Building Code Board of Appeals Agenda and Packet 2017 05 25

Home Browse Search

This charging statement makes it apparent that the provisions for existing buildings does apply to IRC regulated buildings and thus single family dwellings. With that information, we can apply section 3404.1 of the IBC stating; "....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 prior to the alteration. Exceptions: 1. An existing stairway shall not be required to comply with the requirements of section 1009 (Of the IBC) where the existing space does not allow a reduction in pitch or slope." Section 1009 of the IBC regulates stairways including rise and run (pitch and slope) and tied to that is headroom. Without modifying the pitch and slope of the stairway you cannot modify the headroom. In this particular case it is not feasible to modify the ceiling above the stairs at the bottom of the stairs to gain headroom, and there is no room to modify the stair rise or run. In fact doing so would cause the stairway to be less compliant and more hazardous due to an abnormally tall rise and short run. As such the stair as it exists meets the letter and intent of this code section without modification. Based on the new request and information provided by the property owner and his architect, and to provide fundamental fairness, I believe it appropriate to apply all of the code sections noted above from the City of Louisville adopted codes and allow the stair headroom condition to remain as is without requiring any alteration to that stairway. In my professional opinion as the Interim CBO for the City of Louisville, and as a professional code consultant and instructor of the Existing Building Codes, and one of the past member of the 14 members of the International Existing Building Code international committee, I am comfortable with the recommendation and position that the stair as existing is entirely within the intent of the code as outlined above, and the previous decision to uphold the 6'-6" headroom provisions should be reversed. Please feel free to contact me directly if you have any questions or concerns about this information and subsequent request. Sincerely, Bill Clayton, CBO Interim Chief Building Official City of Louisville bofficial(a�Iouisvilleco.gov 303-335-4580 Plans examiner, Code Consultant, Instructor Colorado Code Consulting, LLC 2IPage Colorado Code Consulting, LLC