Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBuilding Board of Appeals 1999 Minutes 5 1 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT 316 N.Capitol Avenue,Suites C-1 &C-2*Lansing MI 48933-12389(517)483-4355•FAX: (517)377-0169 BUILDING SAFETY AND CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICE �ICHiG� David C.Hollister,Mayor r v� TO: Dixie Gilmore, City Clerk's Office FROM:Peggy Gerber, Building Safety Office 3 rn RE: Updating 1999 Board Minutes r DATE: January 11, 2000 Dixie, Here are the copies of minutes, Draft or Approved, for the Building, Electrical and Plumbing Boards of Appeals which were missing according to your memo of January 4, 2000. There are still some draft minutes that need approval and we will be taking care of that at the next Board meetings. I should have the Mechanical Board of Appeals minutes done by the end of this week. I am also including a list for each Board of the meetings that were cancelled. Cancelled Build Board of Appeals Meetings February 1999 August 1999 March 1999 October 1999 June 1999 November 1999 July 1999 Cancelled Electrical Board of Appeals Meetings August 1999 November 1999 Cancelled Plumbing Board of Appeals Meetings August 1999 If there are still problems please let me know. Thanks so much for your patience and help in this matter. Memo To: Peggy/Building Safety Division From: Dixie/City Clerk's Office Date: January 4, 2000 Subject: 1999 Meeting Minutes for Building Board of Appeals,Electrical Board, Mechanical Board and Plumbing Board In response to your request of this date, an update of the 1999 meeting minutes status for the above boards is herewith provided: • Building Board of Anneals Approved minutes for January 19 on file. No minutes received for February 9 or March 9. Draft minutes received for April 13 and May 11. No minutes received for June 8, July 13, August 10, September 14, October 12 or November 9. Draft minutes received for December 14. • Electrical Board No minutes received for January 19. Draft minutes received for February 16,March 16, April 20, May 18, June 15, July 20, August 17, September 21 and October 19. (Note: These draft minutes make reference to approval of the previous meeting's minutes,however,because the meeting is not specifically noted in the minutes, approval should be indicated to our office.) No minutes received for December 21. • Mechanical Board Draft minutes received for January 12, February 9, March 9, April 13, May 11, September 14, October 12 &November 9. (Note: These draft minutes make reference to approval of the previous meeting's minutes,however, because the meeting is not specifically noted in the minutes, approval should be indicated to our office.) No minutes received for December 14. • Plumbing Board Approved minutes received for January 14. Draft minutes received fro May 13 and November 18. Approved minutes received for special meetings on June 3 and July 16 and for regular meetings on September 9 and October 14. No minutes received for December 9. Again, we appreciate your bringing your 1999 files for the above boards current. Feel free to contact us if you need further assistance. /dlg cc: Jack Nelson, Building Safety Division Memo To: Jack Nelson, Building Safety Division From: Dixie Gilmore, City Clerk's Office Date: December 16, 1999 Subject: Board Meeting Notices and Filing of Minutes Attached you will find a copy of the Open Meetings Act to assist you in determining proper procedure for the filing of meeting notices and minutes. As you will note,the Act specifies time frames for posting notices of all types of meetings,including those with changes in time, date or location. The Act further identifies proper procedure for the filing of meeting minutes. Please note the distinction between proposed minutes and approved minutes. In accordance with the Act, proposed minutes should be filed in the Clerk's Office within 8 days of the meeting and be identified as draft minutes. Approved minutes should be filed with the City Clerk within 5 days of acceptance by the board or commission. These minutes must be signed and display the date of acceptance. We appreciate your taking the time to review and become familiar with this material. Feel free to contact our office if we can provide additional clarification. /dlg Memo To: Jack Nelson,Building Safety Division From: Dixie Gilmore, City Clerk's Office Date: December 16, 1999 Subject: 1999 Meeting Minutes &2000 Meeting Schedule Building Board of Appeals,Electrical Board, Mechanical Board&Plumbing Board A review of the minutes you dropped off to this office for the above boards disclose the following: There was no notification to the Clerk's Office of any change in meeting dates or cancellation of meetings. Any change from the meeting schedule for the year should be reported to the City Clerk. Even if a previously established meeting will not be conducted due to lack of business or quorum, a notice must be forwarded to the Clerk's Office for posting. Many of the minutes snake reference to "the minutes from the previous meeting". Those minutes should be identified by date so there is no confusion over what minutes are being considered for approval or are subject to correction. All minutes from the above boards were identified as draft minutes. As described in the Open Meetings Act forwarded to you, draft minutes should be filed with our office within 8 days of the meeting;then approved minutes, including any corrections,must be filed within 5 days of their approval. Specifically, it does not appear that approval has been scheduled for the May 13 or September 9 regular meetings, nor the June 3 or July 16 special meetings for the Plumbing Board. The City Charter (copy attached) does note that"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". Lastly, we need a revised notice of the schedule for all board meetings. There must be a separate notice specifically listing the dates,times and locations of the 2000 meetings for each board. A sample copy is attached. We appreciate your efforts in bringing the board files for 1999 up to date. We're confident that the procedures outlined in the Open Meetings Act and the City Charter will further assist you. Feel free to contact our office if you have questions. /dlg Enclosures Memo TO: Krista Williams, Building Safety Division FROM: Dixie Gilmore, City Clerk's Office 21 DATE: November', 1999 SUBJECT: 1999 Building Board of Appeals Minutes A review of our records indicates the following board minutes are not on file in the Clerk's Office: None of 1999 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 OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS CC of the LMISi{;G Ci7'; CLERt� CITY OF LANSING BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS December 1491999 The December regular meeting of the City of Lansing Building Board of Appeals was held at 2:00pm in the Building Safety Office conference room. Were in ti g was called to order by Chairman Mr. Randall Kamm. The following persons e. Appeals Board: Mr. Randall Kamm, Chairman Mr. Dean Taylor,Member Mr. Brian Taylor,Member (Mr. Donald Heck,Member, was absent) City Staff: Mr. Jack Nelson,Building Safety Office Manager Mr. Brian Davis, Assistant Fire Marshal Mr. Jim Bennett,Plan Review Analyst(acting secretary) Petitioners: Mr. Edward Liebler,Petitioner in Case No. AB-005-99 General Public: None New Business• AB-005-99 2611 N. Grand River Ave. Chairman Kamm invited Mr. Liebler to present his reasoning for requesting a variance. Mr. Liebler stated he was requesting relief from two portions of the Building Code. Mr. Liebler first requested relief from the req irbenldinent that the rHour Fire Resistive ior wall of the proposed structure (a 6,000 sq. ft. mini storageg)be of One construction. 1 Mr. Liebler reasoned that since the wall area in question consisted mainly of overhead doors, that are not required to have a fire rating, that the protection of the remaining—5% of the wall area(the structural elements) would add little to the overall fire resistance of the structure. Mr.Nelson suggested, and Mr. Kamm requested that Mr. Bennett provide an explanation of the Code requirements in question. Mr. Bennett then explained the pertinent code sections, provided the Board with the architectural drawings of the proposed structure, and the site plan for the proposed development. Additionally Mr. Bennett provided the Board with examples of similar buildings and developments within the City and how those developers had approached compliance with these same requirements. Mr. Kamm then requested Mr. Davis to provide the Fire Department's perspective. Mr. Davis explained the type of fire that might be expected in this type of structure, the relative heat intensity that could be expected from such a fire, the likely behavior of protected and unprotected roof and wall systems under fire conditions, and the relative risk to fire personnel of the structural failure of either the roof or wall system. The Board then had an extended discussion with Mr. Liebler about the options available to him in regard to the location and/or the construction of the proposed building and the relative cost of his options. MOTION: Mr. D. Taylor moved to table this portion of Mr. Liebler's appeal to allow Mr. Liebler time to investigate his options further. Mr. Liebler requested that the item not be tabled and given either an up or down vote at this time. AMENDED MOTION: Mr. D. Taylor then amended his motion to deny Mr. Liebler's request for relief from the requirement for fire rated construction. Motion was seconded by Mr. B. Taylor. Mr. Kamm called for a vote and the motion for denial was passed unanimously. Mr. Liebler then presented his second request for relief from the Code requirement that buildings be constructed on frost proof footings. Mr. Liebler reasoned that since the building would be unheated,the possibility existed for uneven frost heave between the frost proof exterior footings and the interior column pad footings and slab. This would result in cracking of the floor slab. Mr. Kamm again asked Mr. Bennett to provide an explanation of the code requirements. 2 Mr. Bennett explained the Code requirement and provided the board with information on how similar developments within the city have approached compliance with this requirement. The Board then had a discussion with Mr. Liebler regarding the options available to him and the relative cost of each option. MOTION: Mr. B. Taylor moved that the request for relief from this requirement be denied and that Mr. Liebler seek the most cost effective method of compliance. Motion was seconded by Mr. D. Taylor. Mr. Kamm called for a vote and the motion for denial was passed unanimously. This concluded all business before the Board. MOTION: Mr. B. Taylor moved to adjourn. Motion seconded by Mr. D. Taylor. Mr. Kamm called for a vote and the motion was passed unanimously. Re tfully submitted, im Bennett Acting Secretary Draft: 12/15/99 Approved: 03/14/00 3 OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS `!! of the C1_ER . LA;� �< l�i CITY OF LANSING BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS December 1491999 The December regular meeting of the City of Lansing Building Board of Appeals was held at 2:00pm in the Building Safety Office conference room. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Mr. Randall Kamm. The following persons were in attendance. Appeals Board: Mr. Randall Kamm, Chairman Mr. Dean Taylor,Member Mr. Brian Taylor,Member (Mr. Donald Heck,Member, was absent) City Staff: Mr. Jack Nelson,Building Safety Office Manager Mr. Brian Davis,Assistant Fire Marshal Mr. Jim Bennett,Plan Review Analyst(acting secretary) Petitioners: Mr. Edward Liebler,Petitioner in Case No. AB-005-99 General Public: None New Business• AB-005-99 2611 N. Grand River Ave. Chairman Kamm invited Mr. Liebler to present his reasoning for requesting a variance. Mr. Liebler stated he was requesting relief from two portions of the Building Code. Mr. Liebler first requested that the requirement that the exterior wall of the proposed structure (a mini storage building)be of One Hour Fire Resistive construction. Mr. Liebler reasoned that since the wall area in question consisted mainly of overhead doors, that are not required to have a fire rating,that the protection of the remaining—5% of the 1 wall area(the structural elements) would add little to the overall fire resistance of the structure. Mr. Nelson suggested and Mr. Kamm requested that Mr. Bennett provide an explanation of the Code requirements in question. Mr. Bennett then explained the pertinent code sections,provided the Board with the architectural drawings of the proposed structure, and the site plan for the proposed development. Additionally Mr. Bennett provided the Board with examples of similar buildings and developments within the City and how those developers had approached compliance with these same requirements. Mr. Kamm the requested Mr. Davis to provide the Fire Department's perspective. Mr. Davis explained the type of fire that might be expected in this type of structure, the relative heat that could be expected from such a fire, the likely behavior of protected and unprotected roof and wall systems under fire conditions, and the relative risk to fire personnel of the structural failure of either the roof or wall system. The Board then had an extended discussion with Mr. Liebler about the options available to him in regard to the location and/or the construction of the proposed building and the relative cost of his options. MOTION: Mr. D. Taylor moved to table this portion of Mr. Liebler's appeal to allow Mr. Liebler time to investigate his options further. Mr. Liebler requested that the item not be tabled.and given either an up or down vote at this time. AMENDED MOTION: Mr. D. Taylor the amended his motion to deny Mr. Liebler's request for relief form the requirement for fire rated construction. Motion was seconded by Mr. B. Taylor. Mr. Kamm called for a vote and the motion for denial was passed unanimously. Mr. Liebler then presented his second request for relief from the Code requirement that buildings be constructed on frost proof footings. Mr. Liebler reasoned that since the building would be unheated, the possibility existed for uneven frost heave between the frost proof exterior footings and the interior column pad footings and slab. This would result in cracking of the floor slab. Mr. Kamm again asked Mr. Bennett to provide an explanation of the code requirements. Mr. Bennett explained the Code requirement and provided the board with information on how similar developments within the city have approached compliance with this requirement. 2 The Board then had a discussion with Mr. Liebler regarding the options available to him and the relative cost of each option. MOTION: Mr. B. Taylor moved that the request for relief from this requirement be denied and that Mr. Liebler seek the most cost effective method of compliance. Motion was seconded by Mr. D. Taylor. Mr. Kamm called for a vote and the motion for denial was passed unanimously. This concluded all business before the board. MOTION: Mr. B. Taylor moved to adjourn. Motion seconded by Mr. D. Taylor. Mr. Kamm called for a vote and the motion was passed unanimously. Respectfully submitted, Jim Bennett Acting Secretary Draft: Approved: 3 OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS of the Cj' i;4.° 22 P1 1: 29 CITY OF LANSING CITY CLERI/ BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS September 14, 1999 The May September meeting of the City of Lansing Building Board of Appeals was called to order by Chairman Randall Kamm at 2:00 p.m. The following members were in attendance: Randall Kamm, Chairman Donald Heck,Vice Chairman Dean Taylor Brian Taylor Members Absent: None Staff members present: Jack Nelson, Secretary Brian Davis, Fire Inspector Chairman Kamm asked for the approval of the April 13, 1999, minutes. Mr. Heck moved to approve the minutes. Motion seconded by Mr. D. Taylor. Motion carried. NEW BUSINESS AB-004-99—310 W Berry Ms. Nancy Grover was present for this appeal. On August 11, 1999, Mr. James McCue, Code Compliance Officer for the City of Lansing, issued a Housing Code Correction Notice which declared the dwelling substandard due in part to inadequate ceiling height in the second story bedroom. Ms. Grover explained to the Board that the property is currently being used by her daughter for housing. Ms. Grover does not feel that this is a rental since her daughter does not pay rent. The Lansing Housing Code requires the property to be registered as a rental. There are battery operated smoke detectors throughout the dwelling. There was a discussion on the window sizes and the types of windows that could be used to meet egress requirements. Mr. D Taylor moved to approve the use provided and egress window and hard-wire smoke detection are installed to code. Mr. Heck seconded the motion. BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS September 14, 1999 PAGE 2 Mr. Taylor amended the motion to add that the Board is willing to approve a window that is close to the size allowed if it is approved by the Building Safety Office. Mr. Heck seconded the amendment. Motion Carried. OLD Business None. Mr. D. Taylor moved to adjourn. Seconded by Mr. B. Taylor. Motion carried. Respectfully Submitted, CA Ja k . Nelson Draft: 10/07/99 S cr tary Approved: 03/14/00 OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS of the "IV - 1` - CITY OF LANSING (' ` 1 0 BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS ' Uhl ' September 14, 1999 The May meeting of the City of Lansing Building Board of Appeals was called to order by Chairman Randall Kamm at 2:00 p.m. The following members were in attendance: Randall Kamm, Chairman Donald Heck, Vice Chairman Dean Taylor Brian Taylor Members Absent: None Staff members present: Jack Nelson, Secretary Brian Davis, Fire Inspector Chairman Kamm asked for the approval of the April 13, 1999, minutes. Mr. Heck moved to approve the minutes. Motion seconded by Mr. D. Taylor. Motion carried. NEW BUSINESS AB-004-99—310 W Berry Ms. Nancy Grover was present for this appeal. On August 11, 1999, Mr. James McCue, Code Compliance Officer for the City of Lansing, issued a Housing Code Correction Notice which declared the dwelling substandard due in part to inadequate ceiling height in the second story bedroom. Ms. Grover explained to the Board that the property is currently being used by her daughter for housing. Ms. Grover does not feel that this is a rental since her daughter does not pay rent. The Lansing Housing Code requires the property to be registered as a rental. There are battery operated smoke detectors throughout the dwelling. There was a discussion on the window sizes and the types of windows that could be used to meet egress requirements. Mr. D Taylor moved to approve the use provided and egress window and hard-wire smoke detection are installed to code. Mr. Heck seconded the motion. BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS September 14, 1999 PAGE 2 Mr. Taylor amended the motion to add that the Board is willing to approve a window that is close to the size allowed if it is approved by the Building Safety Office. Mr. Heck seconded the amendment. Motion Carried. OLD Business None. Mr. D. Taylor moved to adjourn. Seconded by Mr. B. Taylor. Motion carried. Respectfully Submitted, J c A. Nelson Draft: 10/07/99 e etary Approved: OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS of the CITY OF LANSING BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS CLEM May 11, 1999 The May meeting of the City of Lansing Building Board of Appeals was called to order by Chairman Randall Kamm at 2:00 p.m. The following members were in attendance: Randall Kamm, Chairman Donald Heck,Vice Chairman Dean Taylor Brian Taylor Members Absent: None Staff members present: Jack Nelson, Secretary Steve Bolenbaugh, Fire Marshal Brian Davis, Fire Inspector Chairman Kamm asked for the approval of the January 19, 1999, minutes. Mr. Heck moved to approve the minutes. Motion seconded by Mr. B. Taylor. Motion carried. NEW BUSINESS AB-002-99—303 W Kalamazoo Mr. Kurt Fogelsongerwas present for this appeal. A request is hereby made to allow classification of a temporary prisoner holding area in the Lower Level of the proposed Ingham County Consolidated Courts Facility as a Group B occupancy. In order to afford prisoners a commensurate amount of protection in an area where personal liberties are being restrained, the following items will be incorporated into the building design. 1. The holding cells on the lower level are within 200' of an exit. 2. An exit will be provided with discharge to grade. 3. The corridor is fire rated. 4. The building is equipped with a fire suppression system (a dry system may be provided in the holding area). 5. A 2-hour occupancy separation wall will be constructed between the S-3 use and the holding area. 6. The minimum construction type for the holding area will be 11 F.R. BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS May 11, 1999 PAGE 2 Arguments in support of this appeal: The key to this appeal is to understand that the prisoner holding is a temporary situation. Prisoners are brought to the Court Facility the day of their hearing and are returned that same day to the Ingham County Jail. Prisoners will not beheld overnight in the Courts Facility. Earlier discussions with the Building Safety Manager were leading toward the classification of the holding area as an 1-3 Occupancy Group. 1-3 Occupancy include jails and prisons. We do not feel our holding area falls into the same category as a jail or prison. Group B Occupancy, on the other hand, includes police stations which could very likely include a temporary holding area. We are asking to classify the holding area as a Group B Occupancy. Realizing the occupants of the holding area will have their personal liberties restrained, we offer to provide an additional level of protection by incorporating into the building design the six items listed above. Mr. Fogelsonger showed sketches of the building and proposal. Proposal does not include renovation to the Grady Porter building. There will be surface and secured parking in the building and under the building. Access will be through secured areas. Basement will include parking for judges and holding area for prisoners only. First Floor — Court support areas. There will be 2 stairs in front for judges and staff to separate pedestrian traffic from the courts. There are three stories above including the Penthouse. In a letter to Mr. Fogelsonger on April 21, 1999, (copy attached) Jack Nelson suggested that relief was requested from the Building Board of Appeals. The City will support this request for the use as a Group B Occupancy if the following is incorporated into the building design: 1. The holding cells are within 200' of an exit. 2. An exit is provided with discharges to grade. 3. The corridor is fire rated. 4. The building is equipped with a fire suppression system. (A dry system by be provided in the holding area.) 5. A 2-Hour occupancy separation wall is constructed between the S-3 use and the holding area. 6. The minimum construction type for the holding area is II F.R. The Building Safety Office consulted with I.C.B.O (International Conference of Building Officials) who agreed with there classification except on one point. I.C.B.O. requires supervision of each inmate at all times. Mr. Nelson asked Sheriff Wigglesworth how many people they will have for supervision. Answer: They are not capable of having (1) officer per person. After a lengthy discussion Mr. Heck moved to approve the Group B Occupancy as long as a stairwell to grade is provided and Items 1 through 5 from the April 21, 1999, letter (copy attached) are completed. BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 3 May 11, 1999 Motion seconded by Mr. B. Taylor. Motion carried. AB-003-99 — 303 S Washington Mr. Todd Calloway and Mr. Jerome Abood were present for this appeal. Mr. James Bennett, Assistant Plan Review Analyst, also present. On May 29, 1998, the Building Safety Office submitted a plan review to the design professional which pertained to the renovation of the second and third floor of 303 S Washington. The plans proposed the development of the second and third floor of the building for residential use. Section 904.2.9 of the Building Code requires that fire suppression be provided for R-1 occupancies 3 stories in height. The petitioner was previously granted a variance for this project pertaining to the use of the existing fire escape and exit separation. The Boards' previous conditions are contained in the May 29, 1998, plan review. The petitioner is requesting relief from sprinkling the entire building. There will only be (9) persons in the building. To sprinkler the entire building would be cost prohibitive as it could not be done with current waterlines. 2" waterlines were installed in 1998. After a lengthy discussion on ways to equate with the fire suppression requirements, Chairman Kamm asked the petitioner if they would like to table a decision until they were able to obtain more information. The petitioner agreed. Mr. Heck moved to table AB-003-99 until they have move information. Motion seconded by Mr. D. Taylor. Motion carried. OLD Business AB-014-98 — 5400 S Martin Luther King Jr Blvd Mr. Nelson had a letter requesting this appeal be removed from the table. Prints met the standard for NFPA. Mr. Heck moved to removed AB-014-98 from the table and withdraw it. Motion seconded by Mr. B. Taylor. Motion carried. Mr. D. Taylor moved to adjourn. Seconded by Mr. Heck. Motion carried. Respectfully Submitted, 2Aetary . Nelson Draft:: 09/17/99 Approved: 03/14/00 OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS of the _ `. .+ ! jr CITY OF LANSING rP\"' BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS May 11, 1999 The May meeting of the City of Lansing Building Board of Appeals was called to order by Chairman Randall Kamm at 2:00 p.m. The following members were in attendance: Randall Kamm, Chairman Donald Heck,Vice Chairman Dean Taylor Brian Taylor Members Absent: None Staff members present: Jack Nelson, Secretary Steve Bolenbaugh, Fire Marshal Brian Davis, Fire Inspector Chairman Kamm asked for the approval of the January 19, 1999, minutes. Mr. Heck moved to approve the minutes. Motion seconded by Mr. B. Taylor. Motion carried. NEW BUSINESS AB-002-99—303 W Kalamazoo Mr. Kurt Fogelsonger was present for this appeal. A request is hereby made to allow classification of a temporary prisoner holding area in the Lower Level of the proposed Ingham County Consolidated Courts Facility as a Group B occupancy. In order to afford prisoners a commensurate amount of protection in an area where personal liberties are being restrained, the following items will be incorporated into the building design. 1. The holding cells on the lower level are within 200' of an exit. 2. An exit will be provided with discharge to grade. 3. The corridor is fire rated. 4. The building is equipped with a fire suppression system (a dry system may be provided in the holding area). 5. A 2-hour occupancy separation wall will be constructed between the S-3 use and the holding area. 6. The minimum construction type for the holding area will be 11 F.R. BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS May 11, 1999 PAGE 2 Arguments in support of this appeal: The key to this appeal is to understand that the prisoner holding is a temporary situation. Prisoners are brought to the Court Facility the day of their hearing and are returned that same day to the Ingham County Jail. Prisoners will not beheld overnight in the Courts Facility. Earlier discussions with the Building Safety Manager were leading toward the classification of the holding area as an 1-3 Occupancy Group. 1-3 Occupancy include jails and prisons. We do not feel our holding area falls into the same category as a jail or prison. Group B Occupancy, on the other hand, includes police stations which could very likely include a temporary holding area. We are asking to classify the holding area as a Group B Occupancy. Realizing the occupants of the holding area will have their personal liberties restrained, we offer to provide an additional level of protection by incorporating into the building design the six items listed above. Mr. Fogelsonger showed sketches of the building and proposal. Proposal does not include renovation to the Grady Porter building. There will be surface and secured parking in the building and under the building. Access will be through secured areas. Basement will include parking for judges and holding area for prisoners only. First Floor— Court support areas. There will be2 stairs in front for judges and staff to separate pedestrian traffic from the courts. There are three stories above including the Penthouse. In a letter to Mr. Fogelsonger on April 21, 1999, (copy attached) Jack Nelson suggested that relief was requested from the Building Board of Appeals. The City will support this request for the use as a Group B Occupancy if the following is incorporated into the building design: 1. The holding cells are within 200' of an exit. 2. An exit is provided with discharges to grade. 3. The corridor is fire rated. 4. The building is equipped with a fire suppression system. (A dry system by be provided in the holding area.) 5. A 2-Hour occupancy separation wall is constructed between the S-3 use and the holding area. 6. The minimum construction type for the holding area is II F.R. The Building Safety Office consulted with I.C.B.O (International Conference of Building Officials) who agreed with there classification except on one point. I.C.B.O. requires supervision of each inmate at all times. Mr. Nelson asked Sheriff Wigglesworth how many people they will have for supervision. Answer: They are not capable of having (1) officer per person. After a lengthy discussion Mr. Heck moved to approve the Group B Occupancy as long as a stairwell to grade is provided and Items 1 through 5 from the April 21, 1999, letter (copy attached) are completed. BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS May 11, 1999 PAGE 3 Motion seconded by Mr. B. Taylor. Motion carried. AB-003-99 —303 S Washington Mr. Todd Calloway and Mr. Jerome Abood were present for this appeal. Mr. James Bennett, Assistant Plan Review Analyst, also present. On May 29, 1998, the Building Safety Office submitted a plan review to the design professional which pertained to the renovation of the second and third floor of 303 S Washington. The plans proposed the development of the second and third floor of the building for residential use. Section 904.2.9 of the Building Code requires that fire suppression be provided for R-1 occupancies 3 stories in height. The petitioner was previously granted a variance for this project pertaining to the use of the existing fire escape and exit separation. The Boards' previous conditions are contained in the May 29, 1998, plan review. The petitioner is requesting relief from sprinkling the entire building. There will only be (9) persons in the building. To sprinkler the entire building would be cost prohibitive as it could not be done with current waterlines. 2" waterlines were installed in 1998. After a lengthy discussion on ways to equate with the fire suppression requirements, Chairman Kamm asked the petitioner if they would like to table a decision until they were able to obtain more information. The petitioner agreed. Mr. Heck moved to table AB-003-99 until they have move information. Motion seconded by Mr. D. Taylor. Motion carried. OLD Business AB-014-98 — 5400 S Martin Luther King Jr Blvd Mr. Nelson had a letter requesting this appeal be removed from the table. Prints met the standard for NFPA. Mr. Heck moved to removed AB-014-98 from the table and withdraw it. Motion seconded by Mr. B. Taylor. Motion carried. Mr. D. Taylor moved to adjourn. Seconded by Mr. Heck. Motion carried. Respectfully Submitted, Jack A. Nelson Draft: 09/17/99 Secretary Approved: OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS of the CITY OF LANSING i ? F l BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS CITY Y CLER April 13, 1999 The April meeting of the City of Lansing Building Board of Appeals was called to order by Vice Chairman Don Heck at 2:12 p.m. There were insufficient members present to constitute a quorum, consequently no official business was presented. Mr. Nelson apprised the Board that a letter had been received from Hobbs and Black Associates Inc. pertaining to case AB-014-98 which is currently tabled. The correspondence requests that the case be withdrawn. Mr. Nelson explained to the Board that the issue was addressed by the Fire Marshals Office. Appendix III-A of the 1991 UFC allows a reduction in the fire flow if the reduction is approved by the Chief. Don Heck stated he had no objection to the request by Hobbs and Black. Dean Taylor concurred with this position. Mr. Taylor requested the Building Safety Office notify each member at least 10 days in advance of the scheduled meeting date if the meeting would be cancelled. This would allow Board members to plan their work schedules in advance. Mr. Nelson stated that Board members will be notified prior to each meeting date as to the meetings status. Dean Taylor requested that the January meeting minutes be amended to reflect that his motion under Election of Officers read: Mr. D. Taylor moved to nominate Don Heck as Vice Chairman. Meeting adjourned. Respectfully Submitted, J k . Nei on Draft: 04/14/99 ecr tart' Approved: 09/14/99 BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS LA, , i 0`I 1 Y L ER; April 13, 1999 The April meeting of the City of Lansing Building Board of Appeals was called to order by Vice Chairman Don Heck at 2:12 p.m. There were insufficient members present to constitute a quorum, consequently no official business was presented. Mr. Nelson apprised the Board that a letter had been received from Hobbs and Black Associates Inc. pertaining to case AB-014-98 which is currently tabled. The correspondence requests that the case be withdrawn. Mr. Nelson explained to the Board that the issue was addressed by the Fire Marshals Office. Appendix III-A of the 1991 UFC allows a reduction in the fire flow if the reduction is approved by the Chief. Don Heck stated he had no objection to the request by Hobbs and Black. Dean Taylor concurred with this position. Mr. Taylor requested the Building Safety Office notify each member at least 10 days in advance of the scheduled meeting date if the meeting would be cancelled. This would allow Board members to plan their work schedules in advance. Mr. Nelson stated that Board members will be notified prior to each meeting date as to the meetings status. Dean Taylor requested that the January meeting minutes be amended to reflect that his motion under Election of Officers read: Mr. D. Taylor moved to nominate Don Heck as Vice Chairman. Meeting adjourned. Respectfully Submitted, Jack A. Nelson Draft: 04/14/99 Secretary Approved: l OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS of the CITY OF LANSING BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS January 19, 1999 The January meeting of the City of Lansing Building Board of Appeals was called to order by Chairman Randall Kamm at 2:00 p.m. The following members were in attendance: Randall Kamm, Chairman Donald Heck,Vice Chairman Dean Taylor Brian Taylor Members Absent: None Staff members present: Jack Nelson, Secretary Steve Bolenbaugh, Fire Marshal Brian Davis, Fire Inspector Chairman Kamm asked for the approval of the December 8, 1999, minutes. Mr. Heck moved to approve the minutes. Motion seconded by Mr. B. Taylor. Motion carried. NEW BUSINESS AB-001-99—101 S Washington Mr. Paul Vlahakis was present for this appeal. The building structure at 101 S Washington is currently undergoing a building restoration and updating of its facilities. The building has been purchased by the Vlahakis Real Estate and Development Company and will be leased for office building use. Occupancy use has not changed from previous owners. The Vlahakis Real Estate and Development Company purchased this building from the First Of America Bank Corporation. Part of the sale agreement included an option to purchase the building immediately to the south of this building. The First of America Bank Corporation had a purchase option with the right of first refusal. There was a second option to purchase the building offered by the Stockwell Real Estate Group for the purchase of the building immediately to the south of the building at 101 S Washington Avenue. The Vlahakis Real Estate and Development Company has tried to exercise their option to purchase this building. However, there is legal litigation regarding which firm has the legal right'to purchase the building. The exterior south wall of the building is on the south property line. Back in the mid-1960's when the American Bank and Trust Company renovated this building, an appeal was granted to allow window BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS January 19, 1, PAGE 2 openings on the south side of the building. Part of the agreement was to provide exterior deluge sprinkler fire system at the head of each window. It has been the intent of this renovation project to continue use of windows on the south side of the building based on the original appeal. However, to update the protection of this wall on the south side of the building, it is proposed that the exterior deluge sprinkler head be removed and an interior deluge sprinkler head be installed at the head of the window openings. The original exterior deluge sprinkler head was a separate sprinkler system. The building is not sprinkled. Part of the current renovation program is to sprinkle the entire building. Removing the exterior sprinkler head and placing a new sprinkler head on the interior at head of window opening would allow this deluge system to become part of the overall building fire prevention system. It is the intent to replace the existing windows with new insulated glass. The new windows are a single, double-hung window with no insulating glass. The new window would be one large insulated piece of glass. In recent conversations with Jack Nelson, he indicated there is some new thinking regarding openings in walls that are located on the property line. In this particular situation, however, window openings were granted an appeal by a previous appeals board. The window openings are not changing but the protection system is being updated. Legal counsel expects the first option to purchase has a strong case of maintaining their right to purchase the building. Currently, the case has been heard by the Circuit Court and has now been referred to the Appeals Court. Indications are that when the appeals court reviews the case and renders their decision, it probably will continue on to the Supreme Court for a final verdict. This process, as you know, can take several years to reach a conclusion. In the meantime, the building process must go on and the renovation of the building be completed. Mr. Nelson stated that there was a variance issued in 1966 for the deluge system. This variance is no longer valid because of the extent of the renovations. In order to comply with the code this needs to be a solid 4hr wall. Mr. Davis stated that a test done with treated and heat tempered glass showed a deluge system can give at best a 2 hr rating. Mr. Heck asked if there was a fire escape? Mr. Vlahakis stated that there was a fire escape in the alley. They have a permanent easement for the alley which is owned by the City. After a lengthy discussion, Mr. Heck stated that he believes that the appeal requirements for the Legislative Office building set a precedence for requirements in building on the property line. There are approximately 59 windows on this wall. Mr. B. Taylor asked if the window frames need to be rated. Mr. Nelson stated that the NER report does not require the frames to be rated. Mr. B. Taylor asked Mr. Vlahakis if he has checked into covering the windows to make it to code. Mr. Vlahakis stated that it is cost prohibitive. Mr. B. Taylor asked if there is a percentage of renovations that makes you have to do the building to BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 3 January 19, 1999 code. Mr. Nelson stated that in 1988 the code said that it was base on a percentage of renovations. Now the code says that only the area of renovation has to be done to code. After another lengthy discussion, Mr. B. Taylor made a moved to sprinkle the inside and eliminate outside sprinkler and provide fire dampers on the inside. Mr. Heck seconded the motion with an amendment to include: Shutters that are A Label and tide to the fire alarm, interior seals constructed to prohibit use as a shelf and that a window treatment not be used on the windows (i.e. curtains, blinds). Motion carried. After a five minute break the Board gathered back together to watch the City of Lansing Ethics Video. Mr. Davis told the Board that Union Baptist on Martin Luther King (Appeal AB-014-98) had changed the size from 6 inches to 8 inches for the hydrant. The Board of Water and Light now has no issue and there are no NFPA requirements. Mr. Kamm requested Mr. Davis to bring this back to the next meeting to be untabled along with any additional information. Mr. B. Taylor stated that we had spent 1 hour and 25 minutes on today's appeals. He would like to know if we established a precedent for this type of appeal or if we are going to spend this amount of time again? Mr. Kamm informed Mr. B. Taylor that decisions are based on different circumstances. OTHER BUSINESS Election of Officers. Mr. Heck moved to nominate Randall Kamm as Chairman. Mr. D. Taylor moved to nominate Oeaa kyle Don Heck as Vice Chairman. Motion carried. Mr. Heck moved to adjourn. Seconded by Mr. D. Taylor. Motion carried. Respectfully Submitted, Jack A. Nelson Secretary Draft: Approved:_