Minimum step height

[e hilton]

Trying to solve an accessibilty issue on a sidewalk, slope is a little too much tor ADA. So we’re looking at creating a landing on the sidewalk with a ramp on one side. Problem is, if the landing is flush with the door threshold and has minimum slope (just enough to drain off rain) the resulting step at 5 ft out is a bit over 2”. Maybe 2-1/2”. IBC 2015. Architect is saying that is not high enough. Where do i find that in the code? I see the max & min step height for stairs … does that apply here?

 

[RLGA]

I see the max & min step height for stairs … does that apply here?

Yes. A stair is defined in the IBC as "[a] change in elevation, consisting of one or more risers."

 

[jar546]

No minimum. See above post.

 

[Paul Sweet]

I'd be nervous that a single step less than 4" would be a tripping hazard. A change of materials or contrasting nosing would alert people to the step and lessen the trip hazard.

 

[e hilton]

No minimum. See above post.

I like your answer, but it conflicts with what rlga says.

Section 1011.5.2 calls out the 4” min, but the definition in “1011.1 General“ says stairways serve occupied portions of a building … my question relates to outside the building. I have read through all of chapter 10 and I can’t find anything to appears to deal with a sidewalk.

Paul … we can add whatever visual item we need.

 

[RLGA]

It is part of the exit discharge, especially that close to the building's exterior door. Section 1003.1 (2018 IBC) states that Sections 1003 through 1015 shall apply to all three elements of the means of egress system. Section 1011 is within that group of sections. Therefore, stairs within the exit discharge element must comply with the stair requirements.

 

[Mr. Inspector]

If this step is used to go in and out of the building with occupied it must comply with code even if it is outside. If not serving an occupied portion of a building, like a stand alone rest room there is no code for the steps.

 

[bill1952]

The code minimum is not good design, just acceptable legally. I believe research has shown stumbles and falls per use increase below 4 1/2 to 5, just as they begin to increase around 6 1/2. Mainstream the ramp, so everyone uses it. Fewer injuries over the life of the building entrance. If you do the minimum rise, mark the heck out of it, provide a good graspable handrail, and illuminate it if used at night.

 

[my250r11]

Install a handrail to help identify the ramp and landing. As stated might be better to do this and make everyone use it to avoid the step issue.

 

[steveray]

What is the occupancy? And if we are going to bring in all of Ch 10:

1003.5 Elevation change. Where changes in elevation of less
than 12 inches (305 mm) exist in the means of egress, sloped
surfaces shall be used. Where the slope is greater than one
unit vertical in 20 units horizontal (5-percent slope), ramps
complying with Section 1012 shall be used. Where the difference
in elevation is 6 inches (152 mm) or less, the ramp shall
be equipped with either handrails or floor finish materials
that contrast with adjacent floor finish materials.
Exceptions:
1. A single step with a maximum riser height of 7
inches (178 mm) is permitted for buildings with
occupancies in Groups F, H, R-2, R-3, S and U at
exterior doors not required to be accessible by
Chapter 11.
2. A stair with a single riser or with two risers and a
tread is permitted at locations not required to be
accessible by Chapter 11 where the risers and treads
comply with Section 1011.5, the minimum depth of
the tread is 13 inches (330 mm) and not less than
one handrail complying with Section 1014 is provided
within 30 inches (762 mm) of the centerline of
the normal path of egress travel on the stair.
3. A step is permitted in aisles serving seating that has
a difference in elevation less than 12 inches (305
mm) at locations not required to be accessible by
Chapter 11, provided that the risers and treads comply
with Section 1029.13 and the aisle is provided
with a handrail complying with Section 1029.15.

 

[e hilton]

Trying to link a dropbox picture … https://www.dropbox.com/s/fm4zuweye0u0xf4/ENTRY RAMP.pdf?dl=0
Problem is … its a city sidewalk so space is limited. We plan to add a ramp on one side and a handrail on the other side. Trying to avoid a handrail in front of the door.

 

[bill1952]

Won't the ramp require railings with extensions and a curb?

 

[e hilton]

Won't the ramp require railings with extensions and a curb?

No, because the height of the ramp is low enough to not require a handrail. Yes, it will have a curb on the open side.

And that’s somewhat of a schematic drawing, obvioulsy the architect will make it pretty for the permit submittal. I was just trying to provide a visual aid.

 

[RLGA]

The image you provided changes the whole picture I had in my head.

Where does the right-of-way end...at the face of the building?

If so, shouldn't it be the responsibility of the jurisdiction to provide accessible means into buildings from the public right-of-way?

 

[e hilton]

Correct, everything outside the face of the building is city property.

 

[Inspector Gift]

I believe RGLA's question is the key to the solution. The design and enforcement rests fully upon the city.

IMHO, the proposed solution shown provided in post #11 is NOT an improvement. There are several reasons; not least is the step which must be at least 4 inches high, and the ramp does not have flared sides, or edge protection (curb or barrier). (Please look at ICC A117.1-2017, Sections 405 and 406.)

 

[e hilton]

I believe RGLA's question is the key to the solution. The design and enforcement rests fully upon the city.

IMHO, the proposed solution shown provided in post #11 is NOT an improvement. There are several reasons; not least is the step which must be at least 4 inches high, and the ramp does not have flared sides, or edge protection (curb or barrier). (Please look at ICC A117.1-2017, Sections 405 and 406.)

You missed several important details. I posted that very schematic diagram as a visual aid to give a better explanation of the situation. A picture is worth a thousand words. There are a huge number of details missing in that illustration, and if we end up moving forward with a submittal to the city, a duly licensed architect will prepare a proper drawing. I did state that there would be a raised curb on the side of the ramp, but no handrails. And the whole purpose of this thread is to discuss the 2” rise, and any possible solutions. If we are forced to install the landing as shown, we would probably have to install another handrail parallel with the face of the building.

Now … do you have any suggestions?

 

[bill1952]

I suggest a ramp up to landing and back down opposite side, parallel to store front, width of landing depth, and a railing along whole thing on street side of ramp and landing. It eliminates multiple trip hazards and creates very minimal sidewalk restrictions and obstructions, and treats everyone equally.

 

[e hilton]

Bill … problem with a ramp on the left is that it is “behind” the door and essentially not useable. Here is a clip from what the architect has roughed out, a couple of important notes: we are creating a bit of a pinch point between the lower left corner of the landing and an existing tree pit, it’s less than 4 ft. And the actual step height will be 3” on the left and 4” on the right. Wonder if we can apply for a variance.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/t9pbdbwkzg39l96/Photo Sep 28, 09 18 06.jpg?dl=0

 

[Inspector Gift]

Given that this is a legal non-conforming condition in the sidewalk that is not within your authority to rectify, then you can only propose a solution to the City and ask that they remove the 2 inch Trip-hazard.

The best solution that I can suggest is to remove 20 feet of sidewalk and replace it with a compliant, 4 foot landing height in front of the door that extends to the curb, with 2% sloped sidewalk on each side of the landing, and extending the full width of the sidewalk. That way it does not require edge protection, handrails, or any steps. Best of all, it eliminates any obstruction to the pedestrians using the sidewalk.

(See FIGURE 406.3(a) in the ICC A117.1-2017 STANDARD AND COMMENTARY)

 

[bill1952]

I see people tripping constantly on the brick curb and landing that projects from it, and railing is too far from step to be a useful warning. Gift has best solution, just warp the sidewalk so no railings, steps, ramps, or curbs at all.

 

[e hilton]

Inspector, …that parallel curb ramp works, except the landing height is an inch short., and the city will not make any changes. The best we can hope for is for them to approve and we change at our expense. And actually, …we have a side battle going with the landlord: the lease states its his responsibility, but he is resisting.

 

[e hilton]

just warp the sidewalk so no railings, steps, ramps, or curbs at all.

How do you do that? The whole issue builds off excessive side slope in front of the door. We could warp the sidewalk, but what happens at the curb? Don’t want to create a step there.

 

[bill1952]

Is a straight line from threshold to curb steeper than 2%? Didn't look like it in photo, but can't tell. Yes, it's the whole sidewalk !

The continuous ramp up-landing-ramp down that Gift suggested and similar to what I said seems best of difficult problem, but with a railing. I'm not sure why Gift's landing is 4' from wall rather than 5' - I may be missing something - but at 5' the behind the door issue is minimal., and next, A117.1 I think increases that from 60" to 64 or 66", I'd have to check.

Just try not to build in trip hazards like that 6" curb in middle of side walk or 2" landing. Those are certain to cause injuries. There will be orange cones and hasty signs taped to the wall in the first week.