Existing secondary egress stair needs repair - town said it can't be

[mtlogcabin]

Have you considered a fire escape and not a stair under the IEBC. 8" riser and 8" tread dimensions and a counter balanced stair that would encroach into the setback only when needed should meet zoning requirements.

Look at IEBC chapter 5 for fire escapes

​

 

[iOne]

Have you considered a fire escape and not a stair under the IEBC. 8" riser and 8" tread dimensions and a counter balanced stair that would encroach into the setback only when needed should meet zoning requirements.
Look at IEBC chapter 5 for fire escapes

Great idea and thought.

However: the pathway leading up to the rear door is non-compliant to current code.
My concern is that proposing a fire escape would make it a fire escape and the entire pathway would have to be brought up to to today's code.

Where repairing the stair would leave the existing condition. I've read now ten years of insurance company inspection reports, they were always cool with the existing stair.

 

[iOne]

Here's what the 1958 UBC required for H ("Housing") occupancies for stairs in yards:

For the 1958 UBC the trigger was an occupancy of 10 or more.
Would that have for the area served, the building, or the property ?

The area serviced by this stair is four one bedroom units, thus implying an occupancy of no more than eight (8). The building
is eight one bedroom units. The property has just one building.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

The area serviced by this stair is four one bedroom units, thus implying an occupancy of no more than eight (8). The building
is eight one bedroom units. The property has just one building.

Nice try, but that's not how occupant load is calculated. At the very least, one should assume that a one-bedroom apartment will have two occupants -- but the 1958 UBC didn't go that route. Occupant load is based on square footage:

 

[BuildingOfficial89]

Does the zoning department have a process for a variance? It sounds like there may be a hardship to meet both Code and Zoning requirements.

 

[iOne]

Does the zoning department have a process for a variance? It sounds like there may be a hardship to meet both Code and Zoning requirements.

I talked to them, and it turns out they DO have an unpublished procedure when triggered by "health and safety" issues.
Zoning, building, fire and insurance all have their own procedures. So far just speaking about zoning and building.

 

[Amy Reineri]

I would consider it a "taking" of those four units by the city if they refused access. The stair can be made of metal and fire escapes in the IEBC do provide for "replacement with same". I get that the current stair is non-conforming and considered to be risky for the residents, there needs to be access. Since it was already in the setback, I can't see it standing up in court for them to refuse it, which is maybe where this is heading. Another route is to strongly propose the other solutions they will hate even more perhaps: come further into the setback with an enclosed stair made of non-flammable materials, take the entire setback for an enclosed switch-back exit stair, etc. Maybe this is the route the archtect is taking anyway. It is possible that someone living nearby, who finds people sitting on the staircase talking is annoying them or their tenants and that is really what the problem is. But the IEBC does allow for repairs in the existing position of other solutions are not feasible - if the city is refusing to allow other solutions, then it would seem to comply with that. But a takings arguement by the building owner and tenants against the city will likely lead to a settlement that includes replacement of the stairs - probably with non-combustible materails. Or the city will agree to buy the whole building. Maybe they want a parking lot there. Some municipalities are playing several hands of poker at the same time and you're not sure if their preferred winner is even on the list of involved parties in a case like this..

 

[Amy Reineri]

Oh, dear God!

I'll almost guarantee that stair was NOT part of the original construction. What are the tread and riser dimensions on that stair? I'm going to guess they're 8" treads and 9" risers. Even the 1958 UBC limited risers to 7-1/2" and treads had to be 10" minimum. There's no way that stair meets those proportions.

There is an exception that for stairs serving an occupant load of 50 or less the risers can be 8" and the treads 9", but to me that photo looks like the risers are 9" and the treads are 8".

Residential 8" and 9" were legal in most of the country back in the 1950s. - and 60s - and a good deal of the 70s. It is also possible that the residential units were developed from what were originally units with internal stairs to the front or owner units connected to the commercial units themselves, etc. Mixed residential and commercial used to be a whole lot different than what we see being done today. I find old residential units above the mezzanines in old retail units. They could walk out onto the roof, but they exited through their retail unit below. I hate older steep stairs, but they were for more than attics back then - I drew up an existing house where the upper floor was accessed using a 12" riser, 6" tread stairway/ladder thing. Owner walked right up and down it - toes on the way up and heels on the way down. Insane, but also clearly had been in use for 60-100 years.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

Residential 8" and 9" were legal in most of the country back in the 1950s. - and 60s - and a good deal of the 70s.

Yes -- 8" rise and 9" tread, not 9" rise and 8" tread ...