001I call to order the regular building board of appeals for October 16th, 2025. Roll call. >> Board member Paul Darling >> here. >> Board member Robert Hart >> here. >> Board member David >> here. Board member Jr. >> here. >> Board member >> here. >> Building official Michael >> present. >> Fire marshal Mike >> present. >> City. >> And do you have a board? >> Okay. Thank you. >> First item on the agenda is public commentary general. Uh anybody here for joint comments? Seeing none, close that section. Uh the next item on the agenda is the approval of the agenda. I have a motion to approve the agenda. >> So move. >> Second. >> Okay. Those in favor? >> I I agenda is approved. Uh we received minutes from the July 17, 2025 meeting. Does
002anyone have comments on those or corrections to those? If not, we have a motion to approve those. >> Motion to approve minutes. >> I'll second. >> Okay. Those in favor? >> I are approved. >> Uh the first item of the appeals, actions, and show cost hearing is we have a single appeal. Uh the process is we have um the staff make a report about the um variance and then we'll have the applicant come up and present their um appeal and then the board will uh ask questions to the applicant and we'll have a motion and um that's the process. We need at least majority of the people on the board to vote in favor. So that would be three positive votes today. Um so the staff report. >> Good afternoon. This is Fire Marshall Michael
003Redmond. I'll be doing the staff report today. This is for appeal number VBA25-0011. This is located at 336 South State Street here in Ann Arbor. Uh property owner is Oxford Properties Management. Uh petitioner for this is Yellowstone Architect and Design. Background for this, the property at 336 South State is an existing structure built in 1910. It is listed in BS BSNA. It's mixed commercial property with stores/ retail commercial and apartment commercial occupancies. The building is under interior renovation required a fire suppression system which was brought to my attention to review for a compliant supporting hydrant for the FDC fire department connection. After reviewing what was proposed for the FDC location and what existing hydrants were available I cited as non-compliant. It was cited for non-compliance for the following reasons. Number one, location of the FDC
004under 2021 IFC code 912.2. 2 912.2.1 912.2 location with respect to hydrants, driveways, buildings, and landscaping. Fire department connections shall be so located that the fire apparatus and fire hose connected to the supply of the system will not obstruct access to the buildings for other fire apparatus. The location of the fire department connection shall be approved by the fire code official. 912.2.1 visible location. Fire department connection shall be located on the street side of the building or facing approved fire apparatus access roads fully visible and recognizable from the street fire apparatus access roads or nearest points of the fire department vehicle access or otherwise approved by the fire code official. Note the petitioner is not asking for relief from these codes in this BBA. The FDC will be required to be on the south state
005street side of the building road frontage and there is only one hydrant that is compliant with both of these codes. This is the hydrant on the same side of the street approximately 165 ft from the north to the north of the north corner of the building. Number two, distance from the FDC fire department connection to the closest compliant fire hydrant. Note the minimum 100 ft requirement is not an IFC fire code requirement. The petitioner has cited a code that does not apply to this project and was not cited by me as the fire code official. The petitioner is asking for relief from fire code 2021 IFC507.5.1 that I did not site because it does not apply to this project. There is not a standpipe system at this structure. Note, I cited 2025 standard specifications, public
006service standard specifications. See cover letter and excerpts which were provided with the staff report. These are minimum standards outside of fire code that must be complied with as written. These standards for article 3 are enforced by both city engineers and the fire marshall/fire code official. Article 3 water design criteria, fire hydrant spacing and coverage. An accessible hydrant shall be required within 100 ft of a fire department connection FTC via an approved fire route for residential buildings three stories or less in height or for which an internal sprinkler system is installed under NFP R13R. The maximum separation distance shall be increased to within 150 ft of an FDC. This is what was cited for the non-compliance for the 100 ft distance requirement. The petitioner's request for relief does not apply to this required standard and I
007do not believe the building board appeals can rule over 2025 standard specifications. The applicant requests relief from the fire code requirements fall under the following building board of appeal standards for approval. 2021 International Fire Code Section 111 and the Municipal Code Ordinance Title 9 Police Regulations Chapter 111 Fire Prevention Section 9108 for appeals. 9108 apples. Whenever the chief or fire marshall shall disapprove an application or refuse to grant a permit applied for when it is claimed that the provision of this code do not apply or the true intent and meaning of this code have been misconstrued or wrongly interpreted, the applicant may appeal from the chief or fire marshall's decision to the building board of appeals within 30 days from the date of the decision of appeal. One, the provision of this code does not
008apply. Two, the intent of this code has been wrongly interpreted. Note that 9108 does not allow to have a proposed equal or better form of protection under fire code for building board of appeals. Staff recommendation for this staff recommends that the application be denied for two reasons. The petitioner is seeking relief from a fire code that was not cited and does not apply. Two, the city standard that was cited is required as a minimum standard and there is not a supporting fire hydrant within the required 100 ft. This standard has not been misinterpreted. The provision of this standard does apply and the proposed distance of 165 ft is not compliant. It does not appear that the 2025 specification standards can be taken to building board of appeals. All modifications or deviations from fire codes are
009solely up to discretion of the fire marshall or fire code official. The fire marshall applies fire code as a minimum requirement and any exception from it must be written in the fire code as a listed exception for the specific code. This ensures safety is still being met with the intent of the code as written by the code writer. Fire and emergency response and access are life safety issues. The proposed motions are as written allow for the appeal to be granted under that the intent for that specific code in 2021 section 507.51.1.1 has been incorrectly interpreted by the fire marshal or the provision of the 2020 2021 IFC code 507.5.1.1 does not apply to the development at 336 South to a appeal, deny it. The true intent of the code has been correctly interpreted. Um, the
010code does apply. And I added a third part to it that the code was not cited by the fire marshal. It does not apply to this project. >> Great. Thank you. >> Applicant, you want to come up and present your case? >> Yes. And first off, thank you to board members, uh, all of you for, uh, attending today. I know it was a rather short sprint getting everyone coralled in a corn put together. So, thank you. Uh, thank you, Mr. Lemieux, Redmond, Riser, and Miss Harvey for all of your support in the process, this ongoing two-year process of, uh, getting this renovation of this historic structure built out. Uh, my name is Caleb Markwart. I am an architect at Yellowstone Architecture and Design and we are working with Oxford Property Management on this specific property
011at this lovely historic 336 South State uh location on the third floor. Uh this is a historic building as was read in the report. Thank you. Um it was built between 1897 1910 and uh really has not undergone any change of use at all since the 1970s. It was lovingly referred to as the hippie loft. And uh as such, we found exactly what the current use is now, a lovely congregate living facility with some very interesting uh materials being used in the inside. It was a lot of fun. It was one of the most intriguing existing conditions I've interfaced with. Um I'd like to also thank my colleagues for all the support and for being here as well. Thank you guys. Appreciate that. Um a brief history not only of the building, we know the
012date and the fact that it is on the historic district, the state street historic district. Um but this project was uh it was kicked off um in 2023, February of 2023 as when the initial permit was applied and that was that was back under many other purviews and and uh frankly I think that was right when stream was starting. But um we received some comments in November of that year of 23 and uh we knew immediately that we needed to go get similar variance at the state level for accessibility. Um that happened and we got BFD approval later that year in November of 2024 and the permit was officially issued in January of 2025. So, while the uh the project's been going on for 2 years, we've had uh multiple iterations and state variance approvals
013for what we've been doing at this location, as such, we've um we've been aligned to all of the permit comments and recommendations, not only from the city of Ann Arbor at the time, which would have been um Annie Hang's comments, but also under the state of Michigan's allowable variances for what we've been doing here. And that applies to accessibility, not specifically for the the fire options we're talking about now. Uh but I wanted to bring everyone up to speed on that. The existing use uh we we have not changed the hippieoff aesthetic is still R3 um use which is under the commercial code. We applied under the rehabilitation code for existing buildings. Um at that time because it was 2023 we were still under the 2015 rehab code and all subsequent reference codes. Um so
014it's been fun trying to like work from the 2021 back to 2015 to remember our history of what we had gone through. But uh just so everyone understands the the code under which this was permitted and approved. Uh and lastly just I want to give everyone a brief status. We are um uh 99% complete on the renovation inside the existing condition. Obviously did not have uh a sprinkler system uh since there was no change in the way of of uh use. We we did want to provide a higher level of uh safety in this location. So we did provide a sprinkler system. Right now uh pipes are run. We're just waiting for the tie-in to the main. So, frankly, that's the last domino to fall before occupancy can be achieved um hopefully by uh the
015the next month or so. With that, I want to uh kind of dig into the meat and potatoes of of this uh application. The um I'm going over of this very well-ritten response. And again, I want to thank you uh Mr. Redmond for for this response and write up. Uh both you and Mr. have been extremely helpful in getting us answers to all of our uh what we considered our code exceptions. And again, we we want to bring this I'm sorry that this was under a uh uh we we bring this here through stream and stream has a couple of of different options as to how we want to ask for the variance. And by no means am I trying to say u the majority uh if anything was misinterpreted is more so we're here
016for as the website says the reconsideration of a code official's opinion on certain options here. So, um there have been a few uh handouts that we've um supplied to Miss Harvey and she's distributed to everyone. Some of which have been the um the different permit applications that have been given for this. Um our our standard building permit that was from 2023 is C230070. Um, we then had our subsequent Mesa 25- Z0084 permit applied and as part of that tie into the main of the sprinkler system, this being the first sprinkler system for this historic building, that was CVLP20013. Those were applied in uh earlier this year in April. Uh so going through these items, we we have this understanding that uh there is not only through the international fire code but also from the fairly
017recent 2025 um engineering building standards uh a very um uh both both of these both of these code avenues run in parallel to each other. I understand that uh there is the open question that I'll get to in just a moment about the jurisdiction to make judgments thereon. Um but I do want to uh just kind of spell out a few of the items that we are asking for a variance from. We understand that our sprinkler uh water main tie-in is going to be interfaced uh in the direct area in front facing east of the State Street uh facade. Again, this building is a few um a few buildings just south of Nichols Arcade just for everyone's imagination here and we are on the west side of State Street. Um we plan to put that
018uh fire department connection on that east side and the question came up due to the radius to the accessible hydrants in a way that does not olude a fire apparatus access aka a fire road aka in our state uh state street and or north. There is that one that one fire hydrant just at the northwest corner of North U and State Street. It's right by the opening the Nichols Arcade. And while it is on the same side on the same sidewalk and we would not be blocking any um streets or fire apparatus ways, it is with outside of the radius of um even the 150 foot radius. So uh we we fully understand the existing conditions and we are therefore asking not so much for uh not the misinterpretation as it was before but a
019reconsideration of the code officials opinion for this and similar um similar variances in past for existing FDC's that may have been outside of a a normal radius. Now, uh I know that there have been multiple references to the IFC and uh Fire Marshall Redmond has also made it clear that the um the IFC was not exactly what he was citing in his email responses prior to this meeting. And I understand that he is also referencing the 2025 standard specifications, public services standard specifications, which is a city uh standard spec requirement through the engineering department and that these are minimum standards that the city engineers have recently released. Um I would like to specify that the uh article 3 water design criteria with the fire hydrant spacing and coverage that was read a few minutes ago.
020Um item C where the accessible hydrant shall be required within 100 ft of a fire department connection. And similarly under NFPA 13R the maximum separation distance shall be increased to within 150 ft of an FDC for 13R. Both of those uh are almost circular references with the IFC. So, while I I don't disagree that you did not site the IFC, I I do also agree that the 2025 standard specifications do have almost circular references to the IFC requirements specifically for NFPA 13R. Uh even the BBA um uh the write up cites this. Um there's two there's two questions that come off of this. Number one, uh is the date at which we had submitted the permit back in 2023. these standards did not exist in their form. Uh they were uh made from the historic
021background. So without saying ex exposfacto I will I will say that there there was not the uh standards to have been responded to during our permitting process back in 2023 and even 2024 after we got the variance from the state of Michigan. Uh so I'll put that on the side while I I further discuss. Let's let's assume though that uh with this circular reference of the uh the new 2025 standards being applied uh the question is is there even a jurisdiction for the building board of appeals to make a call on this? Uh while we seek relief from these radiuses of the existing hydrants for our uh fire suppression which is inside of a historic building, we want to make a few items clear in the way that we approach the design intent for this
022building specifically. Um, not only that, I was I was citing the IFC so everyone kind of understands where I'm coming from from the architectural building code perspective where there are often exemptions for radiuses uh with fire code approval uh fire code official approval for R3 uh occupancies. Similarly, hydrants in close proximity uh and then there's also the similar undue burden of financial hardship which we used uh later last year for the same accessibility requirements for the state of Michigan. Right now, our uh our building itself, um the assessed value is uh the it's valued right now at $566,868 per the BSA. uh the total assessed value from the point of its BSA inception is about 1.9 million but the um the undue burden of financial hardship uh very similar to what we had done and
023got approved through the state of Michigan accessibility variance was uh a $441,000300 uh fee including the fire hydrant addition main tie-ins fees right-of-way fees and tie-in and shutdown fees all of which constitute 86% of our total construction budget which would be about half the total valuation of the building. Uh so while that has been used in the past successfully with the state of Michigan for accessibility uh I I withhold using that right now for this because I I want to focus more so on the existing conditions of the hydrants just outside the radius and the uh assumption of applicability of the 2025 standards. The last two items I'll uh specify before I open up to questions on the variance for the difference of code opinion and the variance for the uh existing hydrant to be
024used just outside of the radius for our providence of the FDC. Um I agree that the standard has not been misinterpreted. It was uh very well interpreted. Uh the question is does it apply to our location because of two things the date of which it was created and put into effect and secondarily um the similar requirements of the IFC that we would be able to uh petition for a variance if not here than at other appeals levels. [Applause] Lastly uh I wanted to uh read the same hybrid spacing and coverage uh where the NFPA 13R requirements are made. Uh we we have been uh we have provided uh a few radius drawings from not only the south end but more so uh applicably to the north end of our 336 South state building where the
025approved fire department connection location is planned to be put in. um that radius is just outside is 163 ft from that point to that uh fire hydrant at the northwest corner of state and north U. So we find that we are just outside of the required radius is not only aligning to the IFC but also um to the uh 2025 public works building standards. So we would request not only the um the opinion of the code official uh to be allowed as a variance outside of that radius, but also if if that is uh not the case and the question then becomes a method of jurisdiction of the building board of appeals being able to even rule on this because it is a building standard and not so uh an issued state standard. Um then
026we would also similar similarly request uh the variance or a motion or an amended motion then for the variance based off of that radius alone. We do have the existing condition of a non-srinkled R3 historic structure and we have agreed to um not only put in uh a sprinkle system on that level u to increase the fire safety but we have also agreed further with an increased cost of about $175,000 to add the stub and FDC uh and we find that not I haven't even factor that into the $450,000 uh 86% of our current construction budget. So that would put it even higher. Um, which would be commensurate with the similar approver we got from the state of Michigan for the accessibility as a percentage. Um, lastly, uh, before I close up, I know sometimes
027I have a propensity to talk a little bit too much. Um the existing historic building itself um does have a few riders in the um the variance exception request that was given through stream IFC specifically in 102.6 6 um and 1103.1.1 which covers historic building application through the IFC. Um provisions are not mandatory for existing historic structures provided the project adheres to a fire protection plan which um Mr. Redmond had uh also raised an issue that there's not a similar pathway for exception through the 2020 25 building standards. It's purely an IFC exception pathway. Uh so that really is the question of the applicability of either and does the um building standards that were so recently released not apply because it's expost factor from the time we even had the permit issued and similar revisions
028and writeups done through the state of Michigan. With that, I'll hand it over to the board um and city officials for any questions. Happy to hear them. Okay. >> Thank you. We got a rebuttal problem from >> Yeah, I would like to mention one thing that these city standards were rewritten in 2025. >> The exact verbiage found for article 3 for the water is identical and it did exist when you applied in 2023. >> The only thing that happened here is I just took the most current one offline. What's for the city, but they existed in 2023. Same verbiage, identical. So that aspect, just so for the board of appeals members know, these city standards, which is what the common terminology you hear within our departments within the city here, we refer to city standards.
029They've been in existence and were in existence with that exact verbiage in 2023. Okay. And I do agree with him as far as I will say this, I agree with the historical part aspect in your code path that the fire protection for this would take you to NFPA 914 and that comes off of a per usually a performance-based system which is a very it's it's a complicated route to say the least. It is. >> It is. >> So I I I won't argue the historical building stuff. I you will hear hear me argue that the I I question your authority over the city standards to be able to rule over them because they're not code they're standards and they're not fire code and if I'm enforcing them and the city engineers are enforcing them that
030means you would have to take the city engineers to board of appeals and you can't do that. Um the the second part of that is you know you the I understand the concern and I I I commend you for trying to suppress a building that maybe you didn't have to suppress. Um I wasn't part of the original civil plans for this. So I'm usually not part of that. I was brought in because of the FDC and the supporting hydrant. Um, but the one thing I do stand and hold firm is that money, if you're going to put a system in, the system should be compliant per code. And if that becomes a hardship for money, then they shouldn't have went down the avenue of trying to put the system in. Because if that's the case,
031anyone could try to put a system into a building and say, "I don't need to do this, but I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it my way." So, if you're going to put a system in, it should follow the code path to make sure the system is done to the current codes. So, do we have jurisdiction or don't we? Yeah, that's I I as well as honestly because I asked that question >> just just off just quickly that I would have agreed right off the bat with them based on the letter that was in the packet that if they had their permit before the standard effective date >> then they they didn't have any reason to comply with the 100 foot rule. it existed point. Yeah, you made that real clear that
032that's so that's that >> um >> I do not know I can't answer your question for you. I have posed that question. I emailed most of the people in this room that very question trying to get an answer before we got to this day because I don't know if you guys have ever had to rule on city standards before. It's always been building code or fire code. >> Yeah. Well, not the least of which is part of the part of the description in here is that we're not allowed to consider better or equal forms. >> That's and that's written through the municipal code where the fire codes illegally adopted. So that's a whole another aspect of what's how it differs a little bit from building code to fire code. >> Okay. And I have one
033very two very quick clarification things. The code the building official code write up says that the sprinkler system was required. >> I wrote that up because there was question of an email correspondence that at some point they wanted to go the route of a 13D system which does not require an FDC. Um once again I was not part of the civil plan or building plan reviews for this. I'm usually not for existing buildings. I usually only handle new construction. I'm only brought in under these circumstances when this applies to an FTC and a supporting hydrant. With that said, there was email correspond. They went into a 13D that was addressed to the building official, Mike Lemieux. I can let him answer it, but it was denied based off the occupancy or proper fire separation, I
034believe, between the occupancies. So what brought it back to having a mixed occupancy requiring an NFPA13 system. Correct. >> Yes. >> So the system is required. >> The fire suppression system is required. It's not a goodwill gesture on their part. I just want to make sure that >> it's going back to what you said about putting in the system. You have to put it in soup to nuts. >> They I think I think the answer to this and I I won't I hate to say this but I'm going to say it anyways. I don't know if the system was required. They have a code path that you can go down for historical buildings. It takes them to an NFPA 914 pamphlet which is a very specific for historical buildings and there's a code path for
035fire protection compliance. Under that code book there's prescription and then there's performance. Um more than likely prescription would bring you right back to the code book. So you wouldn't want to go that route. You'd want to go performance. >> The question is what would be that performance system? the pointsbased system basically. Yeah. >> Yeah. And it would it's basically trying to meet the same standards in a different route. And that's what a performance-based system is in easier to understand terms. It's it's trying to accomplish what the prescribed system would be without doing the prescribed route. >> So, can I weigh in a little bit too? So you folks exist because um state law uh MCL125.1514 the construction board of appeals part of the steel daset hail signal state construction act you guys thank you my
036apologies you exist because of a state law that says the construction board of appeals for each governmental subdivision enforcing the code the construction code uh shall be created of not less than three or no more than seven members. And it says that if an enforcing agency refuses, which would be us, or refuses to grant an application for a building permit or if the enforcing agency makes any other decision pursuant or related to this act or the code, an interesting person or the person's authorized agent may in may appeal a writing to the board of appeals. So, but then the the the goes on to say this act does not prevent a governmental subdivision from granting its board of appeals, you folks, additional powers or duties not inconsistent with this act. And we've done that in
037our in our fire ordinance which says whenever the chief or fire marshall shall disapprove of an application or refuse to grant a permit applied for or when it is claimed that the provisions of this code that is the city code uh do not apply or that the true intent and meaning of the code have been misconstrued or wrongly interpreted. The applicant may appeal uh from the chief or fire marshall's decision to the building board of appeals within 30 days. So you folks have jurisdiction, so to speak, to to weigh in to rule rule on uh appeals that are construction code based and there's a lot of construction codes and that stale dross um you know what I'm talking about, the Daset code. Um and and you also have authority to weigh in on fire code
038stuff. Now, with respect to the um the the city's standard specifications, um and I think that's at least in your packet in part where Sue McCormack kind of issued the new ones in January of this year. those say that if if it if it's just something that's not codebased, not building code based or fired codebased, but it's only um standard specification. It does say that um variations and revisions to the standards, minor and technical variations and revisions that the public services administrator area administrator may permit variations to these standards where unusual conditions or circumstances warrant, which these folks might say exists, but you're not the public services area administrator. Uh and you of course you know that. And then as needed, the PSAA will issue general revisions to these standards that relate to the technical
039aspects. So if if it's relief only from these standards, then then is it Jordan? >> Who's the PSAA? My apologies for not knowing the public services area administrator. Jordan. >> Yeah, I think it's Jordan. It used to be Sue, but it was Jordan. Um, so he he would be that person. Now, let's say Jordan says, "No, you're not going to do it. You're yes, you're then and then we have an ordinance uh generally that states, and this is section 1 col 16, a due process hearing unless there's a specific appeal process, otherwise set forth in our code. Uh you can do a written appeal with the city administrator and that not you but you can do a the applicant the the person denied can do a written application or appeal with the city administrator and
040you'd be entitled to a due process hearing to determine um you know the merits of your claim. So if it's codebased building or fire y'all are the right over body to do that. if it's strictly um uh standard standards. So, that's that's kind of where we are. Ultimately, you get you get your day in court, and I don't mean court, but I mean you get your day uh for for a hearing and due process and notice and present your case. >> Could I ask a clarifying question to Mr. visor about the uh if the building code is referenced in the city standards would the authority then bounce back to the >> I I think there ultimately if it's if there's some aspect of this it's building code or fire code this is the body the
041form the proper form >> got it right >> but we can't but we're severely limited because typically we're allowed to have a third option which is that the applicant provided a better or equal form of protection, fire protection or construction. And according to this, we don't have that latitude. It's either yes or no. >> We can grant her to the fire code, but we can't give it to the city code. You'd have to go to the administrator. >> We're still we're still we're still >> Yeah. >> Um bumping up against this the standard. >> But just to change the tone for a second, >> sir. Sorry. >> In your packet, you you you show the hydrants that are in and around State Street. Yes, that's right. But you devoted three pages to something that's on
042Maynard Street, >> right? I tried to supplementally look at after we initially petitioned um past the initial permit approval and then oh, we're going to offer a sprinkler. Oh, do we have the option for an FDC? And that's where the email correspondence happened between Mr. Lemieux, Mr. Amendment and uh a few of my other colleagues as well about the need for the FDC because we knew the FDC would be a trigger through IFC for the radiuses for the hydrants and that we were just outside those radiuses. So as a tertiary measure I beyond that first run of the radiuses for the hydrants. I was looking at the run from maybe an FDC in the rear of the building which wouldn't have been approved anyway. So it was kind of moot at this point. It was
043an idea of trying to make the radius even shorter, which it would have been, but it would have been coming off the rear of the building, which wouldn't have met the clear and present signage for an FDC. And that's still over and above. We we petitioned for 13D, which uh didn't apply because the existing R3 use as congregate living facility wasn't considered a town home uh or a single or two family residence uh which is not. It's a congregate living facility. So, I I totally agree with that. We we tried we thought it would it would be acceptable as as a variance, but it was not. So the FDC still had to remain. The question then becomes just that radius to the hydrant. Both of which were I I really don't want to keep stairstepping
044because I feel like the what has been started from a historic building to make a an effort of goodwill for further safety. It just keeps growing and growing to the point that it's thoroughly unsustainable not only for our building budget. And I agree that right now what I I'm used to having that third option where there is some kind of uh median option of finding a safe route, but now that there's only a black and white either um full city standards or none, um the question then becomes a are there other acceptable um performance-based options that would be amendable with the city standards or do we follow some option of uh permit revision taking the fire suppression cope out and just removing it completely and we go right back to where we were whereas an
045unsuppressed building which I don't want to do as the architect of record because it would make it equally safe as it was when we started the project but we've already come so far making it safer so I I don't want to I don't want to backtrack like that so while I also see your your two black and white options where we're used to kind of having a third um I would open that back up to the board for an option >> wouldn't your only option be go back to NFPA 914 D. Then >> John, correct me if I'm wrong. Rising. >> I'm sorry. I was um looking at the statute. >> Yeah. I'm just thinking if they were denied here, there's still an appeal process through the um standards. Is that correct? Well, I I
046guess I mean you folks have the right to interpret the code and it says that the board of appeals shall hear the appeal and render and file its decision with the statements of the reason for your decision. Whatever your decision is, your decision could say you're going to have people in front with water balloons. You're not going to do that. But whatever your decisions is and the reasons there for you're that's going to be part of part of part of the record that you create. Um I if if it's not like I say building code based or fire code based then this really wouldn't be an appropriate forum for that. it would be Jordan Roberts came to me uh as the public services area administrator and then if you then Jordan could confer relief and
047and but you you're entitled to a a due process hearing there as well in front of him you know notice and to present your case and things like you've done here be pretty redundant but or similar rather um >> would there be a way sir to delineate then u the portions of the city standards that would actually be references to building code that the building board of appeals could rule on and what could be the city. >> This body has relief. This body has the authority to um to grant relief to fire and building code provisions. They did >> however referenced. >> Yeah. Right. >> Okay. >> Um I have a question. So you know you guys uh you applied for your permit. >> Yes. >> Um in the write up back from the permit
048process were >> was it given you have to design per these specifications or >> so if I can speak for a moment and speak on behalf for both sides here to try to be beneficial. >> Sure. you are a historic building and and I I brought this up. They the pathway from the very beginning of this project which I was not part of but the pathway should have been going through NFPA 914 for this and once again I commend you because sometimes that pathway in NFPA 914 isn't a suppression system. Um, but there's ways of doing the protection that pro that you're looking for to provide the occupancies of that building. That's the the ultimate goal is getting people out of the structure. Um, I've never dealt with, I'll be really honest, I've never dealt
049with a performance-based system. I'm not sure if our building department has yet either. Um, it's just not something there. But, you know, some of the historic buildings, they go through this process, they do it, and maybe they lock out and they just happen to have that existing hydrant right there if they put an FDC there and they're compliant. So, I don't know that that code path going back to that your original question is if you went back um you would at least have to look at the minimum of that performance-based system. They would have to have someone engineer what would be a performance-based system for that building for the occupancy type and how them people get out safely. It may incorporate the system you got. It still has to be approved but it doesn't go
050around this. Now the problem is I think that's going to always hold true is once you if you have an FDC on that building the city standards apply because the person that's going to review that the first person who reviews it is the civil engineers not me. I was brought into this by the civil engineers because it's a dual thing for the city standards. It's reviewed by our civil engineers and it's reviewed by me. Um, you know, and and unfortunately with fire code for you guys where it's for the appeals in 9108, it doesn't give that third option. It's either I misapplied or misinterpreted it. >> It's life safety code. They don't give the third option in that appeals process required. Um, I I don't know what the the proper route is from here. I
051mean, clearly, you know, you guys can try to rule that I either misinterpret or misapply, but I think we all know I didn't. Um, and and that's even if you're ruling on the city standing it again, this was for the differing opinion per the the other use of the building board of appeals is to request a different code officials opinion. And that's why I was trying to get the lowhanging fruit of we're 13 feet outside of the radius for the hydrant. Can we just use the existing hydrant as the easier option for approval from the building board of appeals that that would concurrently if if it were accepted um it would satisfy the uh non-blocking fire apparatus route and the hybrid within the area of the building standards as well. And if and if that
052low hanging fruit option variance is not something that that would be accepted either by the building board of appeals through the IFC variances or >> it may go through it may go through a performance-based system depending on the uniqueness of the design. I wish I could offer you more on that. I'm I'm not that familiar with NFPA14 first of all and and performance-based systems, but that may be a route if it's engineered to be able to go that route and get it approved. Um and and I can't remember and Mike Lemieux is that system what it was it NFPA 13 or 13R system. >> Uh I don't recall. >> Do you know what what obviously there was a fire protection engineer that handled the system. Was that designed to be a 13 or 13R? >>
053The current Mesa application and what Civil's using is 13R. We were trying to partition down to 13D >> because we didn't want the FDC then creating the radius for the hydrant and then we just tap right into the water man. Um, since we were going for because an R3 residential uh use group uh an existing R3 residential use group, we went for 13R and that one does require the FTC as you wrote up in your uh in your write up. So, and and I >> So, it's 13R it would be 150 foot, >> right? And we're just 13 ft outside of that. And that's that's why I was I was initially petitioning for that as the variance just being outside of the radius. So, we're still providing the sprinkler system is there in now. It's
054in um we're we're going to put the FDC and then we were just we're really trying to see if we could use that existing hydrant. Otherwise, it's >> And is the is the full building suppressed or just the third floor? >> Right now, it's just the third floor and portions of the first. There's walking records on the second floor, but we do have rated separations and horizontal rated separations that are separating our uses completely. So, and these gentlemen, this board, they if if it's codebased, they're going to um when it's claimed that either the provisions of the code do not apply or that the true intent and meaning of the code have been misconstrued or wrongly interpreted. >> That's that's that's their >> I think >> either of those two tracks. Am I correct? And
055those would be the code sections stated in the appeal. >> Excuse me. Does Does the city administrator have more leeway in reviewing this than than we do? I mean, if if they went back, >> he can't do code. I mean, >> no, no, no, no. I'm not building code, but the city code. This is this is the city standard. If if if if the default is to the city standard and they're the ones that control it, the do they have more leeway in terms of evaluating the location of hydrants relative to their standard and be able to offer them the fact that they have >> it >> produced produced more equivalency in in fire protection than we have. >> Well, it wouldn't be the city administrator. I assume these folks would allege that it's just
056a minor variation because instead of 150 it's 167 or whatever whatever the >> but it's the city's foot the measurement is it says the public the PSAA may permit variations to these standards where unusual conditions or circumstances warrant. So that would be Jordan Roberts. one of our options that would be relief if relief is based under the city standards and not fire building code >> but there's no I mean I guess in that there's no unusual circumstance here you know they're not blocked off that's not in the back of a building it's not you know uphill that's miles away from something like this is this you're you're talking it's 8 or 13 ft outside >> yeah but I would say I would say there is an unusual surface That would be up to the unusual
057circumstances under the unusual conditions or circumstances warrant. >> So we would have one option to table this and have to go to the PSAA guy and let them make a determination. >> Could there subsequently be an amendment to the motion for approval pending the PSAA approval? So, if there's not a code issue here, >> you would get a variance. >> Yeah. >> Then we wouldn't I don't I don't believe we would >> these guys can't weigh in on your building. They got to weigh in on the code. >> So So yeah. So I don't believe that there would be if if it's not directly related to a code. If you're not looking for relief from directly from the building code or the fire code, I don't believe this is the group to to provide you
058that. Um, from what John provided, it seems like what you're requesting is a is a variance from a city standard and there's a different avenue for that. Um, I think that if this board was going to make a decision, they would base it on the specific code sections from the IFC that you provided. Um, and then they could, you know, weigh in whether they approve those or not. Um, but I think that that would be the end of what they would be able to do. Would a similar uh I guess a simpler or at least more time effective solution be to amend the variance request to the performance-based system now since all of the items are already in and suppressed. We just need the water tap into it. Um, and that could be and it
059would be a building code uh movement and variance approval by this board instead of through the bu the city standards. >> Would you be >> as so amended like on the fly or would they be entitled to some kind of reg? you you would have to sub you just as you submit fire protection plans, you still have to submit the performance plan plans to the building department to review and it would be them reviewing it, not me. >> The plan set on stream as the listed in >> you would want an engineer. Um, and once again, I I wish I could give you more information. I wish Mike Lemieux could give you more information. It's not something that I think we've ever dealt with with performance-based systems. Most people have been fortunate with the historical
060buildings. They put a system in and either they have the funding and it works out or they have an existing hire and it works out for them and they do suppression work. Um, you do have that right. You absolutely have the right to go to performance-based system, but it still has to be reviewed after it's, you know, you you'd have to follow FPA 914. It's a very small I say a small pamphlet. It's about 10 chapters, but it it's it's it's it's one of the smaller ones. It's not one of these big books. >> Building code. Yeah, >> it's Yeah, it's a lot smaller than this. Um, you know, the other route that they're talking about that and and trust me guys, I really did my best to try to find resolve before we got
061to this point today of trying to figure out who had jurisdiction and who could rule and not. That's why I sent emails to you guys and I was trying to get answers and we, us three here, have been in conversations about it trying to find all the answers for you before we got here today. Um, because it's never happened. As far as I know, it's never happened. I'm sure they're going to say the same thing. The city standards have never, at least on the fire side, been taken to this level. It's always been done. >> So, first, >> I I would ask this too, and I I would like to find out for sure, and I I guess I I would talk with him and you guys, too, and I I don't know the options
062of this, but I was under the impression that it was a NFPA 13 system also. That's why the 100 foot was being mentioned and not the 150. while you're still short. Um, I didn't know if that was because if you're putting suppression in a lower level, that's actually retail and a 13R wouldn't be able to go in there. So, that's probably another reason you'd want to look at a performance-based system. >> There's already an existing system on the first floor. That's the Bivwac uh clothing. >> Oh, so you're you're you have an existing system. You're not changing that. You're maybe tying into it. It was designed off of that. Or are they separate systems? >> They're going to be separate systems. >> Okay. Separate systems and we're going to the third floor. >> So, do
063you have the they have the typical >> um basement partial first floor cuz they probably don't have an FDC already existing for that. That was a lot a lot of the downtown had a a limited sprinkler head system and that's probably what it is. It's a limited area. It's actually a limited area suppression system. So, you're actually just sprinkling the third floor. It's really with the new system. >> Yes. >> So, that would be a 13R system. >> Right. And And and that being said, so I see I I see right now there's two path pathways and maybe a third. Um one would would be and I again I don't want to keep picking the can down the road cuz I know that our our ownership is extremely keen to get occupants in there since
064we were trying to go for like the student move in that didn't work. We're trying to get it as fast as possible. um whether it's another appeals through the PSAA for their um appeal and variance for the radius through building standards similar to what we're doing here almost almost mirroring exactly what we're doing here um on that schedule or amending this variance request but that would take us a subsequent stream approval for any changes to uh dropping down to 914 NFPA 914 um or would the and again I I'll broke this one more time. If if it was if it were just removed um and we followed the 914 spec so there wasn't any issue of providence of an FDC requiring a hydrant radius at all. That way it would be the exact same existing
065condition and use as it was before and we've provided more than enough supplemental fire rated separations anyway over and above what was already there. I again I don't want to do that but if it makes it simpler and faster for us I would I would be open to that amendment of the motion. >> I I don't know. Well, I mean, obviously I'm going to give a recommendation regardless of whether I can or not at this appeals because you could send me an email and I would put it in written form anyways. >> Sure. >> Um, my two options, what I would look at for you is possibly going through the the public service administrator, um, if that's the right title, if I'm saying it right. >> Um, for that variance and and then that the
066variance is a decreased amount at that point. So, it is kind of a a smaller amount. The the other option would be if you had someone in mind that's is familiar with performance-based system that they could utilize a performance-based system engineering it to the what you have in place maybe minus the FDC but they'd have to do it in such a way and wear it such a way that maybe it would still get approval and unfortunately I think that would fall back in your hands but a performance-based system is still once again it's not a prescription ion system where it's following the letter of the law. >> So if a performancebased engineer says, "I've designed this system. It's designed as a 13R which is designed to allow people to get out but not put out
067the fire and it's going to be able to do that." >> So there so there's a potential avenue that you reach out to the PSA um and see what they have to say or go is am I correct in this? There's that route or there's adjust it to the 914. >> Yeah. or adjust it. That would be the two two routes I see moving forward. The quickest route because I don't even know how that works with the the going to the public service administrator. Is it just a phone call and an email saying, "Hey, this is here. This is where we're at because I don't even know is is there truly a process for that that's in writing?" Well, well, the uh I assume it will be a letter pursuant to the January 25th ST
068city of V Arbor standard specifications uh section 1 C variations and revision to standards. We seek relief under PN1 uh based on the unusual conditions or the circumstances warranted. So that would be one thing. Now, you could table today's proceeding to a date and then you know you bring it back when you if you need to based on what the PSA he might say no that's building code then you're back here or he might say yeah you can do it but what you don't want is you don't want Mr. Roberts to grant relief and then it all of a sudden building code and we're back here again. So if it's ever going to be a building code or a fire code this is the body to do that. Well, and and this is would be
069my interpretation of it for those that are present here. Fire code, building code, MBC standards, if you look up definitions, standards are different than codes. Um the only thing about the the standards that have been in place, they say they're a minimum standard that must be followed. So that's why it's looking at that sense that when you see them standards, they have been followed to a tea, >> right? and they've they have >> existed variances as well to the standards. >> So I I think Mr. riser makes a point if you can table this just to push it out even though it may not be needed or be used or can't be used but at least you have it in place as a hold and then go to the PSA >> or revise your applic
070>> or revise it because if you go the if you go the route of NPA N or NFPA 914 that could be revised but that still would have to be submitted to building to review >> right um but at least if you hold this today if we table it for It it may still go nowhere a month from now. >> Again, that's my worry. So, I'm worried about the tennis match of PSA and then bouncing right back here. >> But that way, you'd have it locked in here. >> So, we have oneending, >> excuse me. Isn't the difference that if the PSA bounces it back to us, we have a full range of options relative to the building code? Meaning that we can consider the third option of if they provide it in agreement. >>
071Well, I obviously I mean the if if you read it the way if if you take my words the way I said it, the appeals process for the municipal code, the way it's written for us says applies to this code, which is applying to codes and not standards. So, I would assume at that point if the PSSA turns it down, like if if they say you can do it or can't do it, but if the PSA bumps it back to you guys, I would say you would probably by my own words and definition and and interpretation, you would have that third option to apply it because that what's written in that 9 108 section of the municipal code applies to code and it says this code in there. It doesn't say standard. though. And it's
072very specific cuz that's in that same chapter. Chapter 111 in the police book is where this gets legally adopted into the city and where my power comes from. >> So yes, you're right. >> Terrific. That so but not to muddy the waters here just because with each iteration of this, a little bit more information comes out. >> So there's an existing fire suppression system for the retail or commercial part of the building. bidwack on the first floor. Yes. >> Does that have an FTC? >> No, there's no current FTC on the building. >> Okay. >> And it would be more than 150. >> It would still be in the same location. Even if we put it right at the edge of the building, it would still be 13 ft out of the radius requirements for
07313R. So if they're putting in a suppression system just for the residential level and that's considered a residential suppression system. >> Mhm. >> Do they need an FDC for that? >> For a 13R they do. >> They do. >> Yes. >> And then they also need that hydrant location. >> Yeah. The only difference with the 13R system becomes the distance 100 changes to 150. Yeah, but I I guess what I'm saying is be it's a different kind of residential system that would might like allow you to just tap into a domestic >> the 13D system which is one and two family dwellings allows you to tap into domestic water. There's three systems 13D 13R and then 13D can't be applied to this. Yeah, it's got to be at a minimum. We're at that now as
074a 13R, which is still >> res via email few weeks ago trying to see if it would be considered that, but no, it went through 13R, which necessitated the FDC, but that still begs the point with with the Google sprinkler system and the existing conditions without a change of use. I mean at this point like do we just recommend and go on a stream just removing it all together and just being like well that's you know >> once again I usually don't get involved in design work um and I'm trying to think of the frontage of the property because you can and I don't know how far it extends over if that starts to open up to the the pathway into Nicholls Arcade because you can do a freestanding FTC but I don't think that
075would technically work for that building. I don't think you have the option to move it 13 feet farther down because then it misrepresents what it's providing providing access to. >> Um it helps you that much. >> Yeah. I don't think it's going to give you that much more wiggle room. >> It would be in a weird like triangular piece of concrete. >> And what's interesting is a lot of I think a lot of times when you look in the downtown area, a lot of places that have FTC's, they have them freestanding FTC's where they're coming up out of the ground in front of the businesses. And I always thought it was done that way because they were historic buildings and they didn't want to put the FTC on the building itself, but I I don't
076think that's really going to help you much for the space. So, um, you know, my recommendation would be, you know, trying to go through the PSAA, >> write the letter, you have all the all the information now, you have it. Um, and and it's 13R. It's not 100 foot. So, you change it to a 13R system, 150 ft. You're that far off. Yeah, that's reasonable probably accommodation. >> And even if denied there, you would know your next path forward, which would throw it back into a building code situation. And that would put us back here for another meeting where they have all of the options that they typically would to hear any um any building code issues. Great. >> Could I ask two follow-up questions on that specific line? I'll try my best to be
077clear on them. Um, again, in an effort to save time, since we've we all have the information thoroughly in our our memories right now, uh, would it would it be uh uh would it be something the board would entertain to do uh a motion pending any approval? And if it does not get approved at the PSA, then it would come back and we can explain why it wasn't. But if it gets approved at the PSA, then it doesn't need to bounce back here >> from us at all. >> Correct. Right. And again, and if it and if it doesn't get approved for the PSA, then we'd come back with whatever variations in the uh request would be here and have the hearing. Again, I just want to cut down cuz maybe if there's no process
078similar to this where there's a monthly meeting um and it can be done via email and and that can be done rather quickly, then that would trigger the approval, assuming there's approval on it, um because it's already been moved and so ordered here, uh versus coming right back. And if it doesn't via the email, then we'd still have to come to the November 20th meeting anyway and have a Thanksgiving dinner together and and see if we can get approval that way. >> If they table it here and you're good through the public service administrator, like we'll just cancel. >> Yeah, we just cancel the following month meeting here. >> Um, so I don't know that they need to to make a a statement for approval because you'd be going a different code route if you
079were coming back. >> Yeah, your your hold up right now is a standard >> the system alto together or going to the NFPA 914 option. the 914 and a similar system or whatever um route you were going to do there. The um performance. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Right. >> So that would be a slightly different avenue taking right now. >> Um >> so still pending the PSA review approval. Would there be a method of of receiving a temporary occupancy for the space until that time is resolved? The reason being with its existing condition and the existing use, they could have been occupying the space the whole time once the constructors are out. Uh just in an effort to get both because there wouldn't be any inside work being done. It would be purely exterior tying
080into the exterior water main and providing the FDC pending what the PSA requires with or without a hydrant. >> Temporary CO for except what result of that? I mean that's a question. So I I would need to look at it, but our standard procedure is no COO with any outstanding life safety um systems or issues pending. Um but you know, I I would be I would I would look at it what you have what the avenue is. >> Um but yeah, that's our that's our our typical is >> right since we're still we have alarms and everything like that. Again, I'm just trying to get occupants in the space while we rectify how we're getting water in the pipes. I would need to look at it in depth before I could give you that decision.
081>> Well, question it. They didn't need it in the first place. You know what I mean? Like if if they if this they're doing this just excuse me because then >> their life safety is what? Fire extinguishers, alarms, >> fire alarms, >> you know, smoke detectors, what all those things. If all those things are in place, >> which they are, all of those systems are Would that be their that's their baseline and right now they're just trying to figure out how to put sprinklers in there. >> So without it detailed in front of me, I can't make a decision right here about it. >> Um so my >> But that's an easy followup for you. >> If that's the direction they're going, I would need the information detailed to make an informed decision. >> I
082mean, sounds like there's two different avenues here. It's submitting your fire, you know, smoke alarm, your fire extinguisher, having that inspection and having all that in place and or turn it in and see if that's >> that would be almost application on stream like like a usual uh CO application. You'd see there's an outstanding messa obviously because that's what this meeting is about, right? But we would say because of the existing use groups and the fact that we have fire extinguishers, all of the occupant notification devices throughout the area and alarm systems checked, would that be allowed CFO while we await the PSA um hearing? >> And again, I need to see where all the I can't make that >> especially since you open permit. I'm happy to look through it. >> It would still
083be the open permit. >> Yeah. And yeah, but yeah, you wouldn't close out the permit. It would just be an approval of CFO and keeping the permit open for the Mesa permit, which would be a little squirly. >> It might be your best route, but especially kicking it back. >> I think your first route is the PSAA. >> That's what I'm saying. >> Without a doubt. I think when you leave here today, you start drafting a letter to them. You start drafting a letter and just send it off to them because I'm not even sure if there's a process for it. I think a a letter with what you want to accomplish and what you want to do under the 2025 spec specification standards that you want them to rule on it. Say this is
084where we're at. This is where we're at. This is the the variance we need for this amount. And I I mean I I can't imagine that, you know, it I don't think it's going to be held in this ch council chambers for that. I think it goes strictly to one person, one person alone. they may reach out to me. Um, but they're going to give you, I think, an answer back. I don't think there's a huge long process for it. But then I don't know because it hasn't been done that I know of. >> But I think that is your most immediate walk out of this room today type thing to do. >> Um, you know, you can keep this tabled here if you had to come back, but that's only just for that purpose
085if you had to come back for some odd reason. I mean, you might you might send an email out and two days later you're approved, >> right? But I would play it safe and then write in to the letter like, "Please resend the tabled motion X." Whatever. >> Well, again, the motion we would make here is just a table. >> Just a table. >> Yeah. We wouldn't we wouldn't be making a motion to improve last forever on the table and you have to clean it up someday. >> A big table. And then concurrently with that, reaching out right when I walk out the door, I'll I'll get on the uh on the horn and then also submit a CFO request for the existing conditions showing all of the um we already have the approval on
086the inspections anyway. So we'll we'll just put in the CO request with that pending nomenclature of everything that we discussed here. And if it's amendable to you, that would that would be nice to have uh at least the occupancy while we resolve it through the PSA. And who knows, that could be a week, it could be two. I don't know what the response time is, but at the very least, we would frontload some of that knowing that we are meeting the current safety standards while we figure out what we're doing with the sprinkler system. Okay. >> Then the motion will be to table. >> Yes. >> We have a motion. >> Uh a motion to table >> for 60 days. >> Okay. >> Second. >> Those in favor? I >> Okay, table for 60 days.
087Well, good luck with your next meeting with uh >> Thank you. Yes. And emails and or calls. >> The you can find that whole standard on the city website under the engineering department. >> Yes. >> So, I'm sure you already have it. >> Okay. >> Y cool. Thank you all. I appreciate that. >> Any old business? We have any old 60 days. Oh, that went away. You want to talk about that one? Did it go away? >> I think they they found a comp and got another meeting. >> Thank you for being here, sir. >> I got another meeting. >> He's just leaving. Uh I motion to adjurnn. >> Second business. >> Oh, sorry. We said that over here. >> Business. >> We have none. >> Okay. >> Double checking. >> Skip over something. >>
088I think we're good. >> So, sorry. Motion to adjurnn. Okay. >> Motion to adjurnn again to a >> second again. Those in favor continue administration.