001I call the orders are regular meeting of the building board appeals for January 19 2023 roll call darling here Robert Hart here Kevin Cox David arnster here you Flack here staff Mike Lemieux here Michael Redmond here John Reiser here myself Deborah Williams and we have a quorum thank you first item on the agenda is the approval of the agenda does anyone have an auditions or modifications where can we have a motion to approve the agenda I move recruit the agenda second motion and support those in favor aye next item on the agenda is the approval of minutes from the September 22nd 22 PBA meeting is there any uh comments on the minutes from that meeting if not I can have a motion to approve those move to approve give me a second pushing in the
002support who's in favor all right passes repeals actions and show cause hearing the item on the agenda for this month is BBA appeal for 727 East Kingsley Ann Arbor Michigan so we have the applicant here can you kind of state I guess we were first uh we do applicant and insect report for us yeah okay well staff can can uh report on the variance request yeah so uh the property at 727 East Kingsley it's an R2 is described by the 2015 Michigan building code Signed Sealed plans were submitted and building permit building 22-0558 were issued April 11th of 2022. the building was built in 1958 the appeal is on the tread depth requirement for the 2015 Michigan building codes it's a staff's opinion that the applicant is is appealing that the true intent of the
003code has been misinterpreted and it's a staff's opinion this is that the code is clear on minimum requirements for stair geometry and the intent is to keep people safe while using common stairways which is why the minimum standards were developed and adopted stayed in the petitioner's description the scare replacement at this property and the rise and Runner off by less than an inch if this was not done it would interfere had gone through the window that was already you'll play this it's unclear how the statement demonstrates a misinterpretation of the code the rise of the scare meets the code minimum requirements tread depth does not need the 11 inch requirement basis of the appeal of the state of the cost to take down the new staircase and move the window and rebuild the new staircase
004would be extremely expensive we've already invested over fifty thousand dollars in the project for the Sherman application the project was estimated at fifteen thousand dollars the costs and costs do not be presidents project cost is also not listed in section 113 as a basis for appeal in staff's opinion that the statements do not support the true intent of the code being misinterpreted and do not justify a board of appeals approval approved it would allow stairs in violation of the 2015 Michigan building code to remain in service all right thank you everyone could please speak until their mics that'd be helpful so we have an applicant here can you state your name and tell us a little bit about your appeal I'm uh Aaron wimbleen with Ox Studio I'm speaking on behalf of the applicant the
005applicant is on on the call um both as listed as Erica Hall and um so on behalf of the applicant I just wanted to clarify um uh the the response is that were originally published on as City staff response weren't I didn't see and I issued a supplemental um response to those questions but I think it would have caused confusion because the questions um in the staff response we're on a separate sheet so I apologize for that but if um but if I may um there's been some confusion on this project back when on the initial inspection when the tread depth was discovered and I amended the drawing to include based on a conversation with with Jamie and I think he's on it all too and we can talk about this um there's only about
00610 people using this stair and so reviewing I understand the exception um for a 10 inch head wrap depth is based on um on an internal stair to a unit but the intent of that exception is based is for R2 is is actually defined by by a low occupancy and an occupancy that is familiar with with the trend the other and I can go through and answer any questions but and and I added a note on the bottom which I think caused further confusion was you know when we originally wanted to replace this 1986 stair which had two different tread depths and two different Riser Heights and one Rider hits was seven and a half but I went through the old field notes from 2020 by the way a long time ago um once there
007run was had a eight inch Riser depth and a 10 inch tread so they were all mixed up on the original and we as a repair in dealing with basically five datums to hit um including a window and a stair um you know we looked at the options and and we considered in 2020 you know maybe we could reclassify this as a fire escape we didn't decided not to do that but with that window and the chimney um and the the reasons why the 1986 there was so non-conforming um uh we did everything we did could do to move to make this the most safe stair including adding they're not installed yet which would actually make it less than an inch um a non-slip tread depth for the wood stair and because this is an
008exterior stair so um I guess I guess on the rehab condition um and without your your knowledge of of the 1986 there that was replaced um I can see the staffs interpretation but uh um it's you know I guess I would like your understanding of you know this was not done um you know for you know there's no there's no intent of other than feasibility of doing everything to make this dare in compliance to the rehab pose and um and deal with the existing conditions as a repair slash remediation and the existing stair meets all the Riser Heights it is it is not by the clinical definition of nosing to nosing but it is the full 11 inches and would be let be probably 11 and a quarter with the when the tread cover gets
009put on um so and the uh we've got two stairs North and South um and there's about 20 occupants on on um egressing and most go to the street this stair goes to the back parking of which again a low occupancy just using this this stairs that's it thank you okay thank you moving official have any comment about uh um I guess the only thing that I will comment on is uh the records that I found and in our system for the 1986 permit and when comparing that to the 1984 Boca code the stair as drawn in the records would be compliant with the code of the time okay um but with the um the work that was done it exceeds what is a repair it was from the foundation of a new stairway okay
010thank you does the board have any questions for the applicant um was was the was the original stair completely removed no I believe there was uh the two Landing posts that were um that Foundation we built off of that of that existing Foundation we ended up I did not I actually disagree that the 1986 there was in compliance with the vocal code I worked under the Boca code it uh it does not permit you know a seven and a half inch Riser and it doesn't permit altering depths and I do have the field notes they're not great field notes but there's three pages of them of the measurements of the 1986 and photographs before it was taken down that would document that the 1986 there was not in compliance so why why are there documents
011that show a 7 and 11 Code Compliance stare submitted that's uh so we have a standard note that requires a course we understand uh you know we have a a standard stairways note that defines you know 10 11.5.2 in this condition because of the uh complicated geometry of trying to improve I mean if you look at the 1986 stairs it was it was not a safe stairs um so uh in the specific detail of this stair on a601 WE very clearly now there's an amendment here but that original note wasn't there for the exception three based on low offices but the stair was in plan I understand that doesn't allow or permit any oversight to be but there was a clear intention to Define um the uh the nosing as one inch along with a
01210 inch tread for an overall of 11 of foot depth with a no skid FRP exterior of non-slip cover to go over it which isn't the dimension of course doesn't is dimension to the wood not to the tread but um it was you know I was again this was this was drawn in December 11 2020. it didn't get submitted until later and maybe it should have been re-discussed um but the intent was to try and early on clarify why that was needed and you know so that's um you know and maybe we could have reused more that was kind of a field question of how much to reuse because the configuration had to completely change to be more in compliance [Applause] so the drawings that we have in the packet is that the revised set
013or is that the permit set because it looks like looking at the drawing in the packet that we have is the Tresor the math they're all 11 inch drawing drawn to 11. it says many Treads and five divided five and it all come out to be 11 inches so it looks like it works on paper to 11 inch tread no it's a uh it the draw the drawings that are included in this packet are the amended but everything anything that changed which was very minor was just that note with after my conversation and realizing that this was going to be an issue um and talking with the inspector so uh you know on a601 that is uh is what was what was it was intended to to make that challenge foreign was built with two
014by risers the risers are two by Lumber is that correct are they small it shows it shows the two by longer ones wrong oh yeah I'm pretty sure it was all too wide open DeSean you can answer that I I was out in the site about six months ago I got photo exceptions no it was drawn to plan for sure because of my issues where I had a we had a bearing issue which I added to gun stock support um and then Jamie and I had some talks about some other interactions of just uh some of the railings which we corrected um it sounds like the hand the handrail extensions were not added um but are intended to be added you know post this conversation because my thoughts could be used could you use a
015narrower riser to gain the tread depth that would gain you potentially if you went down to a as little as a half inch thickness material you're getting your whole inch there yeah Paul I agree you could do that for one run it was it was it was but it would get you on it wouldn't reconstruct the whole stairway it would be modifying what you have built there to get to the dimension that you need yeah if you look at the demo drawing you'll see you'll see why they you know in 1986 I couldn't find any drawings of the 1986 drawings on file but um we did document it on eight architectural demo 101 and you know I would I would love to share we actually had this full rabbit model full bin model we can
016not that you guys want to do that but anyone that would I would be happy to show why that those previous risers changed to make those Landings within that chimney and so that's why we we um we configured it as we did for yeah I'm still not following this the the the demolition drawing 101 shows the entire existing stair coming out Landings everything correct we could we could not save some posts but but it doesn't say that it it shows the whole thing coming out yeah and then it shows on a 501 a whole new stair with all new footings going in and there's no question about that that was the intent um as to was to was to make those corrections I mean of the old steel the old stair um could not be
017reconfigured um other than evaluating the field but yes those there's no confusion there those it was my call to rework the whole stair to [Music] so you made a field decision to rework the whole stair According to some existing conditions that you needed to preserve I made a field decision well I I guess what I'm trying to understand is we you if there's if the if the 601 drawing shows the the the the tread Dimension that doesn't conform so how did it get how did it get to the point where it was built well that without I mean this is a bit I'm not I'm not blaming covid but this is this during when when this was documented this is this there was the field survey and Analysis of the existing stair you know we
018were asked to to fix the existing state to you know how could we do that we and they did not want this to be this huge project they did not need it to be completely redone we went out there we measured everything up we modeled it up with the existing you know the existing stair altogether like I said I have the field notes I have the model that analysis was you know was done those decisions weren't done in the field they were looking at the existing stare as you know as a 3D model as a background of you know trying to understand why and how many infractions we had here and why things were done that way and then it was our recommendation that to to rebuild the stair and do a new stair you
019know to bring this closer to compliance and deal with you know hitting one two three four five conditions which which now I'm starting to actually things are starting to come back even that the Run the other run you know it was my goal to pull that you can't see it but it was right on the parking lot like I got photos um somebody coming down that stair would walk out right where where somebody could drive by and and uh you know so you know there was a lot there was a lot of attention and and I understand the scrutiny and the importance of of the full tread depth I'm just saying it isn't you know I would and I know these drawings aren't you know I mean there's a lot here but and there's a
020lot of of I guess uh history to you know which we've documented the existing condition and it sounds like I wish we you know had this more classified as a repair but again I I my decision to to completely reconfigure um and improve and and the only thing we fall short on is and I you know it will be less than an inch and it will be a full um actual tread depth when you're walking on it and it's and and there's a very few there's very few uh tenants walking down this it it is a low occupant use stair this is a very small R2 building I hope I answered your question please ask it again if I what I still don't I mean so to summarize there was an existing condition and even
021though the drawings show complete demolition it wasn't if there were existing conditions that you had to meet you had to try and accommodate well I so actually Erica is Deshawn Owen with is Dan happen to be here because he's the one that would you know was calling saying hey we you know we can reuse you know part of that Foundation um can you speak to that because I you know I didn't build a stair I just know it was it was built to the drawing oh hey good sorry uh there was one footing that we reviewed other than that everything else was that model okay you say your name for the file too so we can get that on the record just state your name they have what thank you so you you reused one
022footing and everything else was new yeah correct okay so what what was filed with the building department as far as the new stare was it the a601 drawing [Music] with sorry now I'm confused I mean the full full permit uh we have there should have been one two three four five sheets filed for my plan review is that what you're asking it wasn't just one sheet and I know I know that's not what you mean but it's a full set you say more but I I guess well I'm looking at the a601 drawing and I'm looking at the stair detail that shows a 10 inch tread and my my question basically is how did this get to this point I mean was did the building department not unders not pick up that it was that
023they were applying for a 10-inch tread um I didn't do the review um it got issued so it was either missed on it says stamp on this has 11 and stamp I mean the people who stamped this is living in stamps so correction no he's on there state that that um the the set that you're looking at is a revised set so I don't know if that note was on the original okay yeah um yeah and I guess the contradiction on the plans the proper code section with the proper Dimension is on the cover sheet yeah there is a discrepancy in the detail but if you look at the a501 plan the dimensions there on the track add up to 11. so it looks like it fits you know this has four Treads or three
024foot eight or something like that and you divide that out that comes out to be 11 inches so it looks like it works on paper so how do you know is it a field condition they didn't build it this way or I didn't find any they didn't work out the dimensions that were didn't come out to 11 inches okay Paul I'm pulling up the uh the I guess the amended set only had pages that were by I mean I think there may be Solutions there that could modify and still get the 11 inches if we change the tread or change replace the rise or something thinner maybe you get your 11 inches about a complete reconstruction of the stairway but well I talked to Dan about that he didn't think that was possible to change
025the Riser and you can speak to that later is that using the complete removal of the stair again though I mean that's the question no we I mean I don't I would really hope we don't get to that point especially considering the existing conditions and and the improvements made to this there this is this is a very safe space there yeah the threads right now measure ten and three quarters of an inch so we are only a quarter inch without without the tread plate band without the tread plate that's counting the nosing though right that's that's riser to nosing not not uh Rising riser if these thicker framing square onto that and it will come up as 10 and three quarters so we're missing it by one quarter of an inch detail that's that's how
026they were constructed with the 10 inch so that part that was not caught on the revised and put on that note on the front page of the print we did not catch that or made aware of that change we worked off of the details to construct therapists I visited the site and I got a different position oh I uh I visited the site about a month ago or a month and a half ago and I got a different dimension than he's stating it was a full inch off by my measurements riser to risers 10 versus 10th recorder and it may vary somewhat I just I mean I don't find that much yeah can I ask a question is that was that 10 inches consistent everywhere throughout the stairs yeah okay yeah the the tread depth
027and the risers were consistent whereas previous to the renovation they weren't I don't know the condition previous I mean I I do have the previous uh geometry so if if the code if if the code defines the tread depth as 11 inches from the upper nosing to the lower nosing and you've got according to this a601 10 inches is it possible to take off the the leading two by two two by whatever it is tread piece make it longer so you can get to the 11 inches okay no the the geometry is set by the 7 and the ten so to change the geometry of that staircase you would have to do a whole new Stringer for each one of them which in turn then would change the Run of them so then The Landings
028would be in the wrong case I don't see that and he would gained some by making the Riser narrower because that's all cut into the geometry now right or no because you're based on the rise you're having a really thick Riser plus the the 10 inches I don't understand why you can't just do this the technical is not being met you know you're providing some even good or better or it's not being you know the code is not being applied properly so out of those three I think we're having a difficult time coming up with one I think the code is being interpreted correctly hey Paul I trust you know I trust your uh he's a um he spent a lot more about 25 years and you can surpass me um on a lot of
029the reviews of a lot of codes and um but I've never reclassified have you have you ever had a case like this where you reclassified this as a fire escape I mean would we just I mean I understand the window condition but and I've done a lot of fire Escapes in Ann Arbor but um I mean the rehab fire Escapist is drastic compared to yeah those are usually a second means you're being arrested not the primary means of being aggressed so of course of course but we we do have a yeah we do have we're both stairs both the same way or is this only applies to The Backs there that has the problems or both these stairs rebuilt in the same way uh Dan do you know anything about the noise with this thing
030from the remodeling in the so those have not been changed those are the ones that were there when we started the project but are the are the cell stairs in compliance these ones were horrible when I went out there but I never reviewed the the the I'm I'm sure they were in compliance with the Boca code in E6 but if you look at those stairs now they wouldn't be in compliance with the new code yeah no I that statement's been made it's not I mean I got I've got I can share it with everybody here there was uh stare stair one had an eight average eight inch Riser with two by ten tread and stair two run was oddly enough a two by twelve with seven and a half three quarter and seven they're all
031different there's it was not in compliance with Boca I guess the question um the Riser Dan would we be able to replace that inch and a half with the Riser thickness can be anything I mean could we remove the risers to get some extra credits you probably end up taking both of them putting the right back in maybe you know maybe you can get out there by itself but at least you would be saving all the Stringer component all that worked there you have to trim the strainer components back with you just moving the Riser back isn't enough you'd have to trim the nose and nose back yeah to get longer otherwise your noses are still you still got the same nose to nose issue because that would shift everything would shift that might that
032might work by that much yeah that wouldn't that wouldn't be like this if you notice it can't be more than an inch and a quarter right correctly right at that neither way they do it because either they stole or you have to do something there so the board have any other questions a comments foreign would this qualify as a fire escape I would need to see a plan and I don't think that current code allows for fire escapes with the exception of if there's a property line issued which I don't think this would fall under uh for as far as with so yet you can get a configuration in there I would need to see a Sign Sealed drawing to make that that determination but they also have to modify to not make it a
033common egress but to make it specifically for emergency I don't without without a a plan I can't really speak to them hey Paul do you um have a similar interpretation of exception three of why of why the internal exception is is allowed I haven't read the commentary on that I can I mean I can read it to you I can read it for the whole board because I do think it's important I do think it's relevant but I don't want to enforce it but exception three supplies to the interior it applies the interior I don't know why I don't apply the interior it applies to the interior but the reason that's the the uh the commentary explicitly says it's because it's based on a low occupancy in a low use yeah and it's more consistent
034with what the rehab where the residential code is it lasts a lot about the residential code but this is multi-family so multi-family I don't want to go through the expense of adding the tread covers but um that is above and beyond um and the uh the reason why that's relevant for me was when I reviewed the old stair back in 2020 um on the North side it was so it was so slippery yeah you know there's so much buildup there and it you know obviously it's not required by code but I mean I guess I'm trying to show how much was that doesn't have your geometry though a tread cover probably doesn't help your geometry at all as far as you may have less slippery so if it doesn't help the dimensions that that FRP
035one does lift the nosing which is I don't think the rehab Club helps too much either because you completely removed it you know pretty much a replacement again there was just a significant reason why why it was replaced I mean I guess if you're saying we should have it's level three probably you know it's not like it's a you're just changing the tread out without changing without changing the geometry it's pretty significant down to recording replacement so so Paul in the future if I come across a stair that that I could make a lot better but if I leave it as a repair and make it marginally better as a design professional that's what I you know obviously I'm being a little bit it's a challenger I mean it's and then what you know I
036don't you know dance the configuration was so different that's why it was hard to you know it sounds like you could use some of the foundation hopefully that's enough so the one Improvement seems to be that the stairs are now consistent as opposed to previously but other than that well consistent and lower riding and some bigger threats yeah the riser's lowered and we have bigger Treads and everything's consistent and I think the biggest infraction of the or the biggest issue with my 1986 deer review and again I've got notes filed here but it is the inconsistency I've got every every step documented here and um again it goes from the very first one on stair one was eight and a half then the next one was ancient a quarter then the next one was seven
037and seven anyways guys the risers not income an issue here um but on one stair here they did use two by tens and then 1986 portrays any other discussion do we have a motion stuck Paul would using the existing Foundation allow this to be reinterpreted as a repair or is that just not enough a pretty major repair to save the one pushing it doesn't change much else you know this thing seems probably sort of a level three alteration well yeah the foundation and also the existing window and Five Points to hit by Landing spaces now these field notes were dated 10 27 2020. foreign 30 years almost that's pretty pretty long life out of Ester outside stairway I'm saying 86 to 21. they were Treasures to welcome foreign faculty I'd be happy to meet outside
038and provide a cut sheet of the tread cover I tried to recover like a fiberglass perforated thing so it's not so slippery kind of you know yeah does that have the nosing strip on there so it has like the one inch truck on there along the nose a contrasting color uh there is a uh there is a version of that we specif um actually that would be another especially at night that would be another uh that's required now to have that nosing stripe you know back whatever an introduction to do and just wide back from the nosing so if you're going to put that on then make sure you get get that one on there yeah it has it um as the um what is the outside lighting on the stairway is that sufficient these
039are outside lights that are on I like to Stairway at night you've been out there at night I was there during the day yeah security for motion not really but all right well I'll float one yellow strip pole I got it from is it a contrasting Call of Duty it's required to be now I don't know what's out there now but it's I could I can show you I've got it on my screen I'm happy to hear it it is a contrasting yellow with uh okay I moved it in the case of BBA 22-2004 the appeal of the building officials decision that the work performed at 727 East Kingsley is granted relief from section 1011.5.2 and the building board of appeals reverses the building officials decision for the reason that number three the applicant has
040proposed an equal form of construction to suit field constraints and further that the replacement that the new stair is a replacement of an irregular and non-conforming condition from 1986 that risers and Treads were made consistent throughout the stair that safety non-slip nosings of contrasting color were added that the Riser height was reduced to meet the new code and that the tread was modified to suit existing constraints and come as close as feasible to current code yeah well I guess you're saying I said that meets the uh meets the antennas equally good or better again so any comment or discussion on the on the motion just a second I'll second those in favor it was against aye aye can I find something did you say I heard he said Eco but then I heard you say
041equal or better I don't know if that was a friendly Amendment or if it was if if what you guys are voting on was equal or equal or better it was just equal okay yeah okay so it looks like the motion to Grant is denied you should have to modify something or comply with code you know discussion I guess that wraps up that uh Paul I'm actually confused can you I I heard it that there was that the intent was met is that true so he made the motion and then it was voted the motion was there was no support for that motion of granting it was how that rewarded so um that's correct I floated emotion in favor of granting the variance with uh um based on various stipulations and when it came to
042a vote it was denied or not approved did it die for lack of a second no no for lack of support we voted on it and it was you know no one favor foreign AIDS so the appeal is denied foreign proceed well it's a bit of a challenge Paul I mean it doesn't you know we're not modifying the chimney on the buildings yeah and we're not changing the window yeah well I find this um you know what we'll have to so I mean I guess some ideas that borging Jesse was looking at all from the tread lengths or alternate Riser thickness and see if you can get the geometry to work out to be an 11 inch tread let me maintain a majority of that structure there if they can make that work that would
043be yeah we'll we'll do whatever we can to make it comply and if we can't come up with a solution then we'll have to resubmit some drawings and make some changes and I come up to code and we appreciate your time and input and thank you very much all right thank you thank you next item on the agenda is old business is there any old business to discuss saying none new business non-public commentary no public we have a motion to adjourn move to adjourn second it was in favor aye okay [Applause]