Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989 Buliding Board of Appeals Minutes FINAL OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS of the BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS January 17, 1989 A special meeting of the City of Lansing Building Board of Appeals was held on Tuesday, January 17, 1989, at 2:00 p.m. in the Building Safety Division, 119 North Washington Square, Lower Level , Lansing, Michi.gan. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Richard Stuckman at 2:03 p.m. with the roll call showing the following members present: Richard Stuckman, Chairperson Richard Jones, Vice Chairperson Frank Throop, Member Members Absent: Randall Kamm, Member Mark Harger, Member Staff Present: Jack Nelson, Chief Plan Review Analyst Joseph Delaney, Chief Plumbing Inspector Robert O'Brien, Fire Marshal On a motion by Mr. Throop, supported by Mr. Stuckman, the minutes of the December 13, 1988, meeting were approved subject to the following corrections: Page 3 - Item #3 - 4th line: Change 2h to 2 hours. Page 3 - Item #4 - 5th line: Change pass to passed. Page 3 - Item #4 - oth line: Change 10s to 10 Sections. OLD BUSINESS: None NEW BUSINESS: Appeal #89-001: Ganton Retirement Center An application for appeal has been filed by Lloyd G. Ganton seeking relief from the enforcing officers decision to require that garbage disposals . be installed in all kichenettes at the Edgewood Living Center which is located at 200 W. Edgewood Blvd. , Lansing, Michigan. LANSING CITY CLERK OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS of the MAY 17 3 uPHIS BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS BY May 9, 1989 The regular meeting of the City of Lansing, Building Board of Appeals was held on Tuesday, May 9, 1989, at 2:00 p.m. in the Building Safety Division, 119 N. Washington Square Annex, Lower Level , Lansing Michigan. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Richard Stuckman at 3:00 p.m. with the roll call showing the following members present: Members Present: Richard Stuckman, Chairman Frank Throop, Member Randall Kamm, Member Members Absent: Richard Jones Staff Present: Jack Nelson, Chief Plan Review Analyst Robert O'Brien, Fire Marshal On a motion by Mr. Throop, supported by Mr. Kamm, the minutes of the January 17, 1989, special meeting were approved as printed. OLD BUSINESS: None NEW BUSINESS: Appeal #89-003: Chirstman Company An application for appeal was filed by Mr. Larry Macklin of the Christman Company, 221 South Grand Avenue, Lansing, Michigan. The appeal request was made to construct an 8' high fence conforming to Section 4407(c) of the Uniform Building Code, 1985 Edition as a means of pedestrian protection. The fence would be constructed from the Northwest corner of the Black and Tan Bar, then East 88' , a distance of 6 ' from the bar. The fence would create an exitway to Grand Avenue for the required exit from the bar. Section 4407(a) of the Lansing Uniform Building Code requires a fence and canopy since the subject area is within the sphere of influence of the proposed grand tower. Building Board of Appeals Minutes May 9, 1989 Page 2 Mr. Macklin presented his case stating that the operating hours of the bar are 10:00 a.m. - 2:00 a.m. from the small bar located in the front of the building, and 9:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m. for the large assembly area located in the rear of the bar. Mr. Macklin stated that the occupants who would exit through the two North exits would do so primarily during periods when no construction is in progress, thus posing no danger of falling objects to pedestrians. Further discussion on the topic substantiated that the northwest exit door which opened on to the unprotected area was a required exit for the smaller front bar which had a calculated occupant load of 92. After continued discussion, Mr. Kamm moved that a variance be granted from Section 4407(c) of the Lansing Uniform Building Code. The variance will allow the use of 8' high opaque fence for use as pedestrian protection along the North side of the building except the Northwest exit shall be protected from the exit discharge to Grand Avenue a sufficient distance to discharge occupants outside of the sphere of influence. Motion seconded by Mr. Throop. Motion carried unanimously. In support of this variance the Board makes the following findings of fact: The entire length of the exit need not have a canopy since the second exit (the Northeast) exit will only be utilized during non-working hours. This variance is predicated upon compliance with the following condi- tions: 1. The construction of the pedestrian protection shall comply with Chapter 44 of the Uniform Building Code. 2. The enclosed portion of the pedestrian protection shall be lighted. 3. Should the hours of operation of the Black and Tan change such that the Northeast exit is utilized during construction hours, a protective canopy shall be constructed immediately. 4. The applicant shall submit written confirmation of the hours of operation of the Black and Tan. Building Board of Appeals Minutes May 9, 1989 Page 3 Appeal #89-004 An application for appeal was filed by Daniel R. Johnson of Hobbs and Black Associates, Inc. , 100 N. State Street, Ann Arbor, Michigan. The appeal was filed on behalf of Gentilozzi Real Estate. The nature of the request concerned how the separation between the exterior wall of the proposed Grand Tower and the property line would be measured. Section 1803(b) of the Building Code requires that the separation distance be measured from the exterior wall of a building to the adjacent properlty line or center line of a public way. The Grand Tower is apparently being constructed on a parcel of property which was purchased from the City of Lansing and has an irrevocable life-time lease for public access through the property. Consequently, a question has risen as to whether the distance for protection of openings on the North and South wall should be measured to the property line, or the center of the easement. After considerable discussion, Mr. Throop moved that action on the case be tabled until the next Board meeting in order to provide time for the consummation of the written agreements between the concerned parties. Upon completion of the following items the appeal will be granted. Second, that the Board of Appeals recommend that language be drafted as a part of the agreement between the parties which would define the public access easement as not adversely effecting the construc- tion of the Grand Tower Building; that is to say for purposes of construction the City would not treat the easement as a public way. Third, that Gentilozzi Real Estate grant an easement to the Black and Tan Restaurant/Bar, which is located directly South of the proposed Grand Tower, to allow ingress/egress across the property line. Fourth, that in the future, buildings which are constructed on parcels adjoining the site to the North and South shall comply with Building Code Requirements for set-back from the property line and shall not be allowed to utilize the easement as a credit for compliance with Building Code requirements. Motion seconded by Mr. Kamm, motion carried unanimously. In support of this decision the Board make the following findings of fact: A public way is normally located outside of a public property. In this case the easement is located inside Building Board of Appeals Minutes May 9, 1989 Page 4 the applicants property. Consequently, it is the Boards holding that the distance for protection of openings shall be measured from the building fact to the property line and not to the center of easement. If the conditions which are recommended by the Board are integrated into the agreement, it will ensure that building set-backs in accordance with the Uniform Building Code will be maintained. Upon satisfactory completion of the conditions of the recommended agreement, the Building Board of Appeals will formally grant the appeal . It was moved by Mr. Kamm, seconded by Mr. Throop to adjourn. Motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 5:12 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ack A. Nelson ecretary Minutes Approved On: `r CONSTRUCTION SERVICES Main Office: 408 Kalamazoo Plaza,Lansing,MI 48933-1990 Phone: 517/482-1488 P.O.Box 14120,Lansing,MI 48901-4120 Flint Office: G-3512 W.Bristol Road,Flint,MI 48507-3177 Phone: 313/234-6633 P.O.Box 248,Flint,MI 48501-0248 May 16, 1989 Mr. Jack Nelson City of Lansing 119 North Washington Square Lansing, Michigan 48933 Dear Jack: The enclosed signed letter serves as an agreement made by Jocelyn Starr that the northeast door to the Black and Tan will not be used during_ construction. This is as requested by the Appeals Board. If there are any other problems or conditions to 1h.is, please let me know immediately. ']'hank you for yotir help. Sincerely, THE CHRISTMAN COMPANY Lawrence W. Macklin Project Superintendent LWM/11 cc: Mark Sands. . .The Christman Company Pete Holz, Dan Johnson. . .Hobbs + Black Enclosure 1/larry/l3 ``�,c[e4+,o e CONSTRUCTION MANAGERS • GENERAL CONTRACTORS • CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERS a CONSTRUCTORS ti '��/YIIK� OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS of the BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS November 14, 1989 The regular meeting of the City of Lansing, Building Board of Appeals was held on Tuesday, November 14, 1989, at 2:00 p.m. in the Building Safety Division, 119 N. Washington Square Annex, Lower Level , Lansing, Michigan. The meeting was called to order by Vice-Chairman Richard Jones at 2:00 p.m. with the roll call showing the following members present: Members Present: Frank Throop Richard Jones Randall Kamm Joe Wilcox Members Absent Richard Stuckman Staff Present: Jack Nelson, Recording Secretary Robert O'Brien, Fire Marshal Others Present: Russ Hinkle of Stein, Hinkle, Dawe, Wood and Johnson Jim Abuchon, of same On a motion by Mr. Throop, supported by Mr. Kamm, that the minutes of May 9, 1989, Building Board of Appeals be approved. Motion carried. OLD BUSINESS: Appeal 89-004 not acted on. NEW BUSINESS: Appeal #89-005 Main Street Day Care An application for appeal was filed by Mr. Russell Hinkle of the architectural firm of Stein, Hinkle, Dawe, Wood and Johnson on behalf of the Main Street Day Care Center. Building Board of Appeals Minutes 11/14/89 Page 2 The Appeal , if granted, would authorize the use of the second floor of the facility for day care use. Section 802(2) (C) of the Building Code requires the entire building to be sprinkled if day care use is above the first floor. The applicant states that the second floor will be sprinkled and a smoke detection system will be installed on the first floor. Acting Chairman Jones requested Mr. Hinkle to present his case. Mr. Hinkle presented the following findings in support of the appeal : If only the first floor is used for day care use, the first floor does not need to be sprinkled. The second floor used for educational purposes, third grade and above, need not sprinkle the entire build- ing. Because the building is classified as a day care facility, any use of the second floor would require automatic sprinklers. The second floor has three separate one-hour fire enclosed stairs which lead directly to exterior. The code requirement is exceeded by one additional exit stair enclosure. The buildings first floor area is 1.8,192 sq. ft. and the second floor area is 8,399 sq. ft. Building occupancy E Type V-N would allow maximum area of 18,200 sq. ft. with 100% increase for open area without automatic sprinkler. The actual building construction is a Type II-N which would allow a maximum floor area of 27,000 sq. ft. The Building is constructed of thick masonry walls, poured concrete floors, and steel joist roof supports with poured concrete roof deck. This construction far exceeds what is required by the code. The first floor and second floor are separated by a poured concrete floor which would afford a two-hour separation. There are some old air shafts between floors which have been closed off behind old recessed locker areas ; air duct openings have fire dampers. Existing classroom storage cabinets are being separated by one-hour enclosures to air shafts. The air shaft enclosure is a minimum of one-hour separation. Possibly there is a two-hour separation but the actual construction is not known until the classroom storage units are removed during the second floor remodeling. The first floor was remodeled approximately two years ago. This floor is occupied five days a week from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. , 52 weeks a year. Installation of automatic sprinklers would be very disruptive to the day care program and very time consuming. As an alternative to installing automatic sprinklers on the first floor, it is proposed to install a smoke detection system throughout the Building Board of Appeals Minutes 11/14/89 Page 3 first floor. This system would be connected to the existing fire alarm panel which is monitored by the local fire department. Robert O'Brien, City of Lansing, Fire Marshal presented his position: Mr. O'Brien indicated that without fire suppression on the first floor conflagration could adversely impact the exiting system. It is true that smoke detection would alert the tenants of a fire, however, its containment would not be reached until fire service personnel were on the site. A fire suppression system on the other hand would control the fire until the fire department could react. In this case it would be more advantageous to have suppression on the first floor, and smoke detection on the second floor. Board Member Frank Throop presented his position: Mr. Throop stated that smoke detection and a higher construction classification does not equate with a sprinkler system in his opinion. There was general discussion concerning the case. Chairman Jones asked if there was any further questions. Hearing none, Mr. Throop moved that Appeal #89-005 be denied, motion seconded by Mr. Kamm. Motion carried 3 yea, 0 nay. Resolution of Denial : The City of Lansing Building Board of Appeals does hereby resolve to deny Appeal #89-005. This denial is based upon the following findings of fact: 1. Smoke detection and/or an increase in Construction Type, in the Boards opinion, does not equate to a fire suppression system. 2. The Appeal was precipitated, in part, by the feeling that the installation of the suppression system on the first floor would disrupt day care activities. It is the Boards opinion that sprinkler installation could be accomplished in a manner which would not disrupt the day care activities through temporary rearrangement of classes and installation during non-occupancy hours. 3. The benefits denied from the fire suppression out-weigh any short term economic difficulties. 4. The applicant has not shown where strict application of the code would cause practical difficulties. Building Board of Appeals Minutes 11/14/89 Page 4 5. The request substantially deviates from the performance required by the Building Code, since smoke detection is not deemed as a trade-off for fire suppression. OTHER BUSINESS: Mr. Nelson apprised the Board that a December meeting has been scheduled for Tuesday, December 12, 1989, at 2:00 p.m. in the Conference Room in the Building Safety Division. It was moved by Mr. Kamm, seconded by Mr. Throop to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 2:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, rkA. elson Secretary Minutes Approved On: OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS of the BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS December 12, 1989 The regular meeting of the City of Lansing, Building Board of Appeals was held on Tuesday, December 12, 1989, at 2:00 p.m. at Impression 5 Science Museum, 200 Museum Drive, Lansing, Michigan. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Richard Stuckman with the roll call showing the following members present: Members Present: Richard Stuckman Richard Jones Joe Wilcox Members Absent Randall Kamm Frank Throop Staff Present: James W. Kzeski , Director Robert O'Brien, Fire Marshal Others Present: Kenneth Gruber On a motion by Mr. Jones, supported by Mr. Wilcox, the minutes of November 14, 1989, were approved. Motion carried. OLD BUSINESS: Appeal 89-004 not acted on. NEW BUSINESS: Appeal #89-006 Impression 5 Science Museum An application for appeal was filed by Mr. R. Kenneth Gruber, Director, Impression 5 Science Museum. The Appeal requested that a portion of the first floor be designated as an R-1 occupancy as Building Board of Appeals December 12, 1989 Page 2 defined by .Chapter 12 of the 1988 U.B.C. , for the purpose of sleeping approximately 75 children between the age of 8 and 13 years at the Impressions 5 Science Museum. See attached letter dated November 8, 1989. The entire museum is contained within a two story structure with exterior masonry walls and heavy timber roof and floor construc- tion. The principal use of this building is classified as A-2. 1. The Board completed a walk-through of the facilities to include the first floor. The proposed first floor sleeping area has two direct exits to the outside, operational sprinklers and a smoke detection system. The walls and ceilings are constructed of materials affording at least one-hour fire resistive construction. Mr. Gruber stated that all interior partitions within the sleeping area were to be removed to provide unobstructed vision to the two exterior exits. Mr. Jones moved to classify this space as an . R-1 occupancy as defined by the 1988 Edition of the U.B.C. Mr. Jones further moved that the appeal be granted providing the following conditions were complied with : 1. Smoke detection system up-graded as required by the Fire Marshal . 2. No combustibles to be located in lower office area. 3. Bathroom on lower level shall be put back in service. 4. Campers are fully instructed on exit location and other safety precautions as maybe required by the Fire Marshal . 5. Inspection by the Fire Marshal to be completed on six month intervals. 6. East exit to be provided with vehicle barricades to prevent obstruction of exit door. 7. Adult supervision provided by Impression 5 Science Museum staff to be present and awake at all times. There was discussion concerning the R-1 occupancy designation as defined by the code. It was determined that R-1 did, in fact , most closely reflect the use of the proposed sleeping area. The motion was supported by Joe Wilcox. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 3:30 p.m. e pectfully submitted, / �s W. zeski Secretary Building Board of Appeals Minutes January 17, 1989 Page 2 Chairman Stuckman explained the Rules of Procedure to Mr. Ganton, as established by the By-Laws. Chairman Stuckman requested Mr. Ganton to explain his request to the Board. The following is a snyopsis of Mr. Gantons presentation. This type of facility does not involve significant meal prepara- tion. The services to the Senior Citizens includes meals, housekeeping and laundry service. Along with the housekeeping services include daily trash pick-up at each apartment by a hostess. With this type of service the need for a garbage disposal is greatly reduced. The Installation of disposals involves a serious maintenance problem because the residents will not use them. The units will "set-up" for lack of use. This type of facility and management policy is new to the congregate care field. We have three other facilities and our concept of independent living has become very successful . After Mr. Ganton's presentation, the Board voiced reservations in granting a variance to allow deletion of the disposal units, but were aware that the circumstances surround this use are unique and a variance could be issued when conditioned upon regulations which would mitigate negative impacts. Chairman Stuckman requested Chief Plumbing Inspector Delaney to present his case. The following is a synopsis of Mr. Delaney's presentation. In October 1960 the City of Lansing adopted Ordinance No. 20 which required that garbage disposals be required in all commercial and residential kitchens, when constructed or when kitchens are remodeled. It appears that the Ordinance was inadvertently omitted in the ordinance revisions in 1988, consequently language specific to requiring garbage disposals is not in the Codified set of Ordinances. The Department is currently drafting language to require disposal units per the previous ordinance. In the interim, the Department is citing Section 321 of the Lansing Uniform Plumbing Code as authority to require disposals. Mr. Jones moved, and supported by Mr. Throop, that the variance be granted subject to compliance with the following conditions: 1. Daily pick-up and housekeeping services shall be provided. 2. The units shall be wired for disposals . Building Board of Appeals Minutes January 17, 1989 Page 3 3. The concept of providing one meal a day must be continued. 4. The basic precepts of managing the facility must be maintained; e.g. serving meals , housekeeping, trash pick-up. etc. 5. The approval is for this facility only and does not extend to other congregate facilities. Motion carried unanimously. In support of this decision, the Board makes the following findings of fact: 1. The congregate care concept as purported by Mr. Ganton, which includes the serving of one meal a day, and the daily pick-up of trash and garbage will not necessitate the need for garbage disposals in each unit. 2. Existing code language raises the question of legal necessity of disposals in all use groups . 3. Should management change its philosophy in regards to trash pick-up and serving meals , the Board is requiring that the units be wired for disposal units . The wiring shall be in accordance with N.E.C. requirements. It was moved by Mr. Throop, seconded by Mr. Jones to adjourn the meeting at 3: 10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Cck A. elson ecretary Minutes approved on: BD. OF APPEALS JANUARY 17, 1989