• Welcome to The Building Code Forum

    Your premier resource for building code knowledge.

    This forum remains free to the public thanks to the generous support of our Sawhorse Members and Corporate Sponsors. Their contributions help keep this community thriving and accessible.

    Want enhanced access to expert discussions and exclusive features? Learn more about the benefits here.

    Ready to upgrade? Log in and upgrade now.

CBC 1003.5 precludes a stair?

J

JPohling

SAWHORSE
Joined
Aug 16, 2011
Messages
1,686
Location
San Diego
1610135733748.png
Jurisdiction is adamant that 2 stairs cannot be placed adjacent to a ramp along the means of egress based upon this code section. I have seen a code handbook on this section where they discuss the possible trip hazard when there are a single or two stairs and that makes a bit of sense, but I do not see where in this code language they can really get there. None of the exceptions apply, but that should not really change anything. 1003.5 Does not preclude a stair from my interpretation.

Here is a plan of the condition. Change in elevation is 10.5". 1610136099490.png

Jurisdiction will not allow stairs unless 12" elevation change handled with (3) 4" risers. What do you think?
 
JPohling said:
View attachment 7311
Jurisdiction is adamant that 2 stairs cannot be placed adjacent to a ramp along the means of egress based upon this code section. I have seen a code handbook on this section where they discuss the possible trip hazard when there are a single or two stairs and that makes a bit of sense, but I do not see where in this code language they can really get there. None of the exceptions apply, but that should not really change anything. 1003.5 Does not preclude a stair from my interpretation.

Here is a plan of the condition. Change in elevation is 10.5". View attachment 7312

Jurisdiction will not allow stairs unless 12" elevation change handled with (3) 4" risers. What do you think?
Click to expand...



See below
 
Last edited:
Based on what I am seeing
  • I would first venture a guess that the double door opening is directly in the path of the stairs and not the ramp. Thus if you flipped the stairs and the ramp so that doors directly exited down the ramp and not the stairs you might have a better argument because who is going to hang left when exiting.
  • As to (3) 4" risers for 12", not sure how they get there when (2) 6" risers gets you there also. But, that's if you have 12" and you only have 10.5", so not sure what to say, based on your posting, need 12 to go by stair.
  • But here is my question, does exception (1) work if you pour a landing instead of a stair tread. thus you would have a single riser to a landing, then another single riser to another landing. no steps just single changes in elevation at multiple landings?
 
JPohling said:
View attachment 7311
Jurisdiction is adamant that 2 stairs cannot be placed adjacent to a ramp along the means of egress based upon this code section. I have seen a code handbook on this section where they discuss the possible trip hazard when there are a single or two stairs and that makes a bit of sense, but I do not see where in this code language they can really get there. None of the exceptions apply, but that should not really change anything. 1003.5 Does not preclude a stair from my interpretation.

Here is a plan of the condition. Change in elevation is 10.5". View attachment 7312

Jurisdiction will not allow stairs unless 12" elevation change handled with (3) 4" risers. What do you think?
Click to expand...
I've seen similar situations with even more steps adjacent to an accessible ramp, most recently at an indoor mall. This drawing would appear to comply as long as the items in Exc. #2 are in place, IMO.
 
These are all terrific observations but have nothing to do with the reason why the jurisdiction is not allowing. The space is accessible. the ramp is fully accessible. The interpretation that the city is placing on this has only to do with the number of steps that are on the path of EGRESS. They have determined this by the code handbook and determined that per CBC 1003.5 in no case can you have less than two steps in the path of EGRESS. There must be no steps or at least 3 steps. So from simple math and the min riser dimension of 4" there would need to be a minimum of a 12" elevation change for any steps to exist along the path of EGRESS. (3) 4"risers = 12". (2) 6" risers will not work as that is seen as a trip hazard. Having a single riser or two risers is not allowed along the path of EGRESS per the jurisdictions interpretation. The jurisdictions solution is to eliminate the stairs or place a barricade at the stairs so they are unusable.
 
The jurisdiction is dumb (unless it is Mark)..... the stairs are likely not an accessible MOE (which is required, right?), the ramp is, therefore Ex 2 applies...Am I missing something?
 
These are all terrific observations but have nothing to do with the reason why the jurisdiction is not allowing. The space is accessible. the ramp is fully accessible. The interpretation that the city is placing on this has only to do with the number of steps that are on the path of EGRESS. They have determined this by the code handbook and determined that per CBC 1003.5 in no case can you have less than two steps in the path of EGRESS. There must be no steps or at least 3 steps. So from simple math and the min riser dimension of 4" there would need to be a minimum of a 12" elevation change for any steps to exist along the path of EGRESS. (3) 4"risers = 12". (2) 6" risers will not work as that is seen as a trip hazard. Having a single riser or two risers is not allowed along the path of EGRESS per the jurisdictions interpretation. The jurisdictions solution is to eliminate the stairs or place a barricade at the stairs so they are unusable.

With that logic (I don't agree with) a series of 2 landings as previously mentioned should word ?!? o_O
 
steveray said:
The jurisdiction is dumb (unless it is Mark)..... the stairs are likely not an accessible MOE (which is required, right?), the ramp is, therefore Ex 2 applies...Am I missing something?
Click to expand...
the area is required to be accessible. exception does not apply
 
my250r11 said:
These are all terrific observations but have nothing to do with the reason why the jurisdiction is not allowing. The space is accessible. the ramp is fully accessible. The interpretation that the city is placing on this has only to do with the number of steps that are on the path of EGRESS. They have determined this by the code handbook and determined that per CBC 1003.5 in no case can you have less than two steps in the path of EGRESS. There must be no steps or at least 3 steps. So from simple math and the min riser dimension of 4" there would need to be a minimum of a 12" elevation change for any steps to exist along the path of EGRESS. (3) 4"risers = 12". (2) 6" risers will not work as that is seen as a trip hazard. Having a single riser or two risers is not allowed along the path of EGRESS per the jurisdictions interpretation. The jurisdictions solution is to eliminate the stairs or place a barricade at the stairs so they are unusable.

With that logic (I don't agree with) a series of 2 landings as previously mentioned should word ?!? o_O
Click to expand...
a single riser with a 5 foot tread (ie landing) followed by another single riser is not allowed. 3 risers minimum. 4" riser height minimum. anything less than that and it is not allowed per 1003.5 as interpreted by the jurisdiction (and published code handbook) as a trip hazard during egress.
 
A single step exceeds 1/2" and requires a handrail but cannot be used for egress unless a ramp adjacent to it is provided to make the egress accessible.
Egress must be illuminated too.
 
JPohling said:
a single riser with a 5 foot tread (ie landing) followed by another single riser is not allowed. 3 risers minimum. 4" riser height minimum. anything less than that and it is not allowed per 1003.5 as interpreted by the jurisdiction (and published code handbook) as a trip hazard during egress
Click to expand...
I Believe if the the ramp lined up with the door, then that's your REQUIRED MOE and the stairs would be allowed as they are not the egress path. IMO

steveray said:
If that is the way it is interpreted there, Ok.....Cali did change the IBC wording so maybe that is what they want....Dumb...
Click to expand...
Agreed.
 
JPohling said:
a single riser with a 5 foot tread (ie landing) followed by another single riser is not allowed. 3 risers minimum. 4" riser height minimum. anything less than that and it is not allowed per 1003.5 as interpreted by the jurisdiction (and published code handbook) as a trip hazard during egress.
Click to expand...
JP, I have read your starting post of the code in question and the commentary posted by Rick, I must be blind, but I am not seeing the requirement for 3 risers in the code section posted, just you saying it is needed per the AHJ.
  • I see that your FFL to FFL is only 10.5" and as thus, a ramp is required to be used, not steps because you need a minimum of 12", which you don't have.
  • I mentioned possibly doing (2) landings, if that would pass for exception 2, not saying it will, just a thought
Thus the simple fix if someone is dead set on having stairs would be to dig down 1.5" for your lower landing, revamp with 3 risers for the 12" and then regrade the area.

Based on what you posted I don't see the 3 riser minimum being a requirement, but with only 10.5" based on what is posted you can only provide a ramp.

At least, that is what I get out of the posted information.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top