Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBuilding Board of Appeals 2001 Minutes SING DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND v NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT a 316 N.Capitol Avenue,Suites C-1 &C-2 • Lansing MI 48933-1238 (517)483-4355•FAX: (517)377-0169 c x G BUILDING SAFETY David C. Hollister, Mayor OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY OF LANSING BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS Held at 316 N. Capitol Ave. at 2:00 pm 12/11/01 The December 2001 meeting dof the Kamlty m.of Lansing The following ding Bord of membeas were npeals was attendance called to order at 2:00 p.m. by Chairman Randall Randall Kamm, Chairman Donald Heck, Vice Chairman Dean Taylor James Drake Members absent: None Staff Present: Christine Segerlind, Secretary Brian Davis, Assistant Fire Marshal Jack A. Nelson, Manager, Building Safety Scott Sanford, Sign Inspector Margaret Vromon, Assistant City Attorney Brenda Jodway, Recording Secretary Petitioners Present: Michael Reid John Fifarek, Attorney for Adam's Outdoor Advertising Public Present: None Chairman Kamm asked for the approval of the August 14, 2001, minutes. Don Heck moved to approve the minutes. Motion seconded by Dean Taylor. Motion carried. New Business: Case No.: Address: Petitioner: BBA-009-2001 107 N. Washington Sq. Michael Reid Michael Reid was present for the Appeal. 1 The Building in question is located at 107 N. Washington Square. The petitioner requests a modification. He would like to use the third floor of the building for file storage. The Building Safety Office has determined that the building does not comply with the Michigan Building code because of inadequate exiting. The petitioner stated that the problem he's running into is the Code requirement of two means of egress. The building is landlocked in the back and getting a rear entrance would be very difficult at this time. H said t d wn'ng is fully The boxes sprinkled that would be stored yare Ie-bodied service the building ownepeople r's files. ould The carry the filess up and o boxes would be stored and then fetched up when needed. Randall Kamm asked if there is a section of the Code for exiting requiring two exits that includes the third floor. Chris Segerlind responded that table 1005.2.2 of the Code for buildings with one exit, allows a maximum height of two stories for an S Occupancy. You have to have less than 30 occupants, which it complies with. The other issue is you have to be less than 75 feet to the exit. Randall Kamm asked about the second and first floors. Chris said the second floor was done under the 1997 Code and the 1997 Code permitted it because his occupant load was less than 10. This project is under the new Michigan Code. Brian Davis wanted to be sure that the whole building is sprinkled with a 4-inch water supply because he had prints dated September 2001 that showed a 2-inch water supply and only sprinkling the basement. Mr. Reid stated that the building was fully sprinkled with a 4-inch water supply and it had been inspected. Brian stated that it hadn't been an approved system as far as he knows, but as long as we can verify that the calculations are correct and it's a 4-inch system it's fine. Chris Segerlind asked if there is smoke detection on the 3rd floor at this time. Mr. Reid responded no. Randall Kamm asked how far is the travel distance from the farthest point on the 3rd floor to the exit. Chris Segerlind said if you figure from the farthest point on the 3rd floor all the way down the stairs out to the exit it is probably 125 feet. Don Heck stated that there are really two issues here, one is the travel distance and the second is the maximum building height is two stories. Chris said right, that if he was only on the second floor there is less than 75 feet and we wouldn't need to be here. Jack Nelson asked if there is any smoke detection in the building at all? Mr. Reid responded no. Randall Kamm had some questions on rating. He asked if any door coming into the stairwell has a rated door? Mr. Reid replied yes. Randall asked if the stairway meets Code Compliance? Mr. Reid said yes. Randall asked if the 3rd floor would be used only for storage and that no one would be up there working? Mr. Reid said yes it would only be used for storage. Randall asked if the upstairs had any plumbing? Mr. Reid said no. Randall asked if there are any windows in the rear of the building? Mr. Reid said there were but they are all blocked off now. He said there are new windows in the front on the Washington side. After much discussion, Brian Davis advised that the Board not to look at the sprinkling system as an early detection. He suggested looking at Smoke Detectors, interconnected floor to floor, so that if something did happen up on the 3`d floor, the other occupants that were in the building on a regular basis would be notified with early enough warning to leave the building. After much discussion, Dean Taylor moved to approve Mr. Reid's request based on the verification of the 4-inch sprinkler system and the addition of interconnected smoke detectors installed by a licensed contractor, 2 on each floor including the basement and inspected by the fire Marshall. Seconded by Don Heck it was approved unanimously. 2 Case No.: Address: Petitioner: BBA-010-2001 5435 S. Cedar Adam's Outdoor Advertising, Inc. John Fifarek, Attorney was present representing Adam's Outdoor Advertising, Inc. On October 25th & 26, 2001, violation notices were issued to Adam's Outdoor Advertising by sign inspector, Mr. Scott Sanford, giving notice that the billboard located north of 5443 S. Cedar (5435 S. Cedar) could not be reconstructed unless in compliance with Section 1442.09 of the City of Lansing Sign Code. This section states no sign, or substantial part thereof, which is destroyed shall be re-erected, reconstructed, rebuilt or relocated, unless the same is in compliance with all applicable requirements of this Chapter. A re-inspection on October 27, 2001, revealed footings had been poured and structural members erected without first obtaining a permit. This resulted in Mr. Sanford issuing a stop work order for work performed on the site. The enforcing officer is requiring compliance with all applicable sections of the sign code. The damage to the billboard sign exceeded 50% and therefore is not exempt from the requirements of the Sign Code by means of its nonconformity. A permit and inspections are required. The Applicant is appealing this decision. Mr. Fifarek said that the notice of hearing states that their request is to allow reconstruction of a nonconforming billboard without permit or inspections. He stated that that's not really what they're asking for. Their request is an interpretation or declaration that the nonconforming billboard at 5435 S. Cedar Street location may be restored with its nonconformities continuing. The difference and with a distinction is that for purposes of this process, Adam's is prepared to go through the permit process to comply with all the structural requirements that will be imposed upon any other billboard, but they request an acknowledgement recognition that a nonconforming billboard is allowed to continue with those nonconformities continuing. This particular sign got damaged by the events in October when the tornados went through. Adam's wants to restore that sign. Mr. Fifarek said that the City's position has been, with all of these nonconformities, that no you can't do it, it's nonconforming, it's damaged, you don't get to put it back up. Plain and simple, you don't get to restore it. Adam's position has been all along that we are not required to apply for a permit in the first instance. Mr. Fifarek made references to two other signs Adam's and the City are also dealing with. Now this one goes down and as we start putting it back up we get a couple of correction notices that say nonconforming structures shall not be reconstructed or rebuilt unless in compliance with all applicable requirements of the Sign Code. Mr. Fifarek asked what are the applicable requirements that they wish to impose upon us that we say we are exempt from because of the nonconformities. You will note that these are probably more zoning issues than what you normally deal with. The other nonconformity is that there is another billboard within approximately 200 feet of this one and the Ordinance requires that they be at least 1000 feet apart. The other one is that the dimensions of the structure (the face on the structure itself) the ordinance requires no larger that 14 feet by 48 feet and this one has been at 24 feet by 25 feet and we indicated that if that was an issue we would be willing to change the face on it to comply. Those are what the issues are. I bring up whether or not there is zoning or otherwise, with the other cases and with this particular case I think the appropriate appeal process is through the B.Z.A. However, the lawsuit that was filed over this one, in which a preliminary injunction has been entered, was based upon the State Construction Code Act, which is of your province. Mr. Fifarek said, in a conversation in the hallway beforehand with Ms. Vromon, she suggested that maybe we should look at it, that maybe that's were we should have gone in the last one. The last 3 thing that I want to do is have some judge someplace to throw me out because I haven't exhausted all of my administrative avenues. Mr. Fifarek asked that the Board look at Section 1442.03 & 1442.10 of the Sign Code. It say's that non-conforming billboards are subject to the nonconforming regulations of the zoning ordinance. There has never been a dispute that this is a Class B nonconforming structure. So we suggest that based on 1442.03 & 1442.10 that Section 1294 of the Zoning Code applies and 1294.07C sets forth the process of determining whether or not a nonconforming use or structure such as this can be restored. It provides that a Class B Nonconformity damaged by fire, explosion, flood, erosion or other catastrophe may be restored if the cost of restoration is less than 50% of the pre-catastrophe Fair Market Value. A structure damaged more that 50% shall be restored excepting conformity with the provisions of the district in which it is located. So we go through providing all the information and it's all been attached here. We have a Fair Market Value appraisal that says that the Fair Market Value is $174,000.00. We provided documentation that the cost to restore is just less than $4,000.00. If you wanted to look at it for replacement cost value we'd accept a $25,000.00 number, any which way you cut it we fall within that classification. So we go through all those steps and in this particular instance, we based upon the history did not apply for a permit in the first instance. We believe we can go forward without one. But we consent for all of these purposes to meet all the structural requirements of the Zoning Code which I think is 1442.11, including all of the illumination and all of those kind of things. So if the concern is whether or not this thing topples over because it doesn't have enough concrete or the foundation isn't sufficient, or there are wood problems or whatnot, we agree we will abide whatever those things are. But what we want is a declaration and understanding, or to say it another way a reversal of those corrective notices, that those three nonconformities may continue. So that's why we are here and that's what we are asking for and I say all of this with the caveat that I don't know if you have jurisdiction in the first instance over those particular issues, but I'm going to let you folks make that decision and if you make the decision that you do have the jurisdiction, I hope that you read the Code the same way I do, and what that would do is then send us back to complete the application that has been submitted and has been rejected based upon these three nonconforming issues, and comply with the other requirements. Just so you know, we filed an application after the injunction was entered, trying to comply with all of the requirements of the Sign Code and the structural integrity. A letter was sent to us that they wanted some additional information, a revised drawing, all that kind of stuff and we are in the process of providing all that. In the interim we did get a letter from the City that said that our application was being denied because it didn't meet the requirements of 1442 Section 22 C, H & D., which are the three things that I mentioned as far as nonconformance and the next step in the whole process, I guess, if I don't get approval here and we don't work things out there, I've got to appeal that letter which I got last week and you folks will all have to hear this again. That's all I really have to say. Scott Sanford, who was at the site in October, said he is the Sign Inspector for the City of Lansing and is the one who did issue the 3 notices. Actually there should only be two, however, the first one that I issued on October 25, 2001, 1 had posted to the billboard but it had been blown down and nothing had been done. I stopped by on October 26, 2001, they informed me that they had never seen the notice that I had posted on October 25, 2001, and so I had to write that one again. At that time we informed them that this is a nonconforming structure and as such if it needs to be restored or rebuilt, we wanted to know what they were going to do following the guidelines of the Sign Code. This Code, under section 1442.10 does say that nonconforming structures are regulated under the Zoning Code. That is done for the purpose of basically allowing maintenance and repairs to an existing nonconforming structure, so that it may continue. However, as John said there is a part in there that says a structure that's damaged less than 50% may be restored. Looking at this and looking at what was done when Adam's came out, they completely removed this billboard. At that time, they through their own actions made that structure damaged more than 50%. One hundred percent of the sign is gone. When they came back out on Saturday, they poured new footings & put up a new structure. At this point they're not restoring anything, they're 4 building a new sign. As such, you take it out of the nonconforming status and they must now comply with the same regulations that anybody else does when they put up a new sign. The restoration process, by them removing the entire sign, has now made that non-conforming void. That is why I posted it under Act 30 Section 125.512 Paragraph 3 of the State Code, because we don't have any permits, we didn't get any inspections and didn't have any prints of any kind. That is why we brought it under the State Act. We did receive a sign permit application from John, sent in to the Building Safety Office with insufficient information. Specifically the Chief Building Inspector did reply with a letter of the discrepancies that were noted. The application was rejected. Randall Kamm asked if the reason that the billboard was nonconforming before was that it was within 1000 feet of another billboard and it was too large? Scott Sanford answered yes and added also because it is Zoned Residential. Randall asked if it was an easement for Consumers Power and therefore, Consumers doesn't care what the zoning is? Scott answered right. Randall asked what was the requirement from the City if Adam's just went out there and repaired the existing sign? Scott answered at that point it would fall back under the Zoning Code and the Zoning Code has certain formulas that need to be approved by the Planning Board to allow them to do that. They would need to submit their Cost Analysis & Fair Market Values. Randall asked if they would also need a Building Permit for the repairs? Scott said yes. Scott added that the Planning Board may permit the substitution or restoration of a Class B Nonconformity so long as the cost of substitution or restoration is not more than 35% of the Fair Market Value of the Class B Nonconformity and the affect of the substitution or restoration is not to increase the intensity.of the use or the exterior physical dimensions of the structure. In no such case shall the cumulative and total substitution or restoration be more than 35% of the Fair Market Value of the Class B Nonconformity. Fair Market Value shall be calculated on the date a Building Permit is requested to perform the substitution or restoration. C Says that a nonconformity damaged by fire, explosion, flood; erosion or any other catastrophe may be restored if the cost of restoration is less than 50% of the pre-catastrophe Fair Market Value in conformity with the provisions of the district in which it was located. So at that point if it is damaged more than 50%, it comes out of the Zoning Code and goes back to follow the same procedures as any other sign under the Sign Code and in no way are these separated. Section 1442.09 of the Sign Code says that no sign heretofore approved and erected, shall be altered or relocated either on the same or to other premises. No sign or any substantial part thereof, which is destroyed, shall be re-erected, reconstructed, rebuilt or relocated, unless the same is in compliance with all applicable requirements of this Chapter, not just the certain sections that apply to what you want to do with it. Don Heck asked if Adam's had not taken everything out, they would still be required to have a Permit from the Building Department to make the repairs? Scott answered yes. Don then asked as part of that Building Permit would they be required to demonstrate that the sign has the structural capacity to withstand what ever the Code requirements are? Scott responded at the extent of this amount of damage yes. Don asked if they would still have to get a permit from Zoning? Scott explained that Zoning would have to approve the Building Sign Permit. It is all in one Permit. You have to have Building and Zoning approval. Randall Kamm asked if because it's nonconforming and because they are also going to do some major construction, would they also have to be approved by the Planning Board? Scott said right, because it is a nonconforming structure Planning would have to be involved. Randall asked if Adam's would have to go through those steps and demonstrate to the Building Department that the parts of the sign that are left have the structural integrity to meet the current Code? Scott responded right. Randall asked, and if it didn't, the remedy to the Building Department is to deny the permit? Scott said right. He said that's why that is in there. We understand that signs are in existence right now, that when you change a Code, we can't go back and make them bring that up to the current Code standards. That's why they're rated as nonconforming. What it does is allow them to live out their useful life, just like a building, or garage, or something like that. At that point when they have to be rebuilt to the extent that this one is, then they must now conform to the current Code. As long as this sign had been standing, we would never have said a word about it. The distinction is that we are not 5 dealing with the original structure. That's been completely removed, as the photographs show. They moved this sign about 8 feet farther to the north, and put in new footings and support structures. We are not even dealing with what was there. Mr. Fifarek responded the process as just described to me is not outlined in your Sign Code or the Zoning ordinance. The Zoning approval, Building approval, Planning Board approval, you won't find that addressed at all in the Section that we rely upon, 1294.07C. Mr. Fifarek stated that in a situation where there is a typical repair of normal wear and tear of a nonconforming sign, it is 1294.07B that addresses that and it is the only section that addresses obtaining or requiring permits of any nature. But, when you get to a situation such as this, where there has been an occurrence that has damaged the sign, there is no discussion of a Building Permit. It simply says that it may be restored if cost of restoration is less than 50% of the Fair Market Value. That's the only process that we've been trying to get in here, is that we want to be held to that standard. What we are talking about the use of land for a billboard, and we wish to restore it to its original condition. We have provided an appraisal. Dean Taylor stated that what he was trying to clarify was the permitting issue, whether it is a repair or a replacement. In your case you totally replaced the sign and put a new sign up, new construction without a permit, testing or inspections or anything. Mr. Fifarek responded that that's because we don't have to have that. But, for purposes of today, we're saying that we will abide by all those requirements regarding structural integrity. The City won't let us do it. They're saying no, it's nonconforming; you can't put it back up. We're saying it's nonconforming, we get to put it up and we can comply with 1294.07C. Dean Taylor responded, but you didn't put it back up. That structure was removed from the site. I'm familiar with the sign. I drove by it, that same storm took out my back yard. I drove across town and noticed all the other damage. That sign was the first thing I'd seen on Cedar Street and I noticed how rapidly it went back up and was surprised. But it's a brand new sign. Mr. Fifarek said the only thing that got replaced, until we were ordered to stop doing everything and take everything off the site were the steel poles. Dean responded, the I-beam construction, the I-beams bent over like a twig. They tipped over to the north, just above the ground. But, that sign is gone and it appears to me that there is a brand new sign there. Mr. Fifarek stated that even if none of the parts were replaced, I don't think it makes a difference when we talk about the cost of restoring. Scott Sanford responded that it does make a difference because it says a structure damaged more than 50%. It doesn't matter the value of the sign. If the whole thing has been removed, you've exceeded more than 50%. Mr. Fifarek responded that we're talking about a use and you and I will never agree on that. Randall Kamm said that we had a memo sent to us by the Assistant City Attorney, Margo Vromon. She is here also and we would like her opinion on this. Margo responded, well as you can tell, the City and Adam's have had a longstanding disagreement over the interpretation of both of these, the Sign Code Application and the Zoning Ordinances that apply to the Class B Nonconformities. It is the City's position that the Sign Code does apply to this and all other Nonconforming signs and billboards. I hope you keep track here that we've really got two different kinds of issues. One is the factual issue and we have a factual disagreement over this sign as well as a legal disagreement. Factually we are saying certain Sign Code Ordinances apply because it is Mr. Sanford's contention that the sign was not damaged, it was destroyed. He has pictures that I believe he has submitted to you when you first heard his testimony that before the sign was removed by Adam's it was destroyed. They could not rebuild, restore or reuse it because it was destroyed. Therefore, it's our contention that we don't even talk about these Zoning Ordinances because we go directly then to the Sign Code, Section 1442.09 which says no sign heretofore approved and erected shall be altered or relocated, either on the same or other premises. No sign which is destroyed shall be re-erected and built unless it is in compliance with all the applicable 6 starting point. That's not Mr. Fifarek's starting point. He goes directly to the Zoning Codes. We are starting out here with the difference in our interpretations, what Ordinances are initially applicable. So we go to 1442.09 and say ok, now we've got to make sure that they are going to be able to rebuild the sign, which is what they're wanting to do, and that they are in compliance with all applicable Ordinances, which we interpret to be by our Sign Codes. Now, as you have heard, their contention is we don't have to do any of that because it's nonconforming we go right to the Zoning Code dealing with nonconformities and apply that Subsection C and demonstrate that according to our calculations we can restore it for less than 50% of the Fair Market Value. You can see we've got all of these sub-disagreements as well in terms of how to interpret that Zoning section as well. But what I'm hoping to avoid here is to get you side tracked on Zoning when it is our contention that you start with the Sign Code here and after .09 we go and say ok you've got to apply for a Permit because you're rebuilding this sign. Then that process should run it's natural route, however, they have now apparently applied for a Permit for that sign. Our office is not taking any position on whether or not they should get the permit. We are just saying they have to follow the process. If they can't get the Permit because this nonconformity doesn't allow it then they have the option of asking for a variance. We're treating this just as we would the nonconformity of any other structure, a building, a house, a garage, a commercial building, whatever. Our argument is if you've got a nonconforming building and a tornado comes by and wipes it out, nobody gets to go in there and rebuild that building without getting Permits for Electric and Plumbing and Building and everything else. The whole point and purpose of this Sign Code Ordinance is to make sure that these things are erected to protect the safety and health of the Citizens of Lansing. This particular sign has an Electrical component to it as well, so we wouldn't want people just putting up and reestablishing nonconforming buildings and not knowing what's going in there anymore than we would want them to rebuild nonconforming signs without any inspection, which has happened two times in the past. It's not to say that you cannot reestablish a nonconforming building or sign, but you have to go through the proper procedures to do that. Now, part of the purpose of this Sign Ordinance was to gradually eliminate nonconforming signs throughout the City, not by forcing them out, but allowing them to die naturally. Which, this one I think is a forty year old sign that has outlived it's natural life we say ok good, we've got one less nonconforming billboard around. There is another provision in there that would allow Adam's to replace two nonconforming billboards with one conforming one. So it's not as if the Ordinance is calculated to eliminate all billboards in the City. But, there is a reason why the Sign Code mentions the nonconformities, but if you read it, one of the statutory construction rules is that you use common sense when you read the Ordinances. If you take Mr. Fifarek's interpretation that they can replace it if they can show that it's less than 50% of Fair Market Value, then there would be no nonconforming sign that could not ever be replaced. So why would that section even be in there. We argue a more logical interpretation that Mr. Sanford proposed, that is if the structure were damaged more than 50% you would not be able to just rebuild that nonconformity. The other thing is the subsection right above C in Zoning, also says that it's the Planning Department that determines whether or not that criteria has been met. It doesn't make any sense to have the party that wants to rebuild the nonconformity supply the figures and evidence that says it's more or less than 50% of the Fair Market Value. So our point is that you have got to apply the Sign Code first, and if you were to look at all the evidence presented and then say, well we disagree with Mr. Sanford, we think that the sign was really damaged and not destroyed, and it's a nonconformity. We think it was damaged less than 50%, then you would go to the Zoning Code section that Adam's is sighting and make your determination from that point. But, you have to then overrule Scott's conclusion that the sign was in fact destroyed and that Section .09 and all the other Sign Code Permit Application Ordinances apply. I do hope when you make your determination that for both of us, Mr. Fifarek and the City Attorney's Office, we need for you to specify your conclusions, because we know we are going to make a record for appeal, one way or the other. There was some additional discussion and Randall Kamm asked if Judge Houk had made a preliminary ruling stating that he thought the Permit process is applicable for the reconstruction? Margo Vromon responded yes. Randall asked if they have applied for a permit and the City denied 7 it? Mr. Fifarek responded yes. There was additional discussion and then Randall stated that this is a mighty unique case and I would ask that the two attorneys allow us as Board Members to caucus outside this room, for a few minutes, just to determine what our responsibilities are as a Board, as far as interpretation of these Codes. Both attorney's, John Fifarek and Margo Vromon, agreed that they didn't have a problem with that and agreed that everyone except the Board would take a ten-minute break so the Board could just use the conference room. When everyone returned, Randall Kamm stated that the Board's conclusion to our responsibilities is that, we don't deal with Zoning issues at all. We don't deal with non conformities, unless it's in a building. We don't deal with signs that way. The Sign Codes should be applicable to any signs whether they are conforming or not. The Appeals procedure, any Appeals according to Sign Code Section 1442.06, which requires Permits, also gives direction on the Appeal process. Any Appeal procedure that is made to us deals with the construction and materials of the Sign. The location of the sign and nonconformity issues of the sign, are not dealt with by the Building Board of Appeals, but are dealt with by the Zoning Board of Appeals. All we can do is recommend that you go through the process of Appealing to the Zoning Board and the Planning Board if necessary. The whole thing falls under the jurisdiction of the Director of the Department of Planning & Neighborhood Development. The only thing that we're going to deal with is the construction process of signs and buildings. Margo Vroman asked if she could summarize then that it is the Board's decision that all Sign Code Ordinances are applicable in this instance. Don Heck responded, I don't think that's what he said. Margo responded, that's what I'm asking; I wrote down that you said that the Sign Code is applicable to all signs. Randall responded, I guess that's unless they are nonconforming which is the whole issue. Don stated, if I may, Section 1442.06, Sign Permits required. I think that is the consensus of this Board, a Permit is required period. As to what portion is applicable, my understanding of our charge is structural features of a sign. That's what we deal with on Appeals, period. To me the issues of conformity and Zoning, classification, position adjacent to other signs and whatnot, aren't structural features of the sign, in my common sense interpretation of structural features. So, I guess quite frankly, I didn't hear any questions about structural features of a sign, or a request for some kind of variance from the portion of the Sign Code that falls under Design and Construction. So in summary, I don't think that there is anything for us to make a motion on. Mr. Fifarek asked, just so he'could have some finality here, if what the Board is saying is that they , have a lack of jurisdiction to rule upon Adam's request, which is whether or not they can continue with the nonconformity? Don said, as I understand your request, Adam's will meet or comply with the Building requirements, provided that the nonconformity is essentially waived. That is not the charge of this Board to waive those things. Mr. Fifarek and Don agreed they are saying the same thing, so Mr. Fifarek asked that they have a decision that says that the Board does not have jurisdiction over Adam's request, because then whether or not I want to or not, there are Appeal rights to this decision and I will have brought this step of the process to a conclusion. Margo Vromon stated, that she thought that the initial appeal also was asking whether the Sign Code and Permit process was applicable. Mr. Fifarek responded, no, that's never been part of this request. Our request here is an interpretation of declaration that the nonconforming billboard at Cedar St. be restored with its nonconformities continuing. It is premised upon us applying the Structural requirements of the Code. We would go through that process. Randall Kamm stated, our charge is only to deal with the structural features of the any sign, not where it's placed, how big it is, what it looks like, or any of those kinds of things. We deal strictly in the construction of it, and that's not part of the request that you made, so therefore I don't think that we have a decision to make. Don Heck made a motion stating that on the issue of Building Board of Appeals, Case No. 010- 2001, the Building Board of Appeals, pursuant to Section 1442.06, Paragraph E, Appeal procedure, in that Appeals pertaining to the structural features of sign should be made to the Building Board of Appeals. Other requirements such as sign square footage, setback requirements, etc., shall be made to the City Board of Zoning Appeals. This Board does not have 8 the jurisdiction to render an opinion or grant any variances to the Adam's Outdoor Advertising request. Seconded by Dean Taylor, it passed unanimously. Old Business: None Other Business: Randall Kamm said that one thing they needed to do was have an election of officers. They need one more Board Member. Jack A. Nelson, Manager, Building Safety suggested that they do that at the January Board meeting when they would have another Board Member. Jack Nelson said he had one issue in reference to Ceiling Height Variances. Normally the Ceiling Height variances were precipitated from an action of the Code Compliance Officer that dealt with the Housing Code. You granted me authority to address those situations if it met certain criteria. I do it under what's called an Administrative Modification in the Building Code. The problem is that there is no Administrative Modification in the Housing Code that allows me to do that. So I just wanted to make sure that you were still comfortable with allowing the Office to grant those under those criteria. Randall Kamm asked if that were two separate documents. Jack responded yes, but that the Building Board is the appellate body for the Housing Code, Fire Code, Sign Code (structural features) and the Building Code. There is a new set of criteria that we need to get to you where you would want to look at them as opposed to us. But, in the interim we would still continue to issue those under the old criteria until we come back. Public Comment: None At 4:15pm, Don Heck moved to adjourn. Motion seconded by James Drake. Motion carried. Respectfully submitted, Christine Segerlind Secretary Draft date: Approved date: cc: Mayor's Office Board Secretary City Clerk's Office Building Safety Office Staff Representatives Appeal folders Appeal applicants Public file-original 9 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING /�Nv S DEPAR NG DEVELOPMENT NEIGHBORHOOD 316 N.Capitol Avenue,Suites C-1 •Lansing MI 48933-1238 (517)483-4355•FAX: (517)377-0169 BUILDING SAFETY OFFICE ICHZG David C. Hollister, Mayor OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE AP EALS LANSING BUILDING BOARD OF Held at 316 N. Capitol Ave. at 2:00 pm Tuesday, August 14, 2001 Au ust 2001 meeting of the City of Lansing Building Board of Chairman Randall Kamm called the 9 Appeals to order at 2:10 P.M. Chairman Members Present: Dandall Kamm, onald Heck, Vice Chairman James Drake, Architect Members Absent: Dean Taylor Staff Present: Christine Segerlind, Secretary Brian Davis, Assistant Seshal cretary Brenda Jodway, eco ding Petitioners Present: Michael Reid public Present: None e new Building Board of Appeals member, James Drake, Architect Christine Segerlind introduced t h representative. Old Business: he approval of the June 12, 2001 minutes.a nu Don seconded by James Chairman Kamm asked for es made a motion to approve th corrections and with those chang Drake. Motion carried unanimously. New Business: petit Adder Case No.: Michael Reid BBA-008-2001 314 E. Michigan Michael Reid was present for the Appeal. The building in question is located at 314 E. Michigan Avenue andlis known as "The Exchange.". Mr. Reid would like to install a spiral stairway to the second floor that is not intended as a means of egress. Mr. Reid stated that the bar does not have the capacity to maintain space for all the customers and would like to use the second floor. The spiral stairway would be located in the service area and would be utilized to service the upstairs area. Mr. Heck wanted clarification that only employees would use it. Mr. Reid responded yes. There will be two exits from the second floor. One is an exterior stair at the back of the building. A second exit is proposed through the adjoining building. There was discussion on adequate exit illumination and signage for the customers. Brian Davis, Assistant Fire Marshal said the existing exit through the exterior stairway is appropriate. Jack Nelson, Manager, Building Safety Office, said that upon his inspection of the building, the exit signage and illumination were fine. Brian Davis stated he would like to work with the applicant in verifying that there is adequate illumination and signage on the other side of the wall in the adjoining building if this is to be used as the second exit. He also would like the spiral stair signed as "NOT AN EXIT." He will work with the applicant on locking devices on the doors in the exit path. The building in question is sprinklered. The application was filed under the 1997 Uniform Building Code. Don Heck made a motion to allow use of a 6' diameter spiral service staircase at 314 E. Michigan Avenue pursuant to all necessary inspections by the Building Safety and Fire Departments. Seconded by James Drake the motion carried unanimously. Public Comment: None At 2:28 pm, James Drake moved to adjourn seconded by Don Heck. Motion carried unanimously. Respectfully submitted, OR Christine Segerlind, Secretary Draft Date: August 23, 2001 Approved Date: cc: Mayor's Office Appeal applicants City Clerk's Office Appeal folders Board Secretary Public file—original � S 1 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND v�. G NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT 316 N.Capitol Avenue,Suites C-1 &C-2 • Lansing MI 48933-1238 (517)483-4355•FAX: (517)377-0169 BUILDING SAFETY jcHtG David C. Hollister, Mayor OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY OF LANSING BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS Held at 316 N. Capitol Ave. at 2:00 pm Tuesday, June 12, 2001 Chairman Randall Kamm called the June 12, 2001 meeting of the City of Lansing Building Board of Appeals to order at 2:12 p.m. Members present: Randall Kamm, Chairman Donald Heck, Vice Chairman Dean Taylor Members absent: (Vacancy) Staff Present: er Bpi n Davis, Assick A. Nelson, stant tantF re Marshal Jon Wadsworth, Building Inspector Randy Eberbach, Code Compliance Officer Vince Cantrell, Code Compliance Officer Brenda Jodway, Recording Secretary Petitioners Present: Jackie L. Mudget— 1209 Whyte Robert Rogers — 517 W. Sh awassee St. Lester J. Morgan—701 Isbel ST. & 214 E. Elm St. Public Present: None Chairman Kamm asked for the approval of the May 22, 2001 minutes. Don Heck made a motion to approve the minutes. Motion seconded by Dean Taylor. Motion carried. Old Business: Case No.: Address: Petitioner: BBA-001-2001 1209 Whyte St. Jackie Mudget Jackie Mudget was present for this appeal. On January 29, 2001, Gary Carrick, Code Compliance Officer issued a Housing Code Correction Notice that declared the dwelling substandard due in part to inadequate ceiling height. Ms. Mudget is requesting a variance to authorize the use of that room for sleeping purposes. There was discussion about the window size and smoke detection. Ms. Mudget said that all rooms had fire extinguishers and battery backed-up smoke detectors, but that the smoke detectors were probably not hard-wired. After some discussion, Don Heck made a motion to allow the room to be used as a bedroom if hard-wired smoke detectors were installed throughout the house. Seconded by Dean Taylor it was approved unanimously. Ms. Mudget questioned if the room is vacant, is there a time limit on the corrections? Jack Nelson, Manager, Building Safety Office, confirmed with Eleanor Love, Manager, Code Compliance Office, that it is Code Compliance policy that as long as the correction is finished and inspected prior to occupancy, there is no time limit. New Business: Case No.: Address: Petitioner: BBA-007-2001 517 W. Shiawassee St. Robert& Cheryl Rogers Mr. Robert Rogers was present for this appeal. On May 8, 2001, Scott Sanford, Code Compliance Officer issued a Housing Code Correction Notice citing the premise for inadequate ceiling height in sleeping rooms and hallway and inadequate egress since the two exits, one interior and one exterior, are not remote and the exterior stairway had to be accessed through a window. There are five sleeping rooms on the 3rd Floor. Mr. Rogers is aggrieved and is requesting a hearing before the Board. Jack Nelson, Manager, Building Safety, stated that the Board should not address the issue pertaining to the remoteness of exits since there are no provisions in the Housing Code pertaining to that issue. There was additional discussion regarding early fire detection and the time and ability to exit the 3rd floor, especially if the fire started on the 1st or 2nd floors limiting the ability to exit through them. Dean Taylor moved to require a door leading to the exterior fire escape and a rope or stationary ladder out the front of the house. Don Heck stated that he would like to give the owner flexibility in installing a door or larger window and would like to have exit illumination installed. Dean Taylor proposed a revised motion to approve the request to continue use of the bedrooms on the third floor with the addition of the proper door or window to the fire escape, with easy access to open it with no special tools required, exit illumination in the hallway and an egress structure which could consist of a rung or rope ladder on the front to get down on the porch. It was approved unanimously. ' Case No.: Address: Petitioner: BBA 005A-2001 701 Isbel St. Mr. Lester J. Morgan Mr. Lester Morgan was present for this case. On April 19, 2001 Mr. Randy Eberbach, Code Compliance Officer issued a Housing Code Correction Notice ordering all supply and return air duct work cleaned by a professional duct cleaner. Mr. Morgan is requesting a modification or reversal of the Enforcing Officer's decision. Jack Nelson, Manager, Building Safety, explained that this had already been taken to the Mechanical Board. The Mechanical Board referred it to the Building Board. Gary Biddinger, Chief Mechanical Inspector, stated that when he inspected there was not enough debris to be hazardous. Don Heck made a motion pursuant to section 1460.39 Duct Systems, Sub-section A— General as reported by Gary Biddinger, Mechanical Inspector, upon his inspection that there is no hazard and the ducts are capable of performing their required functions. The Field Correction Notice is consequently reversed. Seconded by Dean Taylor the motion carried unanimously. Case No.: Address: Petitioner: BBA 00513-2001 701 Isbel St. Mr. Lester J. Morgan Mr. Lester Morgan was present for this case. On April 19, 2001 Mr. Randy Eberbach, Code Compliance Officer, issued a Housing Code Correction Notice ordering ground Fault Protection on outlets the kitchen counters in all four of the Rental Units. Mr. Rogers is requesting relief from the GFCI requirement made by the Code Compliance Department. This had already been taken to the Electrical Board of Appeals. The Electrical Board held that the case lacked standing and referred the case to the Building Board of Appeals. There was discussion about the outlets in each of the four units. Don Heck made a motion that any existing outlets within 6ft of a water source shall be GFI protected. Seconded by Dean Taylor the motion carried unanimously. Case No.: Address: Petitioner: BBA 005C-2001 701 Isbel St. Mr. Lester J. Morgan Mr. Lester Morgan was present for this case. On April 19, 2001 Mr. Randy Eberbach, Code Compliance Officer, issued a Housing Code Correction Notice that required several corrections on a Rental Unit that the Owner contends will remain unoccupied. Mr. Rogers is requesting a modification or reversal of the Enforcing Officer's decision. Don Heck made a motion to uphold the enforcing officer's decision on repairs to cap the open gas main, to repair the exposed wires at the ceiling, repair the loose toilet and the removal of the non- absorbent floor covering be upheld. The other items, provided Unit-4 is not being used, do not need to be repaired until prior to such time when Unit-4 is used. Seconded by Dean Taylor the motion carried unanimously. Case No.: Address: Petitioner: BBA 006-2001 214 E. Elm St Mr. Lester J. Morgan Mr. Lester Morgan was present for this case. On April 18, 2001, Vince Cantrell, Code Compliance Officer, issued a Housing Code Correction Notice that required several corrections on a Rental dwelling. Mr. Rogers is aggrieved and requesting a modification or reversal of the Enforcing Officer's decision. Jack Nelson, Building Safety Manager requested that the porch be addressed first so Brian Davis, Assistant Fire Marshall and Jon Wadsworth, Building Inspector could be excused. Vince Cantrell, Code Compliance Officer, after making the inspection requested that Jon Wadsworth, Building Inspector for that area, make an inspection. Mr. Wadsworth made the inspection on April 3, 2001 and noted in his report that he found the system to be in poor structural condition. The deck sheathing and framing has rotted, the support posts have twisted and deflected as well as undersized. He cannot determine proper footings are in place. The stairs do not meet the rise and run, the steps are not level in either direction. Proper handrails are not in place and the guardrails do not meet code. Mr. Morgan asked Jon to give an explanation, which he did and there was some additional discussion. Don Heck made a motion to uphold the Code Compliance Officer's findings that the system needs to be evaluated by a licensed Architect or Engineer to determine it's structural soundness and if in their professional opinion any changes need to be made, the appropriate plans and submittals need to be made to the City. Seconded by Dean Taylor the motion carried unanimously. The remaining corrections refer solely to the third floor/Unit-5, which is not being used. Don Heck made a motion that prior to use of the top unit/Unit-5 as a rental the items sited in the Housing Code Correction Notice dated April 18, 2001 be corrected and re-inspected by the appropriate City Officials. Seconded by Dean Taylor the motion carried unanimously. Other Business: Don Heck had a question for Jack from the last meeting, May 22, 2001 regarding Kendall Perry and 224 Crest. We gave them some time frames to complete some of those issues, one being 15 months and one being 60 days. What if they attempt to or actually sell the property in that window without making the repairs? Does our decision go with the property? Jack responded yes! Don just wanted to be sure it wasn't just going to go with the owner. Public Comment: None At 5:05 pm, Don Heck moved to adjourn. Motion seconded by Dean Taylor. Motion carried. Respectfully submitted, Christine 2Seger�lind, Secre ary Draft date: Approved date: ell cc: Mayor's Office Appeal applicants City Clerk's Office Appeal folders Board Secretary Public file-original ye'1� SING DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT 316 N.Capitol Avenue, Suites C-1 &C-2 • Lansing MI 48933-1238 (517)483-4355• FAX: (517)377-0169 1 c H 1 G BUILDING SAFETY David C. Hollister, Mayor OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY OF LANSING BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS Held at 316 N. Capitol Ave. at 2:00 pm Tuesday, June 12, 2001 Chairman Randall Kamm called the June 12, 2001 meeting of the City of Lansing Building Board of Appeals to order at 2:12 p.m. Members present: Randall Kamm, Chairman Donald Heck, Vice Chairman Dean Taylor Members absent: (Vacancy) Staff Present: Jack A. Nelson, Manager Brian Davis, Assistant Fire Marshal Jon Wadsworth, Building Inspector Randy Eberbach, Code Compliance Officer Vince Cantrell, Code Compliance Officer Brenda Jodway, Recording Secretary Petitioners Present: Jackie L. Mudget— 1209 Whyte Robert Rogers — 517 W. Shiawassee St. Lester J. Morgan — 701 Isbel ST. & 214 E. Elm St. Public Present: None Chairman Kamm asked for the approval of the May 22, 2001 minutes. Don Heck made a motion to approve the minutes. Motion seconded by Dean Taylor. Motion carried. Old Business: Case No.: Address: Petitioner: BBA-001-2001 1209 Whyte St. Jackie Mudget Jackie Mudget was present for this appeal. On January 29, 2001, Gary Carrick, Code Compliance Officer issued a Housing Code Correction Notice that declared the dwelling substandard due in part to inadequate ceiling height. Ms. Mudget is requesting a variance to authorize the use of that room for sleeping purposes. There was discussion about the window size and smoke detection. Ms. Mudget said that all rooms had fire extinguishers and battery backed-up smoke detectors, but that the smoke detectors were probably not hard-wired. After some discussion, Don Heck made a motion to allow the room to be used as a bedroom if hard-wired smoke detectors were installed throughout the house. Seconded by Dean Taylor it was approved unanimously. Ms. Mudget questioned if the room is vacant, is there a time limit on the corrections? Jack Nelson, Manager, Building Safety Office, confirmed with Eleanor Love, Manager, Code Compliance Office, that it is Code Compliance policy that as long as the correction is finished and inspected prior to occupancy, there is no time limit. New Business: Case No.: Address: Petitioner: BBA-007-2001 517 W. Shiawassee St. Robert & Cheryl Rogers Mr. Robert Rogers was present for this appeal. On May 8, 2001, Scott Sanford, Code Compliance Officer issued a Housing Code Correction Notice citing the premise for inadequate ceiling height in sleeping rooms and hallway and inadequate egress since the two exits, one interior and one exterior, are not remote and the exterior stairway had to be accessed through a window. There are five sleeping rooms on the 3rd Floor. Mr. Rogers is aggrieved and is requesting a hearing before the Board. Jack Nelson, Manager, Building Safety, stated that the Board should not address the issue pertaining to the remoteness of exits since there are no provisions in the Housing Code pertaining to that issue. There was additional discussion regarding early fire detection and the time and ability to exit the 3rd floor, especially if the fire started on the 1st or 2nd floors limiting the ability to exit through them. Dean Taylor moved to require a door leading to the exterior fire escape and a rope or stationary ladder out the front of the house. Don Heck stated that he would like to give the owner flexibility in installing a door or larger window and would like to have exit illumination installed. Dean Taylor proposed a revised motion to approve the request to continue use of the bedrooms on the third floor with the addition of the proper door or window to the fire escape, with easy access to open it with no special tools required, exit illumination in the hallway and an egress structure which could consist of a rung or rope ladder on the front to get down on the porch. It was approved unanimously. Case No.: Address: Petitioner: BBA 005A-2001 701 Isbell St. Mr. Lester J. Morgan Mr. Lester Morgan was present for this case. On April 19, 2001 Mr. Randy Eberbach, Code Compliance Officer issued a Housing Code Correction Notice ordering all supply and return air duct work cleaned by a professional duct cleaner. Mr. Morgan is requesting a modification or reversal of the Enforcing Officer's decision. Jack Nelson, Manager, Building Safety, explained that this had already been taken to the Mechanical Board. The Mechanical Board referred it to the Building Board. Gary Biddinger, Chief Mechanical Inspector, stated that when he inspected there was not enough debris to be hazardous. Don Heck made a motion pursuant to section 1460.39 Duct Systems, Sub-section A— General as reported by Gary Biddinger, Mechanical Inspector, upon his inspection that there is no hazard and the ducts are capable of performing their required functions. The Field Correction Notice is consequently reversed. Seconded by Dean Taylor the motion carried unanimously. Case No.: Address: Petitioner: BBA 005B-2001 701 Isbel St. Mr. Lester J. Morgan Mr. Lester Morgan was present for this case. On April 19, 2001 Mr. Randy Eberbach, Code Compliance Officer, issued a Housing Code Correction Notice ordering ground Fault Protection on outlets the kitchen counters in all four of the Rental Units. Mr. Rogers is requesting relief from the GFCI requirement made by the Code Compliance Department. This had already been taken to the Electrical Board of Appeals. The Electrical Board held that the case lacked standing and referred the case to the Building Board of Appeals. There was discussion about the outlets in each of the four units. Don Heck made a motion that any existing outlets within 6ft of a water source shall be GFI protected. Seconded by Dean Taylor the motion carried unanimously. Case No.: Address: Petitioner: BBA 005C-2001 701 Isbel St. Mr. Lester J. Morgan Mr. Lester Morgan was present for this case. On April 19, 2001 Mr. Randy Eberbach, Code Compliance Officer, issued a Housing Code Correction Notice that required several corrections on a Rental Unit that the Owner contends will remain unoccupied. Mr. Rogers is requesting a modification or reversal of the Enforcing Officer's decision. Don Heck made a motion to uphold the enforcing officer's decision on repairs to cap the open gas main, to repair the exposed wires at the ceiling, repair the loose toilet and the removal of the non- absorbent floor covering be upheld. The other items, provided Unit-4 is not being used, do not need to be repaired until prior to such time when Unit-4 is used. Seconded by Dean Heck the motion carried unanimously. Case No.: Address: Petitioner: BBA 006-2001 214 E. Elm St Mr. Lester J. Morgan Mr. Lester Morgan was present for this case. On April 18, 2001, Vince Cantrell, Code Compliance Officer, issued a Housing Code Correction Notice that required several corrections on a Rental dwelling. Mr. Rogers is aggrieved and requesting a modification or reversal of the Enforcing Officer's decision. Jack Nelson, Building Safety Manager requested that the porch be addressed first so Brian Davis, Assistant Fire Marshall and Jon Wadsworth, Building Inspector could be excused. Vince Cantrell, Code Compliance Officer, after making the inspection requested that Jon Wadsworth, Building Inspector for that area, make an inspection. Mr. Wadsworth made the inspection on April 3, 2001 and noted in his report that he found the system to be in poor structural condition. The deck sheathing and framing has rotted, the support posts have twisted and deflected as well as undersized. He cannot determine proper footings are in place. The stairs do not meet the rise and run, the steps are not level in either direction. Proper handrails are not in place and the guardrails do not meet code. Mr. Morgan asked Jon to give an explanation, which he did and there was some additional discussion. Don Heck made a motion to uphold the Code Compliance Officer's findings that the system needs to be evaluated by a licensed Architect or Engineer to determine it's structural soundness and if in their professional opinion any changes need to be made, the appropriate plans and submittals need to be made to the City. Seconded by Dean Taylor the motion carried unanimously. The remaining corrections refer solely to the third floor/Unit-5, which is not being used. Don Heck made a motion that prior to use of the top unit/Unit-5 as a rental the items sited in the Housing Code Correction Notice dated April 18, 2001 be corrected and re-inspected by the appropriate City Officials. Seconded by Dean Taylor the motion carried unanimously. Other Business: Don Taylor had a question for Jack from the last meeting, May 22, 2001 regarding Kendall Perry and 224 Crest. We gave them some time frames to complete some of those issues, one being 15 months and one being 60 days. What if they attempt to or actually sell the property in that window without making the repairs? Does our decision go with the property? Jack responded yes! Don just wanted to be sure it wasn't just going to go with the owner. Public Comment: None At 5:05pm, Randall Kamm moved to adjourn. Motion seconded by Dean Taylor. Motion carried. Respectfully submitted, �-Yr � Christine Segerlind, Secr ry Draft date: Approved date: cc: Mayor's Office Board Secretary City Clerk's Office Building Safety Office Staff Representatives Appeal folders Appeal applicants Public file-original yQ''�1 S 1 NG LiEPARTMENT OF �- L_ANNING AND NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT 316 N. Capitol Avenue,Suites C-1 &C-2 • Lansing MI 48933-1238 (517)483-4355•FAX: (517)377-0169 I c H t CG BUILDING SAFETY David C. Hollister, Mayor OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY OF LANSING BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS Held at 316 N. Capitol Ave. at 2:00 pm c� Tuesday, May 22, 2001 r The May 22, 2001 Special Meeting of the City of Lansing Building Board of Appeals was called to order at 2:05 p.m. by Chairman Randall Kamm. Members present: Randall Kamm, Chairman, Donald Heck, Vice Chairman and Dean Taylor Members absent: (Vacancy) Staff Present: Jack Nelson, Manager, Building Safety Office Brenda Jodway, Recording Secretary Brian Davis, Assistant Fire Marshal Petitioners Present: Mark Neuman - 1111 N. Walnut Kendall B. Perry - 224 Crest Public Present: David Porter, sole owner of 224 Crest and Partner to Kendall Perry Carol Bird, Tenant (many years), 224 Crest Chairman Kamm asked for the approval of the January 9, 2001 minutes. Don Heck made a motion to approve the minutes. Motion seconded by Dean Taylor. Motion carried. Old Business: BBA-001-2001 1209 Whyte St. Rescheduled for 6/12/01 New Business: BBA-003-2001 2010 E. Kalamazoo Withdrawn (AM-025-01) Case No.: Address: Petitioner: BBA-004-2001 1111 N. Walnut Mark Neuman Mr. Mark Neuman was present for this appeal. On April 16, 2001 Deloris Fuller, Code Compliance Officer issued a Housing Code Correction Notice which declared the dwelling substandard due in part to a room on the second floor used as a bedroom with inadequate room size and a window that does not meet egress requirements. Mr. Neuman is requesting a variance to authorize the use of that room room has less than the minimum square footage and width that are re Housing Code. He has had hardwired inter-connected smoke for sleeping purposes. The on the second floor. detectors installeddin both bedroom by the s Jack Nelson, Building Safety Manager read a note from Deloris Fuller, stating that she recommends approval of the room as a bedroom if casement window is installed. , Code Compliance Officer, a full size, fully opening After some discussion, Dean Taylor moved to allow for a motion to a new window that would meet proper egress. Seconded by Don Heck, approved approve the installation of a Don Heck moved that the 6'2 X11 long room with approximately pp ed unanimously. as a bedroom. Dean Taylor seconded it. Motion was proedu an s q. ft. be allowed to be used approved unanimously. Case No.: Address: BBA-002_2001 Petitioner: 224 Crest Kendall B. Perry was present for this appeal. Kendall B. Perry On February 16, 2001, Jim McCue, Code Compliance Officer, issued Notice, which declared the dwelling substandard due in part to issud window size or light r ventilation. a Housing Code Correction inadequate ceiling height, egress Mr. Perry is requesting a variance to continue the use of Unit #1 inadequate ceiling height or egress windows. There was discussion David Porter (sole owner) and long time tenant Carol Bird referring by(Basement Unit) that has an approved 3-unit Rental (lower level, main floor, and upstairs) e fact Perry, his partner and the hardship of the cost of the improvements to a bu to the fact that the house was involved. p ) upon the purchase 2 years prior building that was built prior to the Codes In reference to the issue of natural light and ventilation, Jack Nelson referred to the new State Building Code that will take effect on Jul mechanical (artificial) light & ventilation. , Building Safety Manager, have a higher standard than the Building odetaydbtc�°imenoeffective the HousingaCodle clam informed the Board Members that the house has a forced air furnace With longer be an issue. Mr. Perry After much discussion, Don Heck made a motion to wave the I� cold air return. a forced air furnace with fan to comply. Seconded by Dean Taylor and a fight and ventilation provided there is After additional discussion on the safety issue of the current window approved unanimously. Heck made a motion not to continue with the 2nd existing situation. size and ceiling height, Don was denied unanimously. Seconded by Dean Taylor it Don Heck made a recommendation that the egress windows need to could use a step up to the sill. It was also discussed that a window welenlarged but that they detectors were also discussed. Mr. Perry said two hardwired smoke detectors one in the laundry room and one in the hallway. There is also a regularbe installed. Smoke room. The lower ceiling height was still a safety issue because of had been installed, suggested that the two bedrooms in the basement would need i smoke detector in every the time to escape and it was together with battery backup. There was additional discussionodeteermininge detectors, hardwired which to require the improvements to be done. determining a reasonable time in Don Heck made a motion to approve unit #1 provided bedrooms 1 and 2 have proper sized egress windows, that the window wells comply with the technical requirements of the current Building Code, the unit comply with the requirements of the Building Code for smoke detection for new buildings and the use of a step to comply with sill height requirements, all to be installed within 15 months. Dean Taylor wanted to amend the motion to require the smoke detectors in a much shorter period of time. After some discussion 60 days was suggested. Don Heck made an amended motion to approve unit #1 provided bedrooms 1 and 2 have proper sized egress windows with wells and necessary adjustments to meet the sill adjustments, a step if necessary within 15 months and the battery backup, hardwired, attached smoke detectors installed within 60 days. Seconded by Dean Taylor it was approved unanimously. Other Business: None Public Comment: None At 3:50pm Don Heck moved to adjourn. Motion seconded by Dean Taylor. Motion carried. Respectfully submitted, �C Christine Segerlind, Secre ary Draft date: May 30, 2001 cc: Mayor's Office Board Secretary Approved date: City Clerk's Office Appeal folders Appeal applicants Public file-original S Inc C - =PARTMENT OF P: .�NNING AND NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT 316 N.Capitol Avenue,Suites C-1 &C-2 • Lansing MI 48933-1238 (517)483-4355•FAX: (517)377-0169 BUILDING SAFETY David C. Hollister, Mayor OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY OF LANSING BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS = Held at 316 N. Capitol Ave. at 2:00 pm `- Tuesday, May 22, 2001 - The May 22, 2001 Special Meeting of the City of Lansing Building Board of Appeals was called to order at 2:05 p.m. by Chairman Randall Kamm. Members present: Randall Kamm, Chairman, Donald Heck, Vice Chairman and Dean Taylor Members absent: (Vacancy) Staff Present: Jack Nelson, Manager, Building Safety Office Brenda Jodway, Recording Secretary Brian Davis, Assistant Fire Marshal Petitioners Present: Mark Neuman - 1111 N. Walnut Kendall B. Perry - 224 Crest Public Present: David Porter, sole owner of 224 Crest and Partner to Kendall Perry Carol Bird, Tenant (many years), 224 Crest Chairman Kamm asked for the approval of the January 9, 2001 minutes. Don Heck made a motion to approve the minutes. Motion seconded by Dean Taylor. Motion carried. Old Business: BBA-001-2001 1209 Whyte St. Rescheduled for 6/12/01 New Business: BBA-003-2001 2010 E. Kalamazoo Withdrawn (AM-025-01) Case No.: Address: Petitioner: BBA-004-2001 1111 N. Walnut Mark Neuman Mr. Mark Neuman was present for this appeal. On April 16, 2001 Deloris Fuller, Code Compliance Officer issued a Housing Code Correction Notice which declared the dwelling substandard due in part to a room on the second floor used as a bedroom with inadequate room size and a window that does not meet egress requirements. Mr. Neuman is requesting a variance to authorize the use of that room for sleeping purposes. The room has less than the minimum square footage and width that are required by the Lansing Housing Code. He has had hardwired inter-connected smoke detectors installed in both bedrooms on the second floor. Jack Nelson, Building Safety Manager read a note from Deloris Fuller, Code Compliance Officer, stating that she recommends approval of the room as a bedroom if a full size, fully opening casement window is installed. After some discussion, Dean Taylor moved to allow for a motion to approve the installation of a new window that would meet proper egress. Seconded by Don Heck, approved unanimously. Don Heck moved that the 6'2"X11' long room with approximately 68 sq. ft. be allowed to be used as a bedroom. Dean Taylor seconded it. Motion was approved unanimously. Case No.: Address: Petitioner: BBA-002-2001 224 Crest Kendall B. Perry Kendall B. Perry was present for this appeal. On February 16, 2001, Jim McCue, Code Compliance Officer, issued a Housing Code Correction Notice, which declared the dwelling substandard due in part to inadequate ceiling height, egress window size or light & ventilation. Mr. Perry is requesting a variance to continue the use of Unit #1 (Basement Unit) that has inadequate ceiling height or egress windows. There was discussion by Mr. Perry, his partner David Porter (sole owner) and long time tenant Carol Bird referring to the fact that the house was an approved 3-unit Rental (lower level, main floor, and upstairs) upon the purchase 2 years prior and the hardship of the cost of the improvements to a building that was built prior to the Codes involved. In reference to the issue of natural light and ventilation, Jack Nelson, Building Safety Manager, referred to the new State Building Code that will take effect on July 31, 2001 that will allow mechanical (artificial) light & ventilation. When that becomes effective the Housing Code can't have a higher standard than the Building Code and it will no longer be an issue. Mr. Perry informed the Board Members that the house has a forced air furnace with cold air return. After much discussion, Don Heck made a motion to wave the light and ventilation provided there is a forced air furnace with fan to comply. Seconded by Dean Taylor and approved unanimously. After additional discussion on the safety issue of the current window size and ceiling height, Don Heck made a motion not to continue with the 2"d existing situation. Seconded by Dean Taylor it was denied unanimously. Don Heck made a recommendation that the egress windows need to be enlarged but that they could use a step up to the sill. It was also discussed that a window well be installed. Smoke detectors were also discussed. Mr. Perry said two hardwired smoke detectors had been installed, one in the laundry room and one in the hallway. There is also a regular smoke detector in every room. The lower ceiling height was still a safety issue because of the time to escape and it was suggested that the two bedrooms in the basement would need to have smoke detectors, hardwired together with battery backup. There was additional discussion determining a reasonable time in which to require the improvements to be done. Don Heck made a motion to approve unit#1 provided bedrooms 1 and 2 have proper sized egress windows, that the window wells comply with the technical requirements of the current Building Code, the unit comply with the requirements of the Building Code for smoke detection for new buildings and the use of a step to comply with sill height requirements, all to be installed within 15 months. Dean Taylor wanted to amend the motion to require the smoke detectors in a much shorter period of time. After some discussion 60 days was suggested. Don Heck made an amended motion to approve unit #1 provided bedrooms 1 and 2 have proper sized egress windows with wells and necessary adjustments to meet the sill adjustments, a step if necessary within 15 months and the battery backup, hardwired, attached smoke detectors installed within 60 days. Seconded by Dean Taylor it was approved unanimously. Other Business: None Public Comment: None At 3:50pm Don Heck moved to adjourn. Motion seconded by Dean Taylor. Motion carried. Respectfully submitted, 2Christin;2Segerlind, Secre ary Draft date: May 30, 2001 Approved date: cc: Mayors Office Board Secretary City Clerk's Office Appeal folders Appeal applicants Public file-original s r �'c DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT 316 N. Capitol Avenue,Suites C-1 • Lansing MI 48933-1238 (517)483-4355• FAX: (517)377-0169 fC H t G A BUILDING SAFETY OFFICE David C. Hollister, Mayor OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY OF LANSING BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS Held at 316 N. Capitol Ave. at 2:00 pm Tuesday, May 8, 2001 Members present: Don Heck, Dean Taylor Members absent: Randall Kamm (Excused), Brian Taylor Staff Present: Christine Segerlind, Secretary Brian Davis, Assistant Fire Marshal Brenda Jodway, Recording Secretary The Building Board of Appeals did not have a quorum and the meeting was cancelled. A Special Meeting of the Building Board of Appeals will be held on May 22, 2001 at 2:00 P.M. in the Conference room located in the Building Safety Office at 316 N. Capitol Avenue, Suite C-1 , Lansing, MI 48933 Respectfully submitted, Cv�� _ Christine Segerlind, Secretary cc: Mayor's Office Board Secretary City Clerk's Office Appeal folders Appeal applicants Public file-original s I N� UEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT ~ - 316 N.Capitol Avenue,Suites C-1 &C-2-Lansing MI 48933-1238•(517)483-4355.FAX: (517)377-0169 BUILDING SAFETY AND CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICE �ICHjGP David C.Hollister,Mayor OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY OF LANSING BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS Held at 316 N. Capitol Ave. at 2:00 pm r? C-D January 9, 2001 ' The January 2001 meeting of the City of Lansing Building Board of Appeals was called to order at 2:02 p.m. by Chairman Randall Kamm. The following members were in attendance: Randall Kamm, Chairman Donald Heck, Vice Chairman Brian Taylor Dean Taylor Members absent: Staff Present: Christine Segerlind, Secretary Brian Davis, Assistant Fire Marshal Marsha Numerich, Recording Secretary Petitioners Present: William Rowan Public Present: Chairman Kamm asked for the approval of the July 11, 2000 minutes. Don Heck made a motion to approve the minutes as presented. Motion seconded by Dean Taylor. Motion carried. Old Business: none New Business: Case No.: Address: Petitioner: BBA-006-2000 St Mary Cathedral William Rowan, representing MSGR Michael Murphy 219 Seymour Present: William Rowan; Director of Music—St Mary Cathedral Building Board of Appeals Minutr January 9, 2001 2 Mr. Rowan spoke of the addition of a chair lift addition to the choir loft. The administration modification called for installation of fire detectors, a clear egress to get to the stairwell and a limit of 50 in the balcony. Mr. Rowan advised that there were three particular events during the year that there would be more than 50 people in the balcony. (Christmas, Easter and Occasional Special Services) St Mary's hope was for dispensation during these services. Brian Taylor inquired as to the area of the loft. Mr. Rowan was uncertain of the square footage. Randall Kamm inquired as to number of exits from loft. As shown on distributed pictures there are 2. Dean Taylor wondered if there would be loss of egress due to the chair lift and what would happen to the two exits. Mr. Rowan stated these would still be accessible, one through the director's office. Brian Davis inquired about the layout of the office and if the exits were clearly labeled. Mr. Rowan stated this could be used as an exit but the exits were not labeled though this could easily be achieved. Randall Kamm inquired as to the number of people in the loft at Christmas. Mr. Rowan said 56 this year and the most there have ever been at any given time was 67. Christine Segerlind asked if there was ever a time when the loft would have this number of children. Mr. Rowan assured her that there wouldn't. Brian Davis stated he saw no problem as long as when St Mary's predicts the number of occupants being more than 50 they contact the Fire Marshal's office for an inspection to be certain the doors are operable and not locked going down the stairwell. Exit signage shall also be installed at both stairs. Randall Kamm asked if there were any motions. Brian Taylor moved to approve the request as long as the conditions stated by the Building Safety Office Manager in the Administrative Modification and the recommendations by Brian Davis at this meeting are met. Don Heck asked if he understood correctly that this is to be whenever the occupancy was over 49, the answer was yes, and he seconded the motion. Other Business: none Public Comment: none At 2:25 pm , Don Heck moved to adjourn. Motion seconded by Dean Taylor. Motion carried. Respectfully submitted, Christine Segerlind Secretary Draft date: January 12, 2001 �� �cc: Mayor's Office Approved date: City Clerk's office Board Secretary Staff Representatives applicants Public file-original S I �G VEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT 316 N.Capitol Avenue,Suites C-1 &C-2-Lansing MI 48933-1238•(517)483-4355•FAX: (517)377-0169 BUILDING SAFETY AND CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICE David C.Hollister,Mayor -� OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY OF LANSING BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS Held at 316 N. Capitol Ave. at 2:00 pm ;v January 9, 2001 The January 2001 meeting of the City of Lansing Building Board of Appeals was called to order at 2:02 p.m. by Chairman Randall Kamm. The following members were in attendance: Randall Kamm, Chairman Donald Heck, Vice Chairman Brian Taylor Dean Taylor Members absent: Staff Present: Christine Segerlind, Secretary Brian Davis, Assistant Fire Marshal Marsha Numerich, Recording Secretary Petitioners Present: William Rowan Public Present: Chairman Kamm asked for the approval of the July 11, 2000 minutes. Don Heck made a motion to approve the minutes as presented. Motion seconded by Dean Taylor. Motion carried. Old Business: none New Business: Case No.: Address: Petitioner: BBA-006-2000 St Mary Cathedral William Rowan, representing MSGR Michael Murphy 219 Seymour Present: William Rowan; Director of Music—St Mary Cathedral Building Board of Appeals Minute, 2 January 9, 2001 Mr. Rowan spoke of the addition of a chair lift addition to the choir loft. The administration modification called for installation of fire detectors, a clear egress to get to the stairwell and a limit of 50 in the balcony. Mr. Rowan advised that there were three particular events during the year that there would be more than 50 people in the balcony. (Christmas, Easter and Occasional Special Services) St Mary's hope was for dispensation during these services. Brian Taylor inquired as to the area of the loft. Mr. Rowan was uncertain of the square footage. Randall Kamm inquired as to number of exits from loft. As shown on distributed pictures there are 2. Dean Taylor wondered if there would be loss of egress due to the chair lift and what would happen to the two exits. Mr. Rowan stated these would still be accessible, one through the director's office. Brian Davis inquired about the layout of the office and if the exits were clearly labeled. Mr. Rowan stated this could be used as an exit but the exits were not labeled though this could easily be achieved. Randall Kamm inquired as to the number of people in the loft at Christmas. Mr. Rowan said 56 this year and the most there have ever been at any given time was 67. Christine Segerlind asked if there was ever a time when the loft would have this number of children. Mr. Rowan assured her that there wouldn't. Brian Davis stated he saw no problem as long as when St Mary's predicts the number of occupants being more than 50 they contact the Fire Marshal's office for an inspection to be certain the doors are operable and not locked going down the stairwell. Exit signage shall also be installed at both stairs. Randall Kamm asked if there were any motions. Brian Taylor moved to approve the request as long as the conditions stated by the Building Safety Office Manager in the Administrative Modification and the recommendations by Brian Davis at this meeting are met. Don Heck asked if he understood correctly that this is to be whenever the occupancy was over 49, the answer was yes, and he seconded the motion. Other Business: none Public Comment: none At 2:25 pm , Don Heck moved to adjourn. Motion seconded by Dean Taylor. Motion carried. Respectfully submitted, Christine Segerlind Secretary Draft date: January 12, 2001 Approved date: cc: Mayor's Office City Clerk's Office Board Secretary Staff Representatives applicants Public file-original