City of Lawrence

Building Code Board of Appeals

May 25th, 2006 minutes

 

MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Lee Queen - Chairperson, Mark Stogsdill Mike Porter John Craft

 

 

 

MEMBERS ABSENT:

 

Janet Smalter

 

 

 

STAFF  PRESENT:

 

 

Guess Present :

 

Peter Laufer Peterbuilt Construction

Ex-Officio

 

Adrian Jones,  Structural Inspector

 

 

 

 

Review minutes April 27th , 2006

Motion by Porter to accept minutes as written seconded by Craft.  Motion passed 4-0.

 

Update Board on Code adoption progress 

Jones gave a brief update on the progress of the code adoption process. He also reported to the board about a meeting between the NR staff and Assistant City Manager in charge of Community Development Services Debbie Van Saun and Staff Attorney Tony Wheeler. Jones stated there may have been some concerns that the minutes of the trades boards did not reflect the content of the discussion or statements made during meetings. He stated that when he transposes the minutes he tries includes the members statement that sums up his or hers position on the topic.  He asks the board to review the minutes and feel free to make any changes that they feel does not accurately reflect the content of the meeting.

 

Queen stated that he had no problem with the minutes. He asked the other members if there were any issues with the minutes.

 

Porter stated that he feels Jones has done a good job with the minutes.

 

Stogsdill agreed.

 

Jones stated that at the last meeting the board inquired about the code report issued by Victor Torres to the Commission. He has learned the report is quite lengthy with approximately 16 attachments.  The report was delivered to the City Manager’s office.  It is his understanding that with all of the issues currently before the Commission, code issues have been moved back on the agenda.  He forwarded to Van Saun the concern of the Board that the code adoption process had stagnated and the Board had not received any reply from the letter submitted to the Commission or any direction on how to proceed on the blended code issue. Van Saun replied to direct the Board to continue to review the codes that were assigned for review. The Commission would give direction to the Board after it had a chance to review the report. That should occur at the first part of summer.  Jones stated that in speaking with Torres the report provides the Commission with a number of options. The options include hiring a consultant to review and blend the codes, or adopt the I-Codes.

 

Craft asked if the report had gotten to the Commissioners.

 

Jones replied that the report is still in the City Managers office. A copy of the report will be forwarded to the Board once is it released by the City Manager’s office. 

 

Hear appeal from Peter Laufer on decision to require landing on rear exit

Jones stated that Mr. Laufer is appealing a decision to require a landing on the rear exit of a remodel at 1029 New York.  Jones stated that the requirement for a landing was based on 1997 UBC Section 1003.3.1.6 

 

1003.3.1.6 Floor level at doors. Regardless of the occupant load served, there shall be a floor or a landing on each side of a door.  Where access for persons with disabilities is required by Chapter 11, the floor or landing shall not be more than l/2 inch (12.7 mm) lower than the threshold of the doorway. Where such access is not required, the threshold shall not exceed 1 inch (25 mm). Landings shall be level except that exterior landings may have a slope not to exceed l/4 unit vertical in 12 units horizontal (2% slope).

EXCEPTIONS: 1. In Group R, Division 3, and Group U Occupancies and within individual units of Group R, Division 1 Occupancies:

1.1 A door may open at the top step of an interior flight of stairs, provided the door does not swing over the top step.

1.2 A door may open at a landing that is not more than 8 inches (203 mm) lower than the floor level, provided the door does not swing over the landing.

1.3 Screen doors and storm doors may swing over stairs, steps or landings.

2. Doors serving building equipment rooms that are not normally occupied.

 

and 1003.3.1.7 

 

1003.3.1.7 Landings at doors. Regardless of the occupant load served, landings shall have a width not less than the width of the door or the width of the stairway served, whichever is greater.

Doors in the fully open position shall not reduce a required dimension by more than 7 inches (178 mm). Where a landing serves an occupant load of 50 or more, doors in any position shall not reduce the landing dimension to less than one half its required width.  Landings shall have a length measured in the direction of travel of not less than 44 inches (1118 mm)

EXCEPTION: In Group R, Division 3, and Group U Occupancies and within individual units of Group R, Division 1 Occupancies, such length need not exceed 36 inches (914 mm).

A landing that has no adjoining door shall comply with the requirements of Section 1003.3.3.5.

 

Jones provided a copy of the 1997 UBC code sections and a copy of the 2006 IRC Code section R311.4.3 for comparison. The rear exit of the home originally had a covered deck. The rear door of the home exited onto the rear deck then three steps down to grade.  The contractor enclosed the deck and converted it mud room. The exit door to the mud room was at the top of the existing stairs.  Jones said it was the interpretation of staff that a landing was required directly outside of the door exiting the mud room.  There are three risers to reach the door level.  

Jones said the only exceptions to this requirement is to allow one step down to a landing and landings are not required for interior steps, provided the door does not swing over the stairs.

 

The Board discussed the definition of risers.  The Board concluded that the stairs had three risers.

 

Mr. Laufer stated that the property was 100 year old high end spec remodel. The original old stone stairs is now pinned to the rear foundation. The new stair is replicating what was originally there. The existing porch was a covered unenclosed deck with no railing.  The original plan was to keep the rear as a porch but the owner decided to enclose it and turn it into a $15,000 mud porch.  The plan was to put a storm door at the top of the stairs but for security it was decided to add a full rear door. The door is now technically the rear entry into the home.  He said technically it is new construction but it is mimicking what was there.  The requirement for a landing escaped him as the project went on. 

 

Jones briefly discussed the manifest injustice provision of the Code.

 

Craft stated that under the current code he does not see any exceptions that would apply. 

 

Stogsdill stated that the 1997 UBC only allows one step down to a landing. Stogsdill asked Mr. Laufer how the stone was pinned to the foundation.

 

Mr. Laufer described how he pinned the old stone to the existing foundation wall for stability.

 

Craft asked Mr. Laufer how much it would cost to bring the steps into compliance.

 

Mr. Laufer replied that he could raise the grade to eliminate some steps or he could build an inexpensive landing that would cover his nice rear steps. He said he had $2000 in the rear stairs and did not want build something that would take away from the project.  He has footings under the stone and stringers.

 

Queen said the reason for the landing is for safety.  Landings prevent occupants from falling out the rear door.

 

Craft asked Jones if this had been a remodel that did not require a permit would the city had known about the Code violation.

 

Jones replied most likely not.

 

Craft said that one issue that concerned him in the construction business is that there were times during remodel projects he reconstructed a building element and made it 100 times better than it was but it still did not meet the current code.  He has wondered where the contractor draws the line in remodel jobs.  When something is much better than it was but still does not meet current code. 

 

Porter asked if the provisions of the Existing Building Code would apply?

 

Jones replied that chapter 34 of the UBC applies to existing buildings.  Single family residential stairs were not covered in chapter 34.  Jones stated that additions had to comply with the provisions for new construction. 

 

Queen asked how much offset between the stairs and the corner of the house?

 

Laufer replied less than 4 feet.  He stated that it would be a total redo to move the stairs.

 

Stogsdill asked what the riser height?

 

Laufer replied 7 ¼”.

 

Stogsdill asked if there were existing stairs?

 

Laufer replied that the existing stairs were falling apart.

 

Porter asked if the area was conditioned space?

 

Laufer replied that it was not.

 

Porter said that if it was not conditioned then it was still a porch.

 

Porter suggested that if the area was defined as a porch then an argument could be made that the rear exit of the home moves to the interior door.

 

Stogsdill stated the requirement was based on having a landing at a door.

 

Queen said that he could imagine a 4 year old granddaughter running out the rear door with no landing and hitting her head on the concrete stair.

 

Stogsdill stated that the rule is also for someone approaching the door and having to reach up to the doorknob while simultaneously moving forward at an awkward angle. He said that if it was only two risers the Board could look at the new code and say this would soon be a legal installation.

 

Queen stated the thinking of the Board is that the City of Lawrence is still under the 1997 code.  The Board has been reviewing the 2003 IRC and the 2006 IRC.  The Code should have been approved 6 months ago and would have partially let Mr. Laufer off the hook.  But the fact that the City is technically on the 1997 UBC locks the Board into having to enforce that code.  The only other option is to set a new precedent by approving the  stair. 

 

Stogsdill stated that this is not just a single incident.  This not an uncommon remodel. The board would be changing the code that staff enforced. 

 

After further discussion the Board determined that the stair was not code compliant.

 

Queen stated the Board feels that it wishes to help Mr. Laufer in this situation but if it is not a manifest injustice then the Board is bound by Code.

 

Mr. Laufer thanked the Board for it’s time and consideration.   

 

Craft moved to adjourn, seconded by Porter. Motion passed 4-0.