Laserfiche WebLink
Building Code Board of Appeals <br />Meeting Minutes <br />May 25, 2017 <br />Page2of5 <br />• Code R311.7.2- Headroom: Alter staircase to comply with code <br />recommendations. <br />➢ Applicant: Dan Irlbeck <br />Staff Report of Facts and Issues: <br />Staff presented additional information related to the appeal case at 1610 Circle Drive <br />that the Building Code Board of Appeals originally reviewed on March 16, 2017. This <br />case relates to an appeal of an interpretation of Sections 102.7 and R311.7.2 of the <br />2012 International Residential Code. The applicant contends that the current <br />condition of a staircase with 6'0" headroom should be allowed as an existing <br />condition that is part of a basement renovation and altering the staircase to comply <br />with minimum headroom requirements is not a technically feasible option. <br />Following the original Board review and determination on March 16, 2017, the <br />applicant requested that staff visit the site to review possible solutions. The City's <br />Interim Building Official, Bill Clayton, CBO conducted a site visit and met with the <br />owner and the owner's architect. Mr. Clayton evaluated the site conditions, additional <br />information provided by the applicant, and additional sections of the 2012 <br />International Residential Code and International Building Code relevant to the case. <br />Mr. Clayton finds that City's adopted building codes support maintaining the current <br />condition of the staircase without modification and recommends reversing the <br />previous decision requiring a minimum 6'6" of headroom. <br />Article IX, Section 14 of the Building Code Board of Appeals Bylaws allows for <br />rehearing of an appeal case if there is a substantial change in facts subsequent to <br />the original hearing. In this case, staff finds that there has been a substantial change <br />in facts and recommends that the Board conduct this rehearing. <br />Clayton was asked to visit the site to determine if there were any possible solutions. <br />During the visit, he found information that was not presented at the time of the <br />previous Board of Appeals Hearing. <br />The new information includes the following: <br />A statement and evidence found that the basement was previously finished prior to <br />the current owner. <br />The stairs are existing and have not been modified in any manner since the original <br />permitted installation. <br />Chapter 1 of the International Residential Code states in Section 102.7, "The legal <br />occupancy of any structure existing on the date of adoption of this code shall be <br />permitted to continue without change, except as is deemed necessary for the general <br />safety and welfare of the occupants and the general public." <br />The stair headroom is below the minimum code requirement but was allowed at the <br />time of the original construction back in the 1960's and does not pose a threat to the <br />occupants safety or welfare but more of an inconvenience. As such they can be <br />allowed to remain as originally installed and meet the intent of this code section. <br />