September 17 1996 APPROVED: � BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 5 SEPTEMBER 10, 1996 RECORD OF VOTES: #1 FF---- Record of Vote Yea Nay Richard Stuckman, Chair (Absent) Richard Jones, Vice Chair X Dean Taylor X Randall Kamm X #2 Record of Vote Yea Nay Richard Stuckman, Chair (Absent) Richard Jones, Vice Chair X Dean Taylor :xv Randall Kamm X #3 Record of Vote:�- - - - I Yea Nay Richard Stuckman, Chair (Absent) Richard Jones, Vice Chair X Dean Taylor X Randall Kamm X #4 Record of Vote Yea Nay Richard Stuckman, Chair (Absent) Richard Jones, Vice Chair ::X Dean Taylor X Randall Kamm X BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 6 SEPTEMBER lo, 1996 #5 Record of Vote Yea Nay Richard Stuckman, Chair (Absent) Richard Jones, Vice Chair X Dean Taylor X Randall Kamm X #6 Fl-=-=---- Record of Vote Yea Nay Richard Stuckman, Chair (Absent) Richard Jones, Vice Chair X Dean Taylor X Randall Kamm X OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS of the CITY OF LANSING -! BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS Cam;I Y (;LD};t( August 13, 1996 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 Chairman Dean Taylor Members Absent: Randall Kamm Staff members present: Jack A. Nelson, Secretary Dennis George, Fire Prevention Bureau A motion was made by Richard Jones to approve the minutes of the July 9, 1996, meeting. Motion was seconded by Dean Taylor. Motion carried'. Richard Jones informed the Board that he is moving outside of the city and is therefore resigning from his position on the Board. The Board thanks and appreciates Mr. Jones for his long time service. OLD BUSINESS AB-006-96 - 1128 Dakin The petitioner, Anh Baur, was not present for this appeal. The Board made a unanimous decision to have the Building Safety Office send a letter to Ms. Baur informing her that as this case has been on the agenda on two previous occasions and she has failed to attend, this case will be denied in the next board meeting if the petitioner or a representative is not present. NEW BUSINESS CASE AB-007-96 - 320 N Sycamore The petitioner for this appeal Edward Liebler, petitioner, and Vince Cantrell, Code Compliance Officer, were present. On July 24, 1996, a Safety Inspection was performed on a multi-family structure located at 320 N Sycamore Street. Upon inspection it was noted that 2 apartments on the "third floor" have only 1 exit. Section 1460.20 states that exiting shall be in accordance with the requirements of the building code. Section 1008.1 of the Building Code states that occupants on stories above the first and in basements shall have access to not less than two separate exits, except only one exit need be required when the third floor within an individual dwelling unit does not exceed 500 square feet. In this case 2 apartments are located on the third floor and only 1 exit is provided. BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS AUGUST 13, 1996 PAGE 2 Mr. Stuckman explained that a majority vote in favor of the appeal is necessary in order for the appeal to be granted. Mr. Stuckman further explained that there was one Board member absent. Mr. Stuckman gave Mr. Liebler the option of having his appeal reviewed by the members present or having the appeal tabled until the next meeting when all of the Board members would hopefully be present. Mr. Liebler stated he would like to proceed with the members present. Mr. Liebler stated that he had purchased this home 9 years ago. It had been used as a single family residence, as an office building, and had even been divided into 6 apartments at one time. Mr. Liebler stated that he has been renting 4 of the apartments since he has owned the property. Mr. Liebler purchased 10 feet of land next to his property and enlarged the stairway leading to the apartments. Mr. Liebler stated he has been working on the stairway for approximately 3 years and is not yet finished. The stairway still needs some drywall and to have some electrical fixtures mounted. Mr. Liebler stated that this property was inspected in 1991 and he was told at that time that there was less than 500 sq.ft. on the third floor and a second exit was not required. The first apartment is 471 sq.ft. and the second apartment is 238 sq.ft. Mr. Stuckman asked Mr. Liebler if he had any suggestions on how to achieve the second exit required. Mr. Liebler stated that he had thought of the following options: 1. Limiting the occupancy to 2 people on the third floor, 1 person to each apartment; 2. Providing some sort of ladder for exiting; Mr. Liebler further stated that he had some concerns with installing a permanent ladder because of the neighborhood. Mr. Liebler feels that a permanent ladder would help intruders to access the second and third floors. 3. There is a window in the kitchen of the efficiency apartment that opens onto the roof that could be used in an emergency. Once on the roof the person could go over about 8 ft. and access an antenna tower and use that to gain access to the ground. Jack Nelson asked Mr. Liebler if the stairway addition was fire rated and if there was smoke detection devices in the apartments. Mr. Liebler stated that he was using 5/8 drywall for the stairway and that each apartment was provided with battery operated smoke detectors in the kitchen area and outside the sleeping area. There was a discussion on type of ladder that could be used. Jack Nelson stated that reading the code it appeared that the ladder needed to be permanent and retractable. The Building Safety Office felt it could not issue an administrative modification in this case because the code section that would be applicable is an appendix chapter that the City has not adopted. BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS AUGUST 13, 1996 PAGE 3 i Mr. Liebler stated that he would like to request at this time the Boards authorization to use the larger apartment on the third floor, having only one occupant, while he further investigates types of ladders or alternative means for the second exit from the third floor. Mr. Nelson stated that the Building Safety Office has no objection to the use.of the larger third floor apartment if the following conditions are met: 1) Stairshaft completed with a 1-hour fire rating, 2) violation noted on the Field Correction Notice are completed, 3) Only 1 person occupies the apartment and 4) that hard-wired inter-connected smoke detectors are installed throughout the dwelling to code. Mr. Liebler asked if hard-wired smoke detection was required by code. Mr. Nelson stated that in existing dwelling hard-wired smoke detection is not required but that the Department did not feel comfortable in allowing the use of the third floor apartment without some early warning detection device for the occupant of the third floor in the event of a fire. With only one means of exit, it is paramount that the occupant have enough warning to get to safety . Mr. Liebler stated that he felt the Department requesting hard-wired smoke detection was asking for more than required by code and more than other are asked for. Mr. Liebler further stated that he was unwilling to tear out walls and ceilings to install hard-wired smoke detection throughout the dwelling but that he would install hard-wired smoke detection in the stairways. Richard Jones moved to keep the case open to allow the petitioner to investigate methods for exterior escapes. Secondly, Mr. Jones moved that the petitioner: complete the stairshaft to code to include 1-hour fire rating and install hard-wired smoke detection in stairways, basement, and at least 1 at each level of the dwelling. Mr. Jones further moved that the petitioner be allowed the use of the larger apartment after the completion of all work required by the Field Correction Notice, a certification rental inspection conducted by the City of Lansing Code Compliance Office, and that Mr. Liebler contact the Building Safety Office before the next meeting, with a report on his progress in finding alternative methods to exit the third floor. Mr. Stuckman asked if there were any questions or comments on the motion. Mr. Liebler requested that the motion be read back for clarification. Mr. Liebler stated that he would be placing the smoke detectors at the top of the stairways, and that he would attempt to place one in the hallway by the doors to the apartments. Motion was supported by Dean Taylor. Motion carried2. OTHER BUSINESS Being no other business Richard Jones moved to adjourn. Motion seconded by Dean Taylor. Motion carried3. R#k . y S b tted, I s nDRAFT: Au st1 996 APPROVED BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS AUGUST 13, 1996 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 (Absent) #2 Record of Vote Yea Nay Richard7Jo=nes, Vice Chair X Richard Chair X Dean Taylor X Randall Kamm (Absent) #3 FF Record of Vote Yea Nay LRand Chair X Vice Chair X X Absent) OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS of the CITY OF LANSING " r' BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS ''•i' ' ��,�..j.,,, 0 L� July 9, 1996 The July 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 Chairman Randall Kamm Members Absent: Dean Taylor Staff members present: Jack A. Nelson, Secretary Dennis George, Fire Prevention Bureau A motion was made by Randall Kamm to approve the minutes of the June 11, 1996, meeting. Motion .was seconded by Richard Jones. Motion carried'. OLD BUSINESS AB-004-96 - 3121 E Grand River (Quality Inn) Ramsay Sadek, Architect and Jacob Bakal, Owner, were present. Jack Nelson passed out a memorandum to the Board members. Mr. Nelson, Dennis George (Fire Prention Bureau), and Douglas Halstead (Building Inspector) conducted a walk thru of the premises and visually inspected the lobby and pool room. Upon inspection the following was agreed upon: 1. Dramatic reduction of the occupant load of the lobby exit corridor system by installing fire rated doors between the lobby and the building corridor which exists the first floor rooms. 2. Installation of one additional door in the conference room which will allow the total occupant load to discharge to the exterior. a Remove the exit sign in the lobby which directs occupants to the pool area; b Install smoke gaskets on all doors which enter the corridor/lobby area; c' Install a water curtain on both sides of the glazing which was installed in the west corridor; d Replace existing sprinkler heads in water,curtain to deluge/quick response. ' This was added after the inspection but has been agreed to by the owner. BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS JULY 9, 1996 PAGE 2 i After a lengthy discussion Richard Jones moved to grant the appeal subject to the alterations stated above being completed. Motion was seconded by Randall Kamm. Motion carried2. NEW BUSINESS CASE AB-006-96 - 1128 Dakin The petitioner for this appeal, Anh Baur, was not present. Randall Kamm moved to table Case AB-006-96 until the next meeting, August 13, 1996. Motion seconded by Richard Jones. Motion carried3. OTHER BUSINESS Being no other business Randall Kamm moved to adjourn. Motion seconded by Richard Jones. Motion carried4. Respectfully Submitted, Jack elson Secre r DRAFT: I ;j APPROVED: 13 BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 3 DULY 9, 1996 RECORD OF VOTES: #1 Record of Vote Yea Nay Richard Stuckman, Chair X Richard Jones, Vice Chair X Dean Taylor (Absent) Randall amm X #2 Record of Vote Yea Nay Richard Stuckman, Chair X Richard Jones, Vice Chair X Dean Taylor (Absent) Randall Kamm X #3 Record of Vote Yea Nay Richard Stuckman, Chair X Richard Jones, Vice Chair X Dean Taylor (Absent) Randall Kamm X #4 Record of Vote Yea Nay Richard Stuckman, Chair X Richard Jones, Vice Chair X Dean Taylor (Absent) . Randall Kamm X OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS DRAFT of the CITY OF LANSING BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS r r �i';;` ` -` Y !' July 9, 1996 The July 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 Chairman Randall Kamm Members Absent: Dean Taylor Staff members present: Jack A. Nelson, Secretary Dennis George, Fire Prevention Bureau A motion was made by Randall Kamm to approve the minutes of the June 11, 1996, meeting. Motion was seconded by Richard Jones. Motion carried'. OLD BUSINESS AB-004-96 - 3121 E Grand River (Quality Inn) Ramsay Sadek, Architect and Jacob Bakal, Owner, were present. _ Jack Nelson passed out a memorandum to the Board members. Mr. Nelson, Dennis George (Fire Prention Bureau) , and Douglas Halstead (Building Inspector) conducted a walk thru of the premises and visually inspected the lobby and pool room. Upon inspection the following was agreed upon: 1. Dramatic reduction of the occupant load of the lobby exit corridor system by installing fire rated doors between the lobby and the building corridor which exists the first floor rooms. 2. Installation of one additional door in the conference room which will allow the total occupant load to discharge to the exterior. a Remove the exit sign in the lobby which directs occupants to the pool area; b Install smoke gaskets on all doors which enter the corridor/lobby area; cl Install a water curtain on both sides of the glazing which was installed in the west corridor; d Replace existing sprinkler heads in water curtain to deluge/quick response. ' This was added after the inspection but has been agreed to by the owner. BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS JULY 9, 1996 PAGE 2 After a lengthy discussion Richard Jones moved to grant the appeal subject to the alterations stated above being completed. Motion was seconded by Randall Kamm. Motion carriedz. NEW BUSINESS CASE AB-006-96 - 1128 Dakin The petitioner for this appeal, Anh Baur, was not present. Randall Kamm moved to table Case AB-006-96 until the next meeting, August 13, 1996. Motion seconded by Richard Jones. Motion carried3. OTHER BUSINESS Being no other business Randall Kamm moved to adjourn. Motion seconded by Richard Jones. Motion carried4. Respectfully Submitted, Jack elson ' Secre r DRAFT: _� C APPROVED: BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS JULY 9, 1996 PAGE 2 After a lengthy discussion Richard Jones moved to grant the appeal subject to the alterations stated above being completed. Motion was seconded by Randall Kamm. Motion carriedz. NEW BUSINESS CASE AB-006-96 - 1128 Dakin The petitioner for this appeal, Anh Baur, was not present. Randall Kamm moved to table Case AB-006-96 until the next meeting, August 13, 1996. Motion seconded by Richard Jones. Motion carried3. OTHER BUSINESS Being no other business Randall Kamm moved to adjourn. Motion seconded by Richard Jones. Motion carried4. Respectfully Submitted, Jack elson ' Secre r DRAFT: ; APPROVED: OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS DRAFT of the CITY OF LANSING c' BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS Li',1 June 11, 1996 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 Richard Jones, Vice Chairman Dean R. Taylor Randall Kamm Members Absent: None Staff members present: Jack A. Nelson, Secretary Doulgas Halstead, Building Inspector Christine Segerlind, Plan Analyst Les Hunter, Acting Fire Marshal A motion was made by Randall Kamm to approve the minutes of the February 20, 1995, meeting. Motion was seconded by Dean Taylor. Motion carried'. OLD BUSINESS None. NEW BUSINESS CASE AB-004-96 - 3121 E Grand River - Quality Inn etitioner seeks use Of Anapplication for appeal has been filed by Mr. Ramsay kroposalps in lieu of an assembly glazing in a fire wall which is protected by a water curtain The p which complies with a 1-hour fire resistance rating Mr. Ramsay Sadek, Architect, Mr. Jacob Bakal, Owner, and the contractor were present for this appeal. OVERVIEW (as presented by the Building Safety Office, written form) : Appeals ranted relief to the applicant to negate the On June 14, 1988, the Lansing Board of App g requirement for area separation walls which would separate each the Boardn g section of the c required that thepoo into four separate buildings. In lieu of the separation, nd balconies enclosure be totally fire suppressed, and sprinklers bs to one hour. The Boardsalso authorized The area separation walls were reduced from two royal. The board required a shorter than the use of the open exit balconies as a condition for app maximum length of travel to the exterior of the building. Second, all construction must consist of non-combustible materials. Third, the steel in the pool enclosure must be protected with a one-hour fire resistance rating. BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS JUNE 11, 1996 PAGE 2 January 4, 1996, an application was submitted to the department for interior renovations and mechanical alterations to the existing motel building. The plans submitted at that time indicated the one-hour wall as previously allowed by the Board of Appeals would be partially removed. In addition, an unrated door and window units would be installed in the wall between the lobby and pool. After thorough review of the plan documents the permit could not be issued because of potential violations with both the building and mechanical codes. January 31, 1996, A meeting was scheduled with the owner, architect and contractor and department personnel. Subsequently it was agreed that the wall between the lobby and pool enclosure would remain a rated wall. The applicant asked that a partial permit for the lobby area be issued. February 1, 1996, the Department received a fax from the architect that stated "the lobby area, including kitchen and new restaurant system will be protected with a fully supervised fire sprinkler system, wet standpipe." In addition the lobby area would be rated for a one hour separation. (copy attached) February 2, 1996, the plan review document delineated the decision of the Board of Appeals on June 14, 1988. It was the decision of the Department that the wall should remain as a rated wall. A copy of the plan review document is attached. (copy attached) February 5, 1996, the permit for the lobby area only was issued with the condition that revised drawings for the lobby would be submitted. Subsequent revised plans indicated no openings in the wall and a rated door between the lobby and pool. February 23, 1996, a meeting was held to discuss changes the applicant wanted to make. The applicant wanted to install windows between the lobby and pool. The architect stated they would use a water curtain on both sides of the windows between the lobby and pool and that the lobby would have fire suppression and smoke detection. Jack Nelson, Building Official, stated he would issue an administrative modification based on the fact the entire building would be sprinklered and the doors between the pool and lobby would be labeled doors and have magnetic hold-open devices installed. Any windows would be 1/4" wire glass in a steel frame with sprinkler heads on both sides. In lieu of this, fire-lite could be used. April 1, 1996, revised plan for the lobby were received. No windows were indicated on the plan. The door between lobby and pool was one-hour rated. April 16, 1996, a fax was received from the architect stating the entire building would not be sprinklered. (copy attached) . April 17, 1996, a letter was sent to the architect stating the requirements for fire suppression, the requirements for any windows and doors installed in the wall between lobby and pool. (copy attached) April 29, 1996, a correction notice was issued by the Building Inspector as the windows and doors do not meet code requirements. BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS DUNE 11, 1996 PAGE 3 Petitioners Presentation The building located at 3121 East Grand River had previously been divided into four distinct areas: Office, Restaurant, Lobby: 7,510 sq.ft. Pool Enclosure: 10,164 sq.ft. Motel Units: 10,534 sq.ft. Motel Units: 6,400 sq.ft. Mr. Sadek stated that when this property was purchased and the renovations began, both the owner and himself were unaware of the variance issued by the Building Board of Appeals in 1988. Mr. Sadek also stated when they began renovations they referred to the 1994 Fire Code which would not require the area in question to be a rated fire wall. Mr. Sadek further stated that he was not sure what the reasoning was for the variance issued by the Board in 1988. Mr. Nelson stated that the reason for the variance in 1988 was because the building was too big for a construction type. The walls were originally area separation walls rather than occupancy separation walls. Mr. Sadek stated that by installing the water curtain and sprinkling the area they have reduced the size of the area. Mr. Stuckman stated that from the information submitted it appeared that instructions were given prior to construction that all of the area in question was to be fire rated. Mr. Stuckman asked Mr. Sadek if that was indeed correct? Mr. Sadek stated that during the course of the renovations the plans have been changed several times due to problems they encountered in the building that they were not aware of and so he assumed changes would also take place in the requirements. Mr. Sadek further stated that maybe there was a lack of communication between management and the contractor. The contractor for this project stated that there were so many changes being done and that the lobby area was originally going to be in front rather than where it is now. There was a lengthy discussion on installation of the water curtains, the other fire protection measures that have been taken throughout the rest of the building and the fact that the petitioner felt there was no combustible materials in the building. Mr. Stuckman asked for the Building Safety Office to comment on the rating of the walls. Mr. Nelson stated that the lobby area now has a rating of 1-hour and there is a 2-hour rating for the kitchen wall. Mr. Nelson further stated that although non-combustible materials were being used the fire load was still high since there is bedding and furniture in each room. Douglas Halstead, Building Inspector, stated that during his inspection the wall in question had wood studs and is thereby combustible. The contractor stated that the original wall had wood studs but that the new wall has steel studs. The contractor further stated that they had built the new wall in front of the old wall so that they would have a straight wall. BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS JUNE 11, 1996 PAGE 4 Mr. Nelson stated that a variance had already been granted for this building to reduce the protection of the wall. There is no perimeter around the building. Mr. Nelson further stated that the Building Safety Office recommendation is that the windows be rated. There was more discussion on the value of fire rated windows. Mr. Stuckman took a moment to inform the petitioner that an appeal must be approved by at least 3 board members. Mr. Sadek commented that fire rated windows would be no good if a fire reached a high intensity and they would just blow out. Mr. Sadek further commented that smoke is the highest killer in fires and that all of the doors are smoke gasket fitted. Mr. Kamm moved to deny this appeal due to the fact that early communications allowed them to use the proper materials and that these variances are granted only when there is no other way to fulfill the intent of the code. Motion seconded by Dean Taylor. There were 3 votes in favor of this motion and 1 oppose. Motion carried.2 Mr. Sadek asked if there was a way to appeal the Boards decision. Mr. Nelson stated that the decision could be appealed through Circuit Court. CASE AB-005-96 - 5041/5043 Stafford An application for appeal has been filed by William Pommaville. The petitioner seeks relief from the requirements of Section 2904 of the Uniform Building Code requires that 24" be provided in front of the water closet. Upon plan submission the applicant was apprised of the provisions of the code. The applicant was also formally notified of the code violation. Upon inspection by Mr. Gregus it was noted that the violation was not corrected. OVERVIEW (as presented by petitioner) : This is not the primary bath, it is in fact the #3 bath for convenience only. There are 2 other full baths in each side of this duplex. Note State Code P1206.2.1 is 18". Building is complete State Code - was only code I was aware of at time. I lost my 1.5 inches due to thicken party wall for sound proofing and firewall thickness. Also note width on said stool opening is wider than the minimum 30" for extra room in z bath. Mr. Pommaville was present for this appeal and stated that all of the information provided to the Board was correct and that he had only installed the 1/2 bath for convenience and because he is a plumber and could do the work himself for just the cost of materials. Mr. Pommaville further stated that both units have 2 full baths that are installed to code. There was some discussion on the amount of space available from the wall. Randall Kamm moved to grant this appeal. Motion supported by Dean Taylor. Motion carried3. OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Nelson stated that the petitioner for Appeal AB-004-96 stated that he would be sending a letter to the Board requesting a re-hearing due to the fact that they were not apprised of the way BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS DUNE 11, 1996 PAGE 5 the Board operates prior to their appeal being heard and that the Fire Marshal had been out at the site and approved the Delau System. Being no other business Randall Kamm moved to adjourn. Motion seconded by Richard Jones. Motion carried4. Re ctfully Submitted, n Jac ' Nelson Secr tary DRAFT: APPROVED: BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS JUNE 11, 1996 PAGE 6 RECORD OF VOTES: #1 Record of Vote Yea Nay Richard Stuckman, Chair X Richard Jones, Vice Chair X Dean Taylor X Randall Kamm X #2 Record of Vote Yea Nay Richard Stuckman, Chair X Richard Jones, Vice Chair X Dean Taylor X Randall Kamm X #3 Record of Vote Yea Nay Richard Stuckman, Chair X Richard Jones, Vice Chair X Dean Taylor X Randall Kamm X #4 Record of Vote Yea Nay Richard Stuckman, Chair X Richard Jones, Vice Chair X Dean Taylor X Randall Kamm X OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS DRAFT of the CITY OF LANSING i';,': BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS CI f�i CLEIRK February 20, 1996 The February 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 Dean R. Taylor Randall Kamm Members Absent: Richard Jones, Vice Chairman Staff members present: Jack A. Nelson, Secretary Doulgas Halstead, Building Inspector Ralph Goff, Mechanical Inspector A motion was made by Randall Kamm to approve the minutes of the November 14, 1995, meeting. Motion was seconded by Dean Taylor. Motion carried'. OLD BUSINESS None. NEW BUSINESS CASE AB-002-96 - 6545 Mercantile Way An application for appeal has been filed by Mr. Morris Stein. The petitioner seeks relief from the requirements of Section 1005.7 of the 1994 edition of the Lansing Uniform Building Code The petitioner proposes the installation of 80" office partitions in a tenant space which exceeds 10,000 sq.ft. The Building Safety Office denied the request due to noncompliance with Section 1005.7 of the Lansing Uniform Building Code. The Code requires that corridors which serve an occupant load of 30 or more persons be not less than one-hour fire resistive construction. The configuration of the panels creates corridors which do not comply with this standard. The building code does allow exceptions to the rated corridor requirements if the tenant space is equipped with an automatic sprinkler system throughout and an automatic smoke detection system is installed in the corridor. The exception may only be applied when the corridor in question serves an occupant load of 100 persons or less (10,000 sq.ft. in area) . BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS FEBRUARY 20, 1996 PAGE 2 In this particular building the petitioner seeks to sub-divide the building into areas less than 10,000 sq.ft. to permit the application of exception 5 or 7 of the building code, by a one-hour fire wall. Section 504.6.1 of the code allows each portion of a building to be separated by an area separation wall to be treated as a separate building. Section 504.6.2, would require that a two-hour area separation wall be constructed to comply with the code the petitioner is proposing the construction of a one-hour occupancy separation wall. Jack Nelson stated that the petitioner had come before the Board previously with a similar request for Suites 1 - 4 of the same building. The Board had approved that request in the August 8, 1995, meeting. Mr. Russell Hinkle was present for this appeal. Mr. Hinkle stated that additional exits to each suite, which exit directly to the exterior, are in place; an interconnecting smoke detection system would be installed throughout suites; all openings in wall will be "B" labeled openings with closers, smoke seals and two (2) will be connected with magnetic hold open devices connected to smoke detection devices and that additional emergency lighting will be installed. Randall Kamm moved to grant this appeal. Motion seconded by Dean Taylor. Motion carried.2 CASE AB-003-96 - 1136 N Washington An application for appeal has been filed by Douglas Elbinger. The petitioner seeks relief from the requirements of Section 1004.6 and Section 1005.3 of the 1994 edition of the Lansing Uniform Building Code. The petitioner is currently renovating a building on the southeast corner of North Washington and East Grand River for multiple tenant use. The petitioner proposes the use of the basement for photographic processing. The occupant load of the basement dictates two exits, one of which goes into a portion of the basement with a different elevation. The deviation in elevation causes unnecessary hardship since strict compliance with the code would necessitate removal of a portion of the foundation system. Section 1004.6 of the U.B.C. 1994 edition requires the exit door way height to be a minimum of 6'8" in height. The proposed door is only 519". In like manner the proposed exit corridor is 6'5". Section 1005.3 requires a minimum height of 7'0". Mr. Douglas Elbinger was present for this case. Mr. Elbinger stated that the footing could not be lowered and the floor joists could not be raised without adversely effecting the structural integrity of the building. The occupant load of this area will be limited to 3 - 5 persons. This corridor is fire rated. Mr. Elbinger stated that this exit will be used strictly as an emergency exit and he would instruct his employees of this fact. Mr. Elbinger further stated that he would show the employees around the area and would caution them as to the lowered ceiling height and door frame. Jack Nelson stated that the 3 steps at this exit will require a handrail. FEBRUARY 20, 1996 BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 3 Possible ways to allow additional height in the door way, Randall Kamm wired After a discussion of p appeal provided that safety signage is installed and a handrail, 'required moved to grant this hat safety Dean Taylor. Motion carried 3. by code, be installed. Motion supported OTHER BUSINESS Mechanical Ins ector, was present to represent the endMeclanical the code torallow 5 cfm of Ralph Goff, p the Mechanical Board to a presented the Board with a request by currently rovided air er occupant rather than the 15 cfm that th suod this reque Mr. Gof p outside p the Board with documentation (copies in minute book pp (i.e. the 5 cfm or 15 Ralph Goff stat ed that he would write out some ideas for when okan°)and wow d bring f it Ito the allowing 5 cfm for a non-smoking facility and 15 cfm for a sm Board for review. Motion seconded by Dean Taylor. Being no other business Randall Kamm moved to adjourn. Motion carried4. Respectfully Submit�d) J c A. elson ec etary DRAFT: APPROVED: BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS FEBRUARY 201, 1996 PAGE 4 RECORD OF VOTES: #1 F- Record of Vote Yea Nay Richard Stuckman, Chair X Richard Jones, Vice Chair (Absent) Dean Taylor X Randall Kamm X #2 Record of Vote Yea Nay Richard Stuckman, Chair X Richard Jones, Vice Chair (Absent) Dean Taylor X Randall Kamm X #3 Record of Vote Yea Nay Richard Stuckman, Chair X Richard Jones, Vice Chair (Absent) Dean Taylor X Randall Kamm X #4 Record of Vote Yea Nay Richard Stuckman, Chair X Richard Jones, Vice Chair (Absent) Dean Taylor X Randall Kamm X