• Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades

Overrulled by my Department Head (Zoning Administrator)

Yankee

Yankee

Registered User
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
1,344
Location
New England
Looking for opinions as I am questioning myself . . . .

local resturant wants to remove the stairway from their indoor seating down to thier patio on the water, it is a full floor height. They propose removing all but the top landing and building the rest from scratch.

Is this stairway exisitng, or new? Chapter 34, or Chapter 10?
 
From a zoning view, existing whether it complies with setbacks, etc. From the building side this is new construction and applicable rules would apply for thread height, depth, guardrails, hailrails and landings.
 
Sounds like new construction to me.

Why are they wanting to rebuild the stair? Are there structural issues in meeting current code requirements? If there are structural issues to meet current code and rebuild is to fix an unsafe stair (deterioration), it would seem like a good case for a code modification (if you have provision for code modifications).
 
What's the question you are asking yourself?

If the "removal" of the stairway is a "problem" maybe it can be "repaired"?
 
Could this now be a coast guard inspection, "on the water? "

"Spalding, Get your foot off my boat!"
 
&.....&.....&.....&



Yankee,

The stairway that is there now is "existing".....Once they remove that stair, any

future stair would be "new" construction and need to meet the requirements

for "new" construction, such as: MOE, ...handrailing, ...guardrailing, ...treads

& risers, ...ADA, ...any "new" landings, ...psf loads, ...etc....Just lots of goodies

to consider.



.....&.....&.....&.....
 
It's a repair.

3403.4 Stairways.

An alteration or the replacement of an existing stairway in an existing structure shall not be required to comply with the requirements of a new stairway as outlined in Section 1009 where the existing space and construction will not allow a reduction in pitch or slope.

So what do I win?
 
FredK said:
It's a repair.3403.4 Stairways.

An alteration or the replacement of an existing stairway in an existing structure shall not be required to comply with the requirements of a new stairway as outlined in Section 1009 where the existing space and construction will not allow a reduction in pitch or slope.

So what do I win?
Click to expand...
It is an external stairway, there is no restriction on space or construction except for the loss of patio area. Keep 'em coming . . .
 
Yankee said:
It is an external stairway, there is no restriction on space or construction except for the loss of patio area. Keep 'em coming . . .
Click to expand...
Well since it's external, it's new and under Chapter 10. Must have missed the external stairway in OP.
 
The 2009 includes structures but agree it must comply with new (Chap 10) since there is no restriction of space

2009IBC

3404.1 General.

Except as provided by Section 3401.4 or this section, alterations to any building or structure shall comply with the requirements of the code for new construction. Alterations shall be such that the existing building or structure is no less complying with the provisions of this code than the existing building or structure was prior to the alteration .

Exceptions:

1. An existing stairway shall not be required to comply with the requirements of Section 1009 where the existing space and construction does not allow a reduction in pitch or slope.



2. Handrails otherwise required to comply with Section 1009.12 shall not be required to comply with the requirements of Section 1012.6 regarding full extension of the handrails where such extensions would be hazardous due to plan configuration.
 
% % % %



FredK,



It wasn't in the OP!....Yankee is updating us "on the fly".....C`mon now, ...keep up! :D



% % % %
 
Have we tried the Performance Compliance Methods in Chapter 13 of the IEBC yet? 1301.2.4 Alterations and repairs. An existing building or portion thereof that does not comply with the requirements of this code for new construction shall not be altered or repaired in such a manner that results in the building being less safe or sanitary than such building is currently. If in the alteration, or repair, the current level of safety or sanitation is to be reduced, the portion altered ore repaired shall conform to the requirements of Chapters 2-12 and 14-33 of the IBC.
 
Papio Bldg Dept said:
Have we tried the Performance Compliance Methods in Chapter 13 of the IEBC yet? 1301.2.4 Alterations and repairs. An existing building or portion thereof that does not comply with the requirements of this code for new construction shall not be altered or repaired in such a manner that results in the building being less safe or sanitary than such building is currently. If in the alteration, or repair, the current level of safety or sanitation is to be reduced, the portion altered ore repaired shall conform to the requirements of Chapters 2-12 and 14-33 of the IBC.
Click to expand...
That is the crux of the conversation. Is it an alteration, or is it new.
 
Also listed as 3410.2.3 in the 2006 IBC

Papio Bldg Dept said:
Have we tried the Performance Compliance Methods in Chapter 13 of the IEBC yet? 1301.2.4 Alterations and repairs. An existing building or portion thereof that does not comply with the requirements of this code for new construction shall not be altered or repaired in such a manner that results in the building being less safe or sanitary than such building is currently. If in the alteration, or repair, the current level of safety or sanitation is to be reduced, the portion altered ore repaired shall conform to the requirements of Chapters 2-12 and 14-33 of the IBC.
Click to expand...
 
Yankee said:
That is the crux of the conversation. Is it an alteration, or is it new.
Click to expand...
Any good crux can be debated in either direction. If it is a repair that will lead to the replacement of existing stairs in order to maintain/protect the general welfare, health and safety of the public, then yes you could view this as an alteration/repair and Section 3410 of the 2006 IBC would be applicable. If it is strictly an aesthetic, or in some way to reduce the level of safety to simply make more room or create an aesthetic, then I would tend to view this as new construction or alteration/repair.
 
Yankee said:
That is the crux of the conversation. Is it an alteration, or is it new.
Click to expand...
On the other hand, I would have a hard time arguing that it would not have to, in some way, address the accessibility requirements, as noted in Section 3409. And then the crux leans towards construction costs, is this a primary function area(i.e., dining with a view of the water, etc.), etc. Am I at the precipice of the discussion yet?
 
How about ADA? I don't think technically infeasible would apply from what you have described.

4.1.6 Accessible Buildings: Alterations.

(1) General. Alterations to existing buildings and facilities shall comply with the following:



(d) No alteration of an existing element, space, or area of a building or facility shall impose a requirement for greater accessibility than that which would be required for new construction. For example, if the elevators and stairs in a building are being altered and the elevators are, in turn, being made accessible, then no accessibility modifications are required to the stairs connecting levels connected by the elevator.


If stair modifications to correct unsafe conditions are required by other codes, the modifications shall be done in compliance with these guidelines unless technically infeasible.
 
Papio Bldg Dept said:
On the other hand, I would have a hard time arguing that it would not have to, in some way, address the accessibility requirements, as noted in Section 3409. And then the crux leans towards construction costs, is this a primary function area(i.e., dining with a view of the water, etc.), etc. Am I at the precipice of the discussion yet?
Click to expand...
They have just finished a major renovation on the rest (inside) of the restaurant in which they have newly provided a lift and ADA bathrooms to get from the street level up 5 steps to the dining room which views the lake. A lift down a floor to the patio would not be in the "requirement" cards.The existing stairs are "wicked" bad (not structurally, but dimensionally) and virtually anything would be an improvement. But is "an improvement" what is required here, or is this new construction?
 
$ $ $ $



Can they "alter" them to a compliant state, or will they have to

completely remove them and build "new" to be compliant?



$ $ $ $
 
The existing stairs are "wicked" bad (not structurally, but dimensionally) and virtually anything would be an improvement
Click to expand...
If they do not touch the stairs then all you can do is require them to be maintained which they seem to have done by your statement. However if they remove them they have to replace them with a code compliant stair under Chapter 10. It is not an "improvement" structurally the "improvement" would be conforming to current rise and run demensions for the treads.

3401.2 Maintenance.

Buildings and structures, and parts thereof, shall be maintained in a safe and sanitary condition. Devices or safeguards which are required by this code shall be maintained in conformance with the code edition under which installed. The owner or the owner's designated agent shall be responsible for the maintenance of buildings and structures. To determine compliance with this subsection, the building official shall have the authority to require a building or structure to be reinspected.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top