Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBuilding Board of Appeals 2005 Minutes 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 �rI c H I BUILDING SAFETY OFFICE Tony Benavides,Mayor Date: November 29, 2005 To: City Clerk's Office City Council Offices City Hall Personnel Mayor's Office From: James Bennett'`, RE: BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING CANCELLATION NOTICE The regularly scheduled Building Board of Appeals Meeting for Tuesday, December 13, 2005, has been cancelled. The next regularly scheduled meeting will be Tuesday, January 10, 2006, at 2:00 pm in the Conference Room at 316 N. Capitol Ave., Suite C-3, Lansing, Michigan. cc: Board Members (4) Building Safety Lobby Board Secretary Appeal folders Applicants Public file-Original S I �G 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 j c H I G �' BUILDING SAFETY Tony Benavides, Mayor OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY OF LANSING BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS Held at 316 N. Capitol Ave. at 2:00 pm November 8, 2005 The November 8, 2005 meeting of the City of Lansing Building Board of Appeals was called to order at 2:42 p.m. by Chairman Randall Kamm. The following members were in attendance: Randall Kamm, Chairman Donald Heck, Vice Chairman Dean Taylor James Drake Members absent: None Staff Present: James Bennett, Secretary Brian Davis, Assistant Fire Marshal Brenda Jodway, Recording Secretary Petitioners Present: Shawn Elliot, Owner& David Vanderklok, Architect Public Present: None Chairman Kamm asked for the approval of the October 11, 2005 minutes. Don Heck made a motion to approve the minutes. Motion seconded by James Drake. Motion carried. Old Business: None New Business: Case No: Address: Petitioner: BBA-006-2005 208 S. Washington Sq. Shawn Elliot Chairman Randall Kamm stated that there are four members on the Board, one of which has to recuse himself, so only three of us will be voting on the appeal. Both, Mr. Shawn Elliot, Owner and Mr. David Vanderklok, Architect were present. Mr. Vanderklock explained that it was a 3-story building with a basement built in 1891. Sometime in the thirties, the stairway that goes from the 1st floor to the 2nd floor was removed, so the building was basically closed to the second the third floors for decades. Shawn is looking at what we can do to the inside of the building and also interested in pursuing the historical register on this particular property, so we were also going to revive the South Washington Square fagade back to it's original condition. We found that lofts are desirable in that corridor. We looked at leaving the first floor as future office space or what ever it may be. On the 2nd and 3rd floor we are proposing an apartment unit on the west and east half of each floor. Minutes of November 8,2005 Page 2 The first appeal is that we would like to keep those existing window openings on the third floor so that we can maintain window openings looking out onto the adjacent buildings. 1. If you look in the Building Code, openings in party walls or in walls with zero property lines are not permitted. Even though the Michigan Rehabilitation Code, which we are remodeling this building under, does not require us to fire suppress this building. What we are proposing to do is to fire suppress this entire structure. We would like to go ahead and put a fire suppression head at each one of these windows to essentially wash that point of the window if there ever is an issue. 2. Secondly, there is not a manual fire alarm system required in this building. We are proposing to increase the degree of safety by adding a manual fire alarm system to all floors of this building. There is a smoke detection system required in a residential unit, but not on the other floor. We are proposing to put a detection system throughout the Building. For the second appeal, we looked at this building, and because of the size of the building, it works out great to have the one ornamental stairs, but we ran into a lot of problems trying to get a common corridor and second enclosed stair in the back for a second exit. We actually meet all the criteria for a single exit from those upper units except one, which is the travel distance through the units. When you have a dwelling unit like an apartment or loft unit, you are limited to fifty feet of travel distance. The easterly unit, 2-A meets the 50 foot travel, but the westerly unit 2-13 does not meet that travel distance going from the proposed balcony out of the back to the enclosed exit stairway is about 73 feet. The 3`d floor is similar to the 2"d floor except about 67 feet. Our variance request would be to keep the single stair as the only means of exiting out of the upper two floors. What we are planning on doing to supplement those safety requirements is: 1. If we have the single exit, we will install a 1-hour fire rated exit enclosure around the stairs. 2. If the building is fully suppressed as we talked about doing in the first case, we don't necessarily have to provide egress windows out of the sleeping unit, but in this case we are proposing to provide egress windows. 3. We are not required to have manual pull stations for fire alarms but to increase the degree of safety we are proposing to have them on all levels of the building as the other smoke detection. 4. As stated earlier we are proposing to fully suppress this building even though the Renovation Code that we are under does not require them in this case. After some questions and discussion, Don Heck made a motion to grant the variance for the windows openings on the 3`d floor north and south party walls with the appropriate fire suppression as reviewed and approved by the Fire Marshall. Seconded by Dean Taylor, motion carried. After some additional discussion, Don Heck made a motion to grant the variance for the increase of travel distance and single point of egress in light of additional smoke detection on all floors, manual fire alarm pull stations on all floors, fire suppression system including department connection point on Washington Avenue and 1-hour fire rated stair enclosure. Seconded by Dean Taylor, motion carried. Other Business: None Public Comment: None At 3:20 p.m., Don Heck moved to adjourn. Motion seconded by James Drake. Motion carried. Res submitted James Bennett, Secretary Draft date: November 28, 2005 Approved date: cc: Mayor's Office Board Secretary City Clerk's Office Building Safety Office Staff Representatives Appeal folders Appeal applicants Public file-original 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 t c H 14' BUILDING SAFETY OFFICE Tony Benavides,Mayor Date: August 29, 2005 To: City Clerk's Office City Council Offices City Hall Personnel Mayor's Office From: James Bennett RE: BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING CANCELLATION NOTICE The regularly scheduled Building Board of Appeals Meeting for Tuesday, September 13, 2005, has been cancelled. The next regularly scheduled meeting will be Tuesday, October 11 , 2005, at 2:00 pm in the Conference Room at 316 N. Capitol Ave., Suite C-3, Lansing, Michigan. cc: Board Members (4) Building Safety Lobby Board Secretary Appeal folders Applicants Public file-Original S I G 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 I c H I BUILDING SAFETY Tony Benavides, Mayor OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY OF LANSING BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS Held at 316 N. Capitol Ave. at 2:00 pm July 12, 2005 The July 2005 meeting of the City of Lansing Building Board of Appeals was called to order at 2:50 p.m. by Chairman Randall Kamm. The following members were in attendance: c Randall Kamm, Chairman Donald Heck, Vice Chairman ``' J Dean Taylor Members absent: James Drake 77 17D r•7 Staff Present: James Bennett, Secretary G' Steve Bollenbaugh, Fire Marshal Steve Maloney, Code Compliance Officer Petitioners Present: Gregory Byrd Public Present: None Chairman Kamm asked for the approval of the June 14, 2005 minutes. Don Heck made a motion to approve the minutes. Motion seconded by Dean Taylor. Motion carried. Old Business: None New Business: Case No.: Address: Petitioner: BBA-004-2005 635 S. Foster St Gregory Byrd Mr. Bennett introduced the petitioner, Mr. Gregory Byrd, and Code Compliance Officer, Mr. Steve Maloney. Chairman Kamm invited Mr. Byrd to present his appeal. Mr. Byrd stated that he owns the house at 635 S. Foster, a registered rental property, that has a portion of the basement finished. Despite his prohibition in the lease, tenants regularly use this space as a bedroom (habitable space). At his most recent rental inspection Mr. Maloney cited the space as not complying with the requirements for habitable space and ordered the use of the space discontinued. Mr. Byrd is requesting that the space be permitted to be occupied as habitable space. Page 2—July 12,2005 Minutes The space has smoke detection and an emergency escape and rescue opening accessed across a ledge 41 inches deep and 39 inches above the finished floor. The opening of the casement window is hindered by the porch foundation resulting in a net clear opening area less than the required 5.7 square feet. The ceiling height in this portion of the basement is 6 feet 2 Y2 inches due to the construction of a raised wood floor; the ceiling height in the remainder of the basement is 6 feet 9 '/2 inches. Mr. Kamm asked the position of the Building Safety Office and the Fire Marshal. Both stated that they opposed granting the appeal and stated their reasons. After much discussion of various alternatives available to Mr. Byrd, Mr. Heck moved that the space be allowed to be occupied as habitable space (bedroom) once the following conditions are met. 1. Remove the raised wood floor in the 6 feet 2 %2 inch portion of the basement such that the basement has a uniform ceiling height of 6 feet 9 Y2 inches. 2. Move built in closet such that the space is one large room. 3. Remove the concrete ledge and shore up exterior wall footing at the escape window area such that access is directly to the window. 4. Remove and reinstall escape window such that the finished sill height is 44 inches or less above finished floor. 5. Modify porch foundation and window well such that escape window can open completely providing the required 5.7 square feet of net clear opening. 6. Obtain a Building Permit no later than 8/1/2005 and have all work completed, inspected, and approved before occupying the space. Second by Dean Taylor, motion passed unanimously. Other Business: None Public Comment: None At 3:40 p.m., Don Heck moved to adjourn. Motion seconded by Dean Taylor. Motion carried. Respectf submitted, ames Bennett, Secretary Draft date: July 18, 2005 Approved date: cc: Mayor's Office Board Secretary City Clerk's Office Building Safety Office Staff Representatives Appeal folders Appeal applicants Public file-original S I �G 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 I C H BUILDING SAFETY Tony Benavides, Mayor OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY OF LANSING BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS Held at 316 N. Capitol Ave. at 2:00 pm July 12, 2005 The July 2005 meeting of the City of Lansing Building Board of Appeals was called to order at 2:50 p.m. by Chairman Randall Kamm. The following members were in attendance: Randall Kamm, Chairman Donald Heck, Vice Chairman Dean Taylor Members absent: James Drake Staff Present: James Bennett, Secretary 77r' Steve Bollenbaugh, Fire Marshal c Steve Maloney, Code Compliance Officer Petitioners Present: Gregory Byrd Public Present: None Chairman Kamm asked for the approval of the June 14, 2005 minutes. Don Heck made a motion to approve the minutes. Motion seconded by Dean Taylor. Motion carried. Old Business: None New Business: Case No.: Address: Petitioner: BBA-004-2005 635 S. Foster St Gregory Byrd Mr. Bennett introduced the petitioner, Mr. Gregory Byrd, and Code Compliance Officer, Mr. Steve Maloney. Chairman Kamm invited Mr. Byrd to present his appeal. Mr. Byrd stated that he owns the house at 635 S. Foster, a registered rental property, that has a portion of the basement finished. Despite his prohibition in the lease, tenants regularly use this space as a bedroom (habitable space). At his most recent rental inspection Mr. Maloney cited the space as not complying with the requirements for habitable space and ordered the use of the space discontinued. Mr. Byrd is requesting that the space be permitted to be occupied as habitable space. Page 2—July 12,2005 Minutes The space has smoke detection and an emergency escape and rescue opening accessed across a ledge 41 inches deep and 39 inches above the finished floor. The opening of the casement window is hindered by the porch foundation resulting in a net clear opening area less than the required 5.7 square feet. The ceiling height in this portion of the basement is 6 feet 2 Y2 inches due to the construction of a raised wood floor; the ceiling height in the remainder of the basement is 6 feet 9 Y2 inches. Mr. Kamm asked the position of the Building Safety Office and the Fire Marshal. Both stated that they opposed granting the appeal and stated their reasons. After much discussion of various alternatives available to Mr. Byrd, Mr. Heck moved that the space be allowed to be occupied as habitable space (bedroom) once the following conditions are met. 1. Remove the raised wood floor in the 6 feet 2 '/2 inch portion of the basement such that the basement has a uniform ceiling height of 6 feet 9 '/ inches. 2. Move built in closet such that the space is one large room. 3. Remove the concrete ledge and shore up exterior wall footing at the escape window area such that access is directly to the window. 4. Remove and reinstall escape window such that the finished sill height is 44 inches or less above finished floor. 5. Modify porch foundation and window well such that escape window can open completely providing the required 5.7 square feet of net clear opening. 6. Obtain a Building Permit no later than 8/1/2005 and have all work completed, inspected, and approved before occupying the space. Second by Dean Taylor, motion passed unanimously. Other Business: None Public Comment: None At 3:40 p.m., Don Heck moved to adjourn. Motion seconded by Dean Taylor. Motion carried. Respectf submitted, ames Bennett, Secretary Draft date: July 18, 2005 Approved date: cc: Mayor's Office Board Secretary City Clerk's Office Building Safety Office Staff Representatives Appeal folders Appeal applicants Public file-original 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 I C H I G BUILDING SAFETY Tony Benavides, Mayor OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY OF LANSING BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS Held at 316 N. Capitol Ave. at 2:00 pm July 12, 2005 The July 2005 meeting of the City of Lansing Building Board of Appeals was called to order at 2:50 p.m. by Chairman Randall Kamm. The following members were in attendance: Randall Kamm, Chairman Donald Heck, Vice Chairman Dean Taylor Members absent: James Drake Staff Present: James Bennett, Secretary Steve Bollenbaugh, Fire Marshal Steve Maloney, Code Compliance Officer Petitioners Present: Gregory Byrd Public Present: None Chairman Kamm asked for the approval of the June 14, 2005 minutes. Don Heck made a motion to approve the minutes. Motion seconded by Dean Taylor. Motion carried. Old Business: None New Business: Case No.: Address: Petitioner: BBA-004-2005 635 S. Foster St Gregory Byrd Mr. Bennett introduced the petitioner, Mr. Gregory Byrd, and Code Compliance Officer, Mr. Steve Maloney. Chairman Kamm invited Mr. Byrd to present his appeal. Mr. Byrd stated that he owns the house at 635 S. Foster, a registered rental property, that has a portion of the basement finished. Despite his prohibition in the lease, tenants regularly use this space as a bedroom (habitable space). At his most recent rental inspection Mr. Maloney cited the space as not complying with the requirements for habitable space and ordered the use of the space discontinued. Mr. Byrd is requesting that the space be permitted to be occupied as habitable space. Page 2—July 12,2005 Minutes The space has smoke detection and an emergency escape and rescue opening accessed across a ledge 41 inches deep and 39 inches above the finished floor. The opening of the casement window is hindered by the porch foundation resulting in a net clear opening area less than the required 5.7 square feet. The ceiling height in this portion of the basement is 6 feet 2 '/2 inches due to the construction of a raised wood floor; the ceiling height in the remainder of the basement is 6 feet 9 Y2 inches. Mr. Kamm asked the position of the Building Safety Office and the Fire Marshal. Both stated that they opposed granting the appeal and stated their reasons. After much discussion of various alternatives available to Mr. Byrd, Mr. Heck moved that the space be allowed to be occupied as habitable space (bedroom) once the following conditions are met. 1. Remove the raised wood floor in the 6 feet 2 Y2 inch portion of the basement such that the basement has a uniform ceiling height of 6 feet 9 Y2 inches. 2. Move built in closet such that the space is one large room. 3. Remove the concrete ledge and shore up exterior wall footing at the escape window area such that access is directly to the window. 4. Remove and reinstall escape window such that the finished sill height is 44 inches or less above finished floor. 5. Modify porch foundation and window well such that escape window can open completely providing the required 5.7 square feet of net clear opening. 6. Obtain a Building Permit no later than 8/1/2005 and have all work completed, inspected, and approved before occupying the space. Second by Dean Taylor, motion passed unanimously. Other Business: None Public Comment: None At 3:40 p.m., Don Heck moved to adjourn. Motion seconded by Dean Taylor. Motion carried. Respectf submitted, ames Bennett, Secretary Draft date: July 18, 2005 Approved date: cc: Mayor's Office Board Secretary City Clerk's Office Building Safety Office Staff Representatives Appeal folders Appeal applicants Public file-original S I �G DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT 316 N.Capitol Avenue,Suites C-1 &C-2 • Lansing MI 48933-1238 (517)483-4355 9 FAX: (517)377-0169 BUILDING SAFETY Tony Benavides, Mayor OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY OF LANSING BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS Held at 316 N. Capitol Ave. at 2:00 pm October 11 , 2005 The October 2005 meeting of the City of Lansing Building Board of Appeals was called to order at 2:03 p.m. by Chairman Randall Kamm. The following members were in attendance: Randall Kamm, Chairman Dean Taylor James Drake Members absent: Donald Heck, Vice Chairman Staff Present: James Bennett, Secretary Brian Davis, Assistant Fire Marshal Brenda Jodway, Recording Secretary Petitioners Present: James Aubuchon, Keystone Design Group Ted Clark, Owner's Representative Public Present: None Chairman Kamm asked for the approval of the June 14, 2005 minutes. Dean Taylor made a motion to approve the minutes. Motion seconded by James Drake. Motion carried. Old Business: None New Business: Case No: Address: Petitioner: BBA-005-2005 5212 Aurelius Road James Aubuchon Keystone Design Group James Aubuchon, Design Professional for Keystone Design Group and Ted Clark, Director of Facility Risk Management, representing the owner of Symmetry Medical-Jet, were both present. James Aubuchon explained that what they are proposing is an alternative means of accomplishing a requirement of the Building Code, Section 507.4 in the Michigan Building Code. It allows the reduction of open space around an unlimited area building. That section requires a 40 foot fire separation distance and that walls 40 to 60 feet from the property line are to receive a three hour October 11,2 'Building Board Minutes—Page 2 fire rating. The plan that you looked at shows the south property line falls 22.92 feet at the closest point to the exterior building wall. What we are proposing to do is sprinkler that wall, add the 3 hour rated wall, and additionally augment the fire rating with additional fire suppression that is concentrated on that wall. We have worked closely with the Building Department and the Fire Department to work out a plan for accomplishing this. Within the packets that you we mailed to you, there is a letter from American Fire Protection that maps out our idea on how to augment fire suppression for that wall. We also have included in the 24x36 sheets showing two wall sections for accomplishing the fire rating on that exterior wall. So, essentially we're asking for the additional fire suppression to account for the decrease in the distance from the property line to allow this building to become an unlimited building. After some discussion Mr. Aubuchon explained that any openings will be protected with 3 hour fire rating. He also explained that they are purchasing an additional 50 feet on a portion of the south property line which will put the percent of the total perimeter that is open 60 feet or more to 86% that complies with the Code and only 14% that we're looking at granting the variance. After some additional discussion, Randall Kamm asked Brian Davis, Assistant Fire Marshall' if he had any comments. He said they had worked with Keystone and American Fire and he was comfortable with the proposal and his feeling on this is that the time & distance are an equal trade off. After a little more discussion, Randall Kamm asked if there were any other concerns from the Board Members. There were none, so James Drake made a motion to approve the variance as long as it meets all the requirements of the Fire Department and their procurement of the property. Seconded by Dean Taylor, the motion carried unanimously. Other Business: None Public Comment: None At 2:23 p.m., James Drake moved to adjourn. Motion seconded by Dean Taylor. Motion carried. Respectfully submitted, James Bennett Secretary Draft date: October 21, 2005 Approved date: cE cc: Mayors Office Board Secretary City Clerk's Office Building Safety Office Staff Representatives Appeal folders Appeal applicants Public file-original 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 I C H I Cs 4' BUILDING SAFETY Tony Benavides, Mayor OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY OF LANSING BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS Held at 316 N. Capitol Ave. at 2:00 pm October 11, 2005 The October 2005 meeting of the City of Lansing Building Board of Appeals was called to order at 2:03 p.m. by Chairman Randall Kamm. The following members were in attendance: Randall Kamm, Chairman Dean Taylor James Drake Members absent: Donald Heck, Vice Chairman Staff Present: James Bennett, Secretary Brian Davis, Assistant Fire Marshal Brenda Jodway, Recording Secretary Petitioners Present: James Aubuchon, Keystone Design Group Ted Clark, Owner's Representative Public Present: None Chairman Kamm asked for the approval of the June 14, 2005 minutes. Dean Taylor made a motion to approve the minutes. Motion seconded by James Drake. Motion carried. Old Business: None New Business: Case No: Address: Petitioner: BBA-005-2005 5212 Aurelius Road James Aubuchon Keystone Design Group James Aubuchon, Design Professional for Keystone Design Group and Ted Clark, Director of Facility Risk Management, representing the owner of Symmetry Medical-Jet, were both present. James Aubuchon explained that what they are proposing is an alternative means of accomplishing a requirement of the Building Code, Section 507.4 in the Michigan Building Code. It allows the reduction of open space around an unlimited area building. That section requires a 40 foot fire separation distance and that walls 40 to 60 feet from the property line are to receive a three hour October 11," Building Board Minutes—Page 2 fire rating. The plan that you looked at shows the south property line falls 22.92 feet at the closest point to the exterior building wall. What we are proposing to do is sprinkler that wall, add the 3 hour rated wall, and additionally augment the fire rating with additional fire suppression that is concentrated on that wall. We have worked closely with the Building Department and the Fire Department to work out a plan for accomplishing this. Within the packets that you we mailed to you, there is a letter from American Fire Protection that maps out our idea on how to augment fire suppression for that wall. We also have included in the 24x36 sheets showing two wall sections for accomplishing the fire rating on that exterior wall. So, essentially we're asking for the additional fire suppression to account for the decrease in the distance from the property line to allow this building to become an unlimited building. After some discussion Mr. Aubuchon explained that any openings will be protected with 3 hour fire rating. He also explained that they are purchasing an additional 50 feet on a portion of the south property line which will put the percent of the total perimeter that is open 60 feet or more to 86% that complies with the Code and only 14% that we're looking at granting the variance. After some additional discussion, Randall Kamm asked Brian Davis, Assistant Fire Marshall if he had any comments. He said they had worked with Keystone and American Fire and he was comfortable with the proposal and his feeling on this is that the time & distance are an equal,trade off. After a little more discussion, Randall Kamm asked if there were any other concerns from the Board Members. There were none, so James Drake made a motion to approve the variance as long as it meets all the requirements of the Fire Department and their procurement of the property. Seconded by Dean Taylor, the motion carried unanimously. Other Business: None Public Comment: None At 2:23 p.m., James Drake moved to adjourn. Motion seconded by Dean Taylor. Motion carried. Res ectfully submitted, James Bennett Secretary Draft date: October 21, 2005 Approved date: cc: Mayor's Office Board Secretary City Clerk's Office Building Safety Office Staff Representatives Appeal folders Appeal applicants Public file-original S 1 'c DEPA. TMENT OF PLANN "IG 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 1 G BUILDING SAFETY Tony Benavides, Mayor OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY OF LANSING BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS Held at 316 N. Capitol Ave. at 2:00 pm JUNE 14, 2005 The June 2005 meeting of the City of Lansing Building Board of Appeals was called to order at 2:00 p.m. by Chairman Randall Kamm. The following members were in attendance: Randall Kamm, Chairman Donald Heck, Vice Chairman Dean Taylor James Drake Members absent: None Staff Present: Jim Bennett, Secretary Brian Davis, Assistant Fire Marshal Brenda Jodway, Recording Secretary Ken Lane, City Attorney's Office Brian Cook, City Attorney's Office Petitioners Present: Eleanor Love, Manager, Code Compliance Office Public Present: Mr. Michael Tobin, President, Group Five Management Co. Chairman Kamm asked for the approval of the May 10, 2005 minutes. Don Heck made a motion to approve the minutes. Motion seconded by James Drake. Motion carried. Old Business: Case No.: Address: Petitioner: BBA-002-2005 101/225 E. Edgewood Blvd. Ms. Eleanor Love Randall Kamm stated that at the last Board Meeting we tabled appeal number BBA-002-05 pending an opinion from the City Attorney's office regarding some issues that were laid out and we now have that opinion. After much discussion, Don Heck clarified with Ken Lane of the City Attorney's Office that because the Electrical Board was without jurisdiction to render a ruling in essence no ruling was ever rendered. It can only be looked at as an advisory opinion. So there is nothing to overturn. There is no action for the Building Board of Appeals to take because the ordinance is clear that they have jurisdiction. After some additional discussion, the Board determined that there was no action for this Board to make. Eleanor Love withdrew her appeal. Page 2-Building Board of Appeals June 14,2005—',utes. Mr. Bennett made it clear to Mr. Tobin that if he chooses to proceed with an appeal to the Building Board of Appeals that the $100.00 fee would be waved because he was acting in good faith when had paid it to the Electrical Board , which he was referred to by no fault of his own. New Business: None Other Business: None At 2:50 p.m., Don Heck moved to adjourn. Motion seconded by James Drake. Motion carried. Resp lly submitted, Jim Bennett, Secretary Draft date: June 23, 2005 Approved date: cc: Mayor's Office Board Secretary City Clerk's Office Building Safety Office Staff Representatives Appeal folders Appeal applicants Public file-original S I G DEPA .TMENT OF PLANK' JG 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 i G BUILDING SAFETY Tony Benavides, Mayor OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY OF LANSING BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS Held at 316 N. Capitol Ave. at 2:00 pm JUNE 14, 2005 The June 2005 meeting of the City of Lansing Building Board of Appeals was called to order at 2:00 p.m. by Chairman Randall Kamm. The following members were in attendance: Randall Kamm, Chairman Donald Heck, Vice Chairman Dean Taylor James Drake Members absent: None Staff Present: Jim Bennett, Secretary Brian Davis, Assistant Fire Marshal Brenda Jodway, Recording Secretary Ken Lane, City Attorney's Office Brian Cook, City Attorney's Office Petitioners Present: Eleanor Love, Manager, Code Compliance Office Public Present: Mr. Michael Tobin, President, Group Five Management Co. Chairman Kamm asked for the approval of the May 10, 2005 minutes. Don Heck made a motion to approve the minutes. Motion seconded by James Drake. Motion carried. Old Business: Case No.: Address: Petitioner: BBA-002-2005 101/225 E. Edgewood Blvd. Ms. Eleanor Love Randall Kamm stated that at the last Board Meeting we tabled appeal number BBA-002-05 pending an opinion from the City Attorney's office regarding some issues that were laid out and we now have that opinion. After much discussion, Don Heck clarified with Ken Lane of the City Attorney's Office that because the Electrical Board was without jurisdiction to render a ruling in essence no ruling was ever rendered. It can only be looked at as an advisory opinion. So there is nothing to overturn. There is no action for the Building Board of Appeals to take because the ordinance is clear that they have jurisdiction. After some additional discussion, the Board determined that there was no action for this Board to make. Eleanor Love withdrew her appeal. Page."2-Building Board of Appeals June 14,2005• -'-iutes. Mr. Bennett made it clear to Mr. Tobin that if he chooses to proceed with an appeal to the Building Board of Appeals that the $100.00 fee would be waved because he was acting in good faith when had paid it to the Electrical Board , which he was referred to by no fault of his own. New Business: None Other Business: None At 2:50 p.m., Don Heck moved to adjourn. Motion seconded by James Drake. Motion carried. Resp Ily submitted, Jim Bennett, Secretary Draft date: June 23, 2005 Approved date: U- ,� ,� f� � C'C)>� cc: Mayor's Office Board Secretary City Clerk's Office Building Safety Office Staff Representatives Appeal folders Appeal applicants Public file-original DEP " RTMENT OF PLAN" ING 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 Tony Benavides, Mayor OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY OF LANSING BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS Held at 316 N. Capitol Ave. at 2:00 pm MAY 10, 2005 The MAY 2005 meeting of the City of Lansing Building Board of Appeals was called to order at 2:03 p.m. by Chairman Randall Kamm. The following members were in attendance: Randall Kamm, Chairman Donald Heck, Vice Chairman Dean Taylor Members absent: James Drake Staff Present: Jim Bennett, Secretary Brian Davis, Assistant Fire Marshal Brenda Jodway, Recording Secretary Jim McCue, Chief Code Compliance Officer Kevin Goforth, Code Compliance Officer Craig Whitford, Code Compliance Officer Ken Lane, City Attorney's Office Petitioners Present: Eleanor Love, Manager, Code Compliance Office Mr. Brian Huggler Public Present: Mr. Michael Tobin, President, Group Five Management Co. Mr. Barry Wood, Keystone Design Group Chairman Kamm asked for the approval of the April 12, 2005 minutes. Don Heck made a motion to approve the minutes. Motion seconded by Dean Taylor. Motion carried. Old Business: None New Business: Case No.: Address: Petitioner: BBA-002-2005 101/225 E. Edgewood Blvd. Ms. Eleanor Love BBA-003-2005 307 '/z E. Grand River Ave. Mr. Brian Huggler Randall Kamm stated that there was a request to take the cases out of order because Craig Whitford, the Code Compliance Officer has an inspection scheduled, so we will start with case number BBA-003-2005 regarding 307 '/2 E. Grand River Avenue to go first. The petitioner is Mr. Brian Huggler. Jim Bennett introduced Mr. Huggler and Mr. Barry Wood, Architect with Keystone Design Group. Mr. Huggler stated that Mr. Craig 1/\/hitford came out to do the rental inspection on this building that has two loft apartments that sit er two store fronts, 307 'h and 30� are the specific apartments. He bought the building as a licensed rental property. When the license was up for renewal this year, it was brought to his attention that two rooms being used as bedrooms do not have the required emergency escape and rescue openings or enough natural lighting and ventilation. So he asked Mr. Wood if he would design a plan that would make it so that he could use the rooms as legal bedrooms and keep it as a rental property. After much discussion by Mr. Wood and Mr. Huggler with Mr. Bennett & the Board Members a solution was found that all parties could agree to. Mr. Huggler voluntarily withdrew his appeal and will submit construction drawings for permit. Mr. Kamm said we are moving on to case number BBA-002-2005 which is an apartment complex at 101/225 E. Edgewood Boulevard. Mr. Bennett introduced Ms. Eleanor Love, Manager of the Code Compliance Office, as the petitioner. Ms. Love explained that the Lansing Housing Code has an appeal process. That appeals process specifies that any appeal regarding a requirement of the Housing Code must go directly to the Building Board of Appeals. There was an appeal filed previously by Group Five Management Company, the management company for Willowwood Apartments on Edgewood Boulevard. The appeal requested that they not be required to replace existing plugs with GFCI plugs in the kitchens of the units because it was not required by NEC (National Electrical Code). The appeal should have gone to the Building Board of Appeals, but it was sent to the Electrical Board of Appeals in error. The Electrical Board ruled that replacement was not required by the NEC and subsequently agreed with the management company that they are not required to put the plugs in. Ms. Love stated following reasons why the Code Compliance Office feels that the appeal was improper: 1. Because even though the Building Board could ask for input on the appeal from the Electrical Board, the issue should ultimately to be decided by the Building Board of Appeals. 2. The appeal shouldn't have been about if it was required in the NEC or not, but if the Housing Code requires it. The Housing Code very clearly requires GFCI plugs within six feet of the water source in both the bathroom and the kitchen. 3. No notification of the Electrical Board meeting was ever given to the Code Compliance Office. So it is the request of Code Compliance Office that the previous decision of the Electrical Board be set aside. Because it is time for this property to be inspected again, the Code Compliance Office would like it made clear that GFCI plugs are required by the Housing Code and that the Housing Code is the appropriate Code with jurisdiction, and because it is a life safety issue there is no good reason for this requirement to be waived. Mr. Bennett, as a point of full disclosure, stated that he owns a residential rental property within the City of Lansing and that it is subject to inspection by the Code Compliance Office, but that he is representing the Building Safety Office and not the Rental Property Owners Association or any other individual or organization. Mr. Bennett stated that the Michigan Building Code, Michigan Rehabilitation Code for Existing Buildings, Michigan Plumbing Code, Michigan Mechanical Code, Michigan Electrical Code, and the International Property Maintenance Code, are the codes that are adopted by State Law (act 230 of 1972). Each of these codes would permit legally existing installations to remain until such time as they are altered, replaced, or repaired. After much discussion between a; rties, it was determined that a legal op i was needed from the City Attorney's office regarding the following points: 1. Does the Home Rule Cities Act (act 279 of 1909 or other statute that may apply) give a locally adopted Housing Code superiority over the State adopted construction codes? Further, does the act permit the locally adopted Housing Code to be more restrictive that the State codes? 2. Does the Building Board of Appeals have the authority to set aside the ruling of the Electrical Board of Appeals on a matter not properly before the Electrical Board? 3. Does the petitioner, who through no fault of their own, had their appeal heard by an inappropriate Appeals Board, gain any vested rights based upon the decision of that Board? Further, does the petitioner gain any vested rights based upon the length of time between the Board ruling and the appeal of that ruling by the Code Compliance Office? Dean Taylor made a motion to table the appeal until the legal opinions can be obtained, Seconded by Don Heck, motion carried. Other Business: None At 3:07p.m., Don Heck moved to adjourn. Motion seconded by Dean Taylor. Motion carried. Re c Ily submitted, Jim Bennett, Secretary Draft date: May 19, 2005 JiGt� aD�� cc: Mayor's Office Board Secretary Approved date: q City Clerk's Office Building Safety Office Staff Representatives Appeal folders Appeal applicants Public file-original y�� S ING DER RUMENT OF PLAN' ' LNG AND NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT 316 N.Capitol Avenue,Suites C-1 &C-2 • Lansing MI 48933-1238 (517)483-4355•FAX: (517)377-0169 !C H I G A BUILDING SAFETY Tony Benavides, Mayor OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY OF LANSING BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS Held at 316 N. Capitol Ave. at 2:00 pm MAY 10, 2005 The MAY 2005 meeting of the City of Lansing Building Board of Appeals was called to order at 2:03 p.m. by Chairman Randall Kamm. The following members were in attendance: Randall Kamm, Chairman Donald Heck, Vice Chairman Dean Taylor Members absent: James Drake Staff Present: Jim Bennett, Secretary Brian Davis, Assistant Fire Marshal Brenda Jodway, Recording Secretary Jim McCue, Chief Code Compliance Officer Kevin Goforth, Code Compliance Officer Craig Whitford, Code Compliance Officer Ken Lane, City Attorney's Office Petitioners Present: Eleanor Love, Manager, Code Compliance Office Mr. Brian Huggler Public Present: Mr. Michael Tobin, President, Group Five Management Co. Mr. Barry Wood, Keystone Design Group Chairman Kamm asked for the approval of the April 12, 2005 minutes. Don Heck made a motion to approve the minutes. Motion seconded by Dean Taylor. Motion carried. Old Business: None New Business: Case No.: Address: Petitioner: BBA-002-2005 101/225 E. Edgewood Blvd. Ms. Eleanor Love BBA-003-2005 3071h E. Grand River Ave. Mr. Brian Huggler Randall Kamm stated that there was a request to take the cases out of order because Craig Whitford, the Code Compliance Officer has an inspection scheduled, so we will start with case number BBA-003-2005 regarding 307 '/2 E. Grand River Avenue to go first. The petitioner is Mr. Brian Huggler. Jim Bennett introduced Mr. Huggler and Mr. Barry Wood, Architect with Keystone Design Group. Mr. Huggler stated that Mr. Craig V""itford came out to do the rental inspectio- on this building that has two loft apartments that sit ar two store fronts, 307 Y2 and 309 are the specific apartments. He bought the building as a licensed rental property. When the license was up for renewal this year, it was brought to his attention that two rooms being used as bedrooms do not have the required emergency escape and rescue openings or enough natural lighting and ventilation. So he asked Mr. Wood if he would design a plan that would make it so that he could use the rooms as legal bedrooms and keep it as a rental property. After much discussion by Mr. Wood and Mr. Huggler with Mr. Bennett & the Board Members a solution was found that all parties could agree to. Mr. Huggler voluntarily withdrew his appeal and will submit construction drawings for permit. Mr. Kamm said we are moving on to case number BBA-002-2005 which is an apartment complex at 1011225 E. Edgewood Boulevard. Mr. Bennett introduced Ms. Eleanor Love, Manager of the Code Compliance Office, as the petitioner. Ms. Love explained that the Lansing Housing Code has an appeal process. That appeals process specifies that any appeal regarding a requirement of the Housing Code must go directly to the Building Board of Appeals. There was an appeal filed previously by Group Five Management Company, the management company for Willowwood Apartments on Edgewood Boulevard. The appeal requested that they not be required to replace existing plugs with GFCI plugs in the kitchens of the units because it was not required by NEC (National Electrical Code). The appeal should have gone to the Building Board of Appeals, but it was sent to the Electrical Board of Appeals in error. The Electrical Board ruled that replacement was not required by the NEC and subsequently agreed with the management company that they are not required to put the plugs in. Ms. Love stated following reasons why the Code Compliance Office feels that the appeal was improper: 1. Because even though the Building Board could ask for input on the appeal from the Electrical Board, the issue should ultimately to be decided by the Building Board of Appeals. 2. The appeal shouldn't have been about if it was required in the NEC or not, but if the Housing Code requires it. The Housing Code very clearly requires GFCI plugs within six feet of the water source in both the bathroom and the kitchen. 3. No notification of the Electrical Board meeting was ever given to the Code Compliance Office. So it is the request of Code Compliance Office that the previous decision of the Electrical Board be set aside. Because it is time for this property to be inspected again, the Code Compliance Office would like it made clear that GFCI plugs are required by the Housing Code and that the Housing Code is the appropriate Code with jurisdiction, and because it is a life safety issue there is no good reason for this requirement to be waived. Mr. Bennett, as a point of full disclosure, stated that he owns a residential rental property within the City of Lansing and that it is subject to inspection by the Code Compliance Office, but that he is representing the Building Safety Office and not the Rental Property Owners Association or any other individual or organization. Mr. Bennett stated that the Michigan Building Code, Michigan Rehabilitation Code for Existing Buildings, Michigan Plumbing Code, Michigan Mechanical Code, Michigan Electrical Code, and the International Property Maintenance Code, are the codes that are adopted by State Law (act 230 of 1972). Each of these codes would permit legally existing installations to remain until such time as they are altered, replaced, or repaired. After much discussion between all ties, it was determined that a legal opi, was needed from the City Attorney's office regarding the following points: 1. Does the Home Rule Cities Act (act 279 of 1909 or other statute that may apply) give a locally adopted Housing Code superiority over the State adopted construction codes? Further, does the act permit the locally adopted Housing Code to be more restrictive that the State codes? 2. Does the Building Board of Appeals have the authority to set aside the ruling of the Electrical Board of Appeals on a matter not properly before the Electrical Board? 3. Does the petitioner, who through no fault of their own, had their appeal heard by an inappropriate Appeals Board, gain any vested rights based upon the decision of that Board? Further, does the petitioner gain any vested rights based upon the length of time between the Board ruling and the appeal of that ruling by the Code Compliance Office? Dean Taylor made a motion to table the appeal until the legal opinions can be obtained, Seconded by Don Heck, motion carried. Other Business: None At 3:07p.m., Don Heck moved to adjourn. Motion seconded by Dean Taylor. Motion carried. Re c Ily submitted, Jim Bennett, Secretary Draft date: May 19, 2005 Approved date: cc: Mayors Office Board Secretary City Clerk's Office Building Safety Office Staff Representatives Appeal folders Appeal applicants Public file-original S 1 NG 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 I C H I Cs BUILDING SAFETY Tony Benavides, Mayor OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY OF LANSING BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS Held at 316 N. Capitol Ave. at 2:00 pm April 12, 2005 The April 2005 meeting of the City of Lansing Building Board of Appeals was called to order at 2:00 p.m. by Chairman Randall Kamm. Members Present: Randall Kamm, Chairman Dean Taylor James Drake Members absent: Donald Heck, Vice Chairman Staff Present: Jim Bennett, Secretary Brian Davis, Assistant Fire Marshal Brenda Jodway, Recording Secretary Petitioners Present: David Ferguson, Ferguson Development Ms. Kristin DeRidder, Hobbs & Black Architects Public Present: None Chairman Kamm asked for the approval of the November 9, 2004 minutes with one correction to the spelling of his name. James Drake made a motion to approve the minutes. Motion seconded by Dean Taylor. Motion carried. Old Business: None New Business: Case No.: Address: Petitioner: BBA-001-2005 North Turner Street Hobbs & Black Architects Jim Bennett, Interim Chief Plan Review Analyst for the City of Lansing, introduced David Ferguson, owner of the project and Ms. Kristen DeRidder representing Hobbs & Black. Ms. DeRidder explained that they are doing a residential project of ten detached two-family dwelling units and according to the Michigan Residential Code all of the exterior walls have to have a weatherproof finish. We would like to construct the exterior walls of the two-family dwelling units, with a fire separation distance of zero, as one hour fire rated walls without weatherproofing. The arguments in support of this are: 1. In case there is a fire in one of the units, the weatherproofing of the adjacent dwelling would most like be seriously damaged and would need to be replaced anyway. 2. In case that one two-family unit would be destroyed by fire the insurance would cover the weatherproofing of the wall that would then become exposed to the weather. 3. All the two-family dwelling units will be managed by an Association and this Association would guarantee to take care of that in case one two-family unit is destroyed by fire the exterior separation wall would be covered. Also, we would like to run the roofing over the whole roof area for the same reason, that if one two-family unit's roof is destroyed by a fire, most likely the roofing of the adjacent dwelling's would be damaged and need to be replaced anyway. Mr. Kamm asked Mr. Ferguson if he had anything he would like to add and Mr. Ferguson said no that Ms. DeRidder had done an excellent job of explaining it. Mr. Kamm asked for the City's response to shed some light on the Code requirements. Mr. Bennett responded that these are an extension of Mr. Ferguson's North Turner Street condominium project. From the street they appear to be townhouses, though they don't meet the strict definition of a townhouse, because they have one unit above the other and a strict townhouse is all one unit from the foundation to the roof. They don't want to construct townhouses because they'll have more than four of them together and then they will then have to comply with some barrier free requirements and it is difficult for them given their site grades and elevations, the slopes are quite dramatic, so on and so forth. So as design professional they have chosen to build these as essentially detached duplexes, there will be four of them on Turner Street and six on Dodge River. Normally dwelling units under the Residential Code would have a three foot fire separation distance, so you could build two houses six feet apart and not have to rate the exterior walls. What they are proposing to do is to build those two dwelling units with essentially a fire separation distance of zero. Once you get less than three feet the Code requires that that wall be of one-hour fire resistant construction tested from both sides. So you end up with two, one-hour walls separated by a small air space. The Residential Code also requires that that envelope of the dwelling be weatherproofed. Since they have a separation that's so small, their contention, and I would agree, is that if one of the units burned away, and you had vinyl siding or any type of siding on that remaining unit, it would be so damaged that it would have to be replaced anyway. Since they are going to seal it off at the roof, neither of those walls is actually subjected to weather under normal circumstances. They would only be subjected to weather if one of those units should burn out in-between. Brian Davis and I have just a couple concerns. We would like to see the roof sheathing on each side of that fire wall of a fire resistant sheathing back at least four feet from the exterior walls. Mr. Davis asked if the rating runs all the way to the peak, what would be the gable? Mr. Bennett answered yes. We would like to see fire retard treated plywood four feet on each side of those two walls that have a fire separation distance of zero. We're not opposed if they essentially butt the plywood roofs up against each other and shingle right across them and eliminate the little piece of metal flashing that they show in their wall section. I think that was kind of Hobbs & Black's original desire was to not make it look strange and it would be a maintenance problem. We as the City and Fire Department do not have a problem just shingling straight across so they have one monolithic looking roof, provided that there's really a structural break at each one of those dwelling units. Our other concern is if you look at sheet 5.4 where it shows a partial elevation, you'll notice that there is a dormer section there that actually straddles one of those separations, which occurs twice on the Turner side and three times on the Dodge River side. Our concern is that if that is constructed the way they normally are, that should one of the units on either side of that particular dormer catch fire, the fire could get into the dormer and would be transferred to the other unit. Mr. Davis said they were talking about extending the fire resistant treatment out or making those dormers of combustible construction. Ms. DeRidder responded that the fire rated walls are going all the way up the center, inside the dormers. Mr. Bennett clarified that the exterior wall went all the way up in the center of the dormer so if one side goes, half the dormer will go too? Ms. DeRidder said yes. Mr. Kamm asked if the wall is going to go all the way to the peak of the dormer. Ms. DeRidder said yes. Jim Bennett said they are trying to match the appearance of the existing fagade that is already there. After much additional discussion James Drake made a motion that they approve their alternate method with the stipulation that they put the fire rated roof sheathing four feet on either side as requested by the Fire Department. Seconded by Dean Taylor, motion carried. Other Business: Randall Kamm asked Board Member Mr. James Drake if he would like to be re-appointed for another term with the Building Board of Appeals. Mr. Drake accepted. Public Comment: None At 2:58, James Drake moved to adjourn. Motion seconded by Dean Taylor. Motion carried. Resp y submitted, Jim Bennett Secretary Draft date: 4/28/05� Approved date: cc: Mayor's Office Board Secretary City Clerk's Office Building Safety Office Staff Representatives Appeal folders Appeal applicants Public file-original S I DEPARTMENT ARTMENT 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 �r BUILDING SAFETY ICHIC' Tony Benavides,Mayor OFFICIAL PRoc G B sIN BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS Held at 316 N. Capitol Ave. at 2:00 pm April 12, 2005 AA The April 2005 meeting of the City of Lansing Building Board of Appeals was called to order at 2:00 p.m. by Chairman Randall Kamm. Members Present: Randall Kamm, Chairman Dean Taylor James Drake Members absent: Donald Heck, Vice Chairman Staff Present: Jim Bennett, Secretary Brian Davis, Assistant Fire Marshal Brenda Jodway, Recording Secretary Petitioners Present: uson Development Ms. Kristin I Ferguson,DeRidderg Hobbs & Black Architects Public Present: None Chairman Kamm asked for the approval of the November 9, 2004 minutes with one correction to the spelling of his name. James Drake made a motion to approve the minutes. Motion seconded by Dean Taylor. Motion carried. Old Business: None New Business: Address: Petitioner: Case No.: Hobbs & Black Architects BBA-001-2005 North Turner Street Jim Bennett, Interim Chief Plan Review ten DeRidder Analyst for the City of representing Hobbs g& Bla�kuced David Ferguson, owner of the project and Ms. K ten two-fam Ms. DeRidder explained that they are doing o Residentialal Code1alltoffthe exdteraohwalls have Ito ly dwelling units and according to the Michigan have a weatherproof finish. We wou� like oof zero,construct asthe one�hour fireerior llrat d of thwalls without e to-family dwelling units, with a fire separation istance weatherproofing. The arguments in support of this are: 1. In case there is a fire in one of the units, the weatherproofing of the adjacent dwelling would most like be seriously damaged and would need to be replaced anyway. 2. In case that one two-family unit would be destroyed by fire the insurance would cover the weatherproofing of the wall that would then become exposed to the weather. 3. All the two-family dwelling units will be managed by an Association and this Association would guarantee to take care of that in case one two-family unit is destroyed by fire the exterior separation wall would be covered. Also, we would like to run the roofing over the whole roof area for the same reason, that if one two-family unit's roof is destroyed by a fire, most likely the roofing of the adjacent dwelling's would be damaged and need to be replaced anyway. Mr. Kamm asked Mr. Ferguson if he had anything he would like to add and Mr. Ferguson said no that Ms. DeRidder had done an excellent job of explaining it. Mr. Kamm asked for the City's response to shed some light on the Code requirements. Mr. Bennett responded that these are an extension of Mr. Ferguson's North Turner Street condominium project. From the street they appear to be townhouses, though they don't meet the strict definition of a townhouse, because they have one unit above the other and a strict townhouse is all one unit from the foundation to the roof. They don't want to construct townhouses because they'll have more than four of them together and then they will then have to comply with some barrier free requirements and it is difficult for them given their site grades and elevations, the slopes are quite dramatic, so on and so forth. So as design professional they have chosen to build these as essentially detached duplexes, there will be four of them on Turner Street and six on Dodge River. Normally dwelling units under the Residential Code would have a three foot fire separation distance, so you could build two houses six feet apart and not have to rate the exterior walls. What they are proposing to do is to build those two dwelling units with essentially a fire separation distance of zero. Once you get less than three feet the Code requires that that wall be of one-hour fire resistant construction tested from both sides. So you end up with two, one-hour walls separated by a small air space. The Residential Code also requires that that envelope of the dwelling be weatherproofed. Since they have a separation that's so small, their contention, and I would agree, is that if one of the units burned away, and you had vinyl siding or any type of siding on that remaining unit, it would be so damaged that it would have to be replaced anyway. Since they are going to seal it off at the roof, neither of those walls is actually subjected to weather under normal circumstances. They would only be subjected to weather if one of those units should burn out in-between. Brian Davis and I have just a couple concerns. We would like to see the roof sheathing on each side of that fire wall of a fire resistant sheathing back at least four feet from the exterior walls. Mr. Davis asked if the rating runs all the way to the peak, what would be the gable? Mr. Bennett answered yes. We would like to see fire retard treated plywood four feet on each side of those two walls that have a fire separation distance of zero. We're not opposed if they essentially butt the plywood roofs up against each other and shingle right across them and eliminate the little piece of metal flashing that they show in their wall section. I think that was kind of Hobbs & Black's original desire was to not make it look strange and it would be a maintenance problem. We as the City and Fire Department do not have a problem just shingling straight across so they have one monolithic looking roof, provided that there's really a structural break at each one of those dwelling units. Our other concern is if you look at sheet 5.4 where it shows a partial elevation, you'll notice that there is a dormer section there that actually straddles one of those separations, which occurs twice on the Turner side and three times on the Dodge River side. Our concern is that if that is constructed the way they normally are, that should one of the units on either side of that particular dormer catch fire, the fire could get into the dormer and would be transferred to the other unit. Mr. Davis said they were talking about extending the fire resistant treatment out or making those dormers of combustible construction. Ms. DeRidder responded that the fire rated walls are going all the way up the center, inside the dormers. Mr. Bennett clarified that the exterior wall went all the way up in the center of the dormer so if one side goes, half the dormer will go too? Ms. DeRidder said yes. Mr. Kamm asked if the wall is going to go all the way to the peak of the dormer. Ms. DeRidder said yes. Jim Bennett said they are trying to match the appearance of the existing fagade that is already there. After much additional discussion James Drake made a motion that they approve their alternate method with the stipulation that they put the fire rated roof sheathing four feet on either side as requested by the Fire Department. Seconded by Dean Taylor, motion carried. Other Business: Randall Kamm asked Board Member Mr. James Drake if he would like to be re-appointed for another term with the Building Board of Appeals. Mr. Drake accepted. Public Comment: None At 2:58, James Drake moved to adjourn. Motion seconded by Dean Taylor. Motion carried. Resp y submitted, Jim Bennett Secretary Draft date: 4/28/05 Approved date: cc: Mayors Office Board Secretary City Clerk's Office Building Safety Office Staff Representatives Appeal folders Appeal applicants Public file-original SING DEPHRTMENT OF PLAN , SING 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 BUILDING SAFETY OFFICE Tony Benavides,Mayor Date: February 17, 2005 To: City Clerk's Office City Council Offices City Hall Personnel Mayor's Office \�rom: Christine Segerlind RE: BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING CANCELLATION NOTICE The regularly scheduled Building Board of Appeals Meeting for Tuesday, March 8, 2004, has been cancelled. The next regularly scheduled meeting will be Tuesday, April 12; 2004, at 2:00 pm in the Conference Room at 316 N. Capitol Ave., Suite C-3, Lansing, Michigan. cc: Board Members (4) Building Safety Lobby Board Secretary Appeal folders Applicants Public file - Original SI �G DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT 316 N. CAPITOL AVENUE• SUITE C-1 •LANSING, MI 48933-1238 • (517)483-4355 jcHIG � BUILDING SAFETY OFFICE Tony Benavides, Mayor January 21, 2005 To: City Clerk's Office City Council Office City Hall Personnel Mayor's Office From: Christine Segerlind Chief Plan Analyst RE: BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING CANCELLATION NOTICE The regularly scheduled Building Board of Appeals Meeting for Tuesday, February 8,2005, has been cancelled. The next regularly scheduled meeting will be Tuesday, March 8, 2005, at 2:00 pm in the Conference Room at 316 N. Capitol Avenue, Suite C-3, Lansing, MI. Cc: Board Members (4) Building Safety Lobby Board Secretary Appeal folders Applicants Public file- Original ® Please Recycle "Equal Opportunity Employer" SI �G DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT 316 N. CAPITOL AVENUE • SUITE C-1 • LANSING,MI 48933-1238 • (517)483-4355 c H I G BUILDING SAFETY OFFICE Tony Benavides, Mayor December 28, 2003 To: City Clerk's Office City Council Office City Hall Personnel Mayor's Office From: Christine Segerlind RE: BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING CANCELLATION NOTICE The regularly scheduled Building Board of Appeals Meeting for Tuesday, January 11, 2005, has been cancelled. The next regularly scheduled meeting will be Tuesday, February 8, 2005, at 2:00 pm in the Conference Room at 316 N. Capitol Avenue, Suite C-3, Lansing, MI. Cc: Board Members (4) Building Safety Lobby Board Secretary Appeal folders Applicants Public file- Original ® Please Recycle "Equal Opportunity Employer"