• 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

Handrails (1009.10, Exception 3)

A

alora

Silver Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2009
Messages
172
Location
Tucson, AZ
Change-of-use project (R-to-M). Existing building constructed in the 50's, with 18" raised FFE, and (3) 6" risers from grade to front entry patio. There is a lengthy historic overlay zone review process if any exterior work is done to the building. Currently, there are no handrails on either side of the steps from grade to the patio.

---

1009.10 Handrails. Stairways shall have handrails on each side and shall comply with Section 1012. Where glass is used to provide the handrail, the handrail shall also comply with Section 2407.

Exceptions:

3. Decks, patios and walkways that have a single change in elevation where the landing depth on each side of the change of elevation is greater than what is required for a landing do not require handrails.

DEFINITIONS:

STAIR. A change in elevation, consisting of one or more risers.

STAIRWAY. One or more flights of stairs, either exterior or interior, with the necessary landings and platforms connecting them, to form a continuous and uninterrupted passage from one level to another.

---

How would the above example be viewed? Does "a single change in elevation" from the exception mean one riser only? With that in mind, when does a stair actually become a stairway?

Thanks!!
 
If that is the whole exception, I would take that to mean a series of landings does not need a handrail.....I think site is implied by the deck, patio, walkway stuff...but I would have to spend some more time researching....

On a related note.....I have never seen a glass handrail....?
 
Historic overlays don't make the absence of handrails safe.

The length of the review process is not a relevant consideration.
 
brudgers said:
Historic overlays don't make the absence of handrails safe. The length of the review process is not a relevant consideration.
Click to expand...
Absolutely and totally agree.

Just curious on the vagueness of the particular code section. You know, where the question marks are.
 
Perhaps there is a discrepancy between code editions - 2009IBC, Section 3408.1 No change shall be made in the use or occupancy of any building that would place the building in a different division of the same group of occupancies or in a different group of occupancies, unless such building is made to comply with the requirements of this code for such division or group of occupancies.

Thumbnail version - if it going to change from a group R to a Group M - it needs to meet the code as a group M.

Int he 2009 IBC - it is Section 3410 that deals with Moved Structures.
 
Big Mac said:
Perhaps there is a discrepancy between code editions - 2009IBC, Section 3408.1 No change shall be made in the use or occupancy of any building that would place the building in a different division of the same group of occupancies or in a different group of occupancies, unless such building is made to comply with the requirements of this code for such division or group of occupancies.Thumbnail version - if it going to change from a group R to a Group M - it needs to meet the code as a group M.

Int he 2009 IBC - it is Section 3410 that deals with Moved Structures.
Click to expand...
Thanks. The signature states what code(s) are being referred to.

Regardless, it's hard to see how that section relates to the questions.
 
Well you are correct - I missed the reference to the 2006 IBC.

As to how does it relate - well - it is changing from a Group R to a Group M

The code states it needs to meet code as a Group M

Group M is a commercial structure and is required to have handrails on each side of the stairway - That was the case in the 2006IBC also

Seems pretty clear to me
 
Big Mac said:
The code states it needs to meet code as a Group M
Click to expand...
Agreed. Never in question.

Group M is a commercial structure and is required to have handrails on each side of the stairway - That was the case in the 2006IBC alsoSeems pretty clear to me
Click to expand...
I guess I need to say it another way...

1. Section 1009.10, Exception #3 says: "Decks, patios and walkways that have a single change in elevation where the landing depth on each side of the change of elevation is greater than what is required for a landing do not require handrails."

2. Yes, landing depths are in compliance.

3. Definition for "STAIR" is: "A change in elevation, consisting of one or more risers."

4. This project has is "a" change in elevation with 3 risers ("one or more").

Just curious how others interpret this. Or, maybe my (along with others') reading comprehension is off.

(bold, underline, mine)
 
Maybe I missed something - are you saying each separate tread / landing or what ever you wish to call it is 48" or more?
 
Big Mac said:
Maybe I missed something - are you saying each separate tread / landing or what ever you wish to call it is 48" or more?
Click to expand...
There are only two landings, one on either side of the "change in elevation" that consists of "one or more risers".

Each tread within that "change in elevation" is 12" wide.
 
What I think I hear you saying is three 6" risers with two 12" treads. This does not constitute a single elevation change. That is three elevation changes.

A single elevation change would be from a 48" or greater landing or floor level to another 48" or greater landing or floor level. This could occur in a structure if only a portion of the floor was elevated 7" or less.
 
Big Mac said:
What I think I hear you saying is three 6" risers with two 12" treads. This does not constitute a single elevation change. That is three elevation changes.A single elevation change would be from a 48" or greater landing or floor level to another 48" or greater landing or floor level. This could occur in a structure if only a portion of the floor was elevated 7" or less.
Click to expand...
what BM said
 
Thanks for the replies, and I agree with them.

Interestingly, however, the building official didn't; therefore, no handrails required by the municipality.
 
alora said:
Thanks for the replies, and I agree with them. Interestingly, however, the building official didn't; therefore, no handrails required by the municipality.
Click to expand...
At least you're not sealing it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top