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I talked to them, and it turns out they DO have an unpublished procedure when triggered by "health and safety" issues.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 ...

 

[iOne]

OP Update:
Victory!
Chess match played, the City folded.

Deal made.
All the workarounds and alternative folded stairs and ramps all will sit on the shelf collecting digital dust.

We have approval to repair the existing stair on the original footprint at the original pitch.
We volunteered current code railing height and handrails.
Insurance is happy.
Inspectors are happy.
Planning is happy.
The "repair" will actually be a replace, and that's all going to be fine also.
Those who don't know may be happy or not, I don't care.


Thanks for all your help everyone on this thread.


This local ordinance helped:

§ X.Y.X Maintenance and Alteration of Nonconformity.
Any nonconforming use or structure, or any combination thereof, may be improved subject to the following conditions:
A. Maintenance of Nonconformity. Any maintenance of a nonconforming structure, a structure on a nonconforming lot, or a structure containing a nonconforming use, consisting of repair work necessary to keep the structure in sound condition shall be permitted.

Nonconforming Structures: Additions and Enlargements. A nonconforming structure, or a structure located on a nonconforming lot, if such structure is used for residential purposes may be enlarged or extended.... provided that no greater degree of nonconformity results with respect to the requirements of the district within which it is located and of this section, and that there is compliance with all applicable City building and housing codes. The preexisting portion of the facility need not be brought into conformance with this chapter, except as herein provided.

It help, but only a tiny amount, that an entire 1/2 mile stretch of the same street nearly every building has a non-conforming rear setback (shy between 6 inches to about 2 feet). Apparently the setback Rodeo has been run before.

Online building permit submission did NOT help.
Outside plan check was a barrier : adding cost, confusion and context-free noise.

Fortunately this City still has actual people working in an actual office.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

I'm happy to see that someone sees value in maintaining safe exiting ...

 

[socaldano]

We've got a 1960's building in California with a primary stair, and smaller rear stairway made of wood, presumably to meet egress codes at the time. The secondary stair serves four single bedroom units. None of the units have sprinklers.

The stair is in poor condition.

The building is 10 feet (well, 3 inches less) from the property line, the stair extends into the ten foot setback.
The setback is concrete and used for garbage, nothing else (wasted space).

The town has said that repairs to the stair are impossible, would have to be fireproof anyway, and they won't approve a variance to the setback.
The town does not have a suggestion, just a set of fire and zoning rules that seem to rule out anything nice.
A metal spiral staircase would meet need, not code.

The town has NOT, yet at least, complained that the 2nd egress goes through two unlocked doors and a storage area.
The town claims there's no building permit for the 2nd egress stair, but without evidence. On the contrary the physical evidence suggests it's original to the building.

Thoughts, other than wait for single stair egress to be approved?
View attachment 16599

Existing Building Code might be of help. 5th amendment is very useful, as when the city changes the rules making its zoned normal and customary use impossible. Then under "regulatory taking of property" they must compensate you. ALSO, there is laws in California against the Cities that require them to increase occupancy of buildings. IF the city changes the rules to make it only legal for a single use, that may violate the new state laws. Lastly, many upstair two story apartments in California have a SINGLE egress by door (windows count as additional egress). The windows do not have to have a stairwell to ground, just be large enough to climb out onto a ladder.
Having lived in Los Angeles for 45 years, I cannot recall EVER seeing 2nd story apartments with a 2nd staircase on simple 4plexes and 8 plexes. They always only have the front stair, and a balcony or rear windows.
BTW, in the Northridge Earthquake, many two story apartments had the "bolt on" metal path along the upper apartments, with a staircase at one end. The staircases fell away, and people were almost injured leaving their apartments by the front door...no elevated path anymore.

 

[socaldano]

There was a case out of Florida Siegle v. Lee County, 198 So. 3d 773 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016) where Laches says "the City never complained about the issue before, why now?". And the "existing building code" talks about a tree falling on the house, damaging some trusses. Only the new trusses need to meet building code, the old trusses passed the test of time. the second is a little bit off, but nobody has complained about the old design. I would argue that the City has to give you a path to success or its a regulatory taking of property. Especially with californias new laws compelling multi unit properties as opposed to single unit property permits.