• 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

NYC residence "convenience stair"

I live just north of NYC and I'm aware that NYC has its own stand alone codes which differs from the remainder of the state however I would check with legal counsel on anything that takes you from the current code back to 1968. That seems suspect to say the least. In addition as someone else pointed out it sounds to me like you are creating a setting for a lawsuit in the city of litigation hence my comment to be sure that the section you are relying on so heavily is applicable.
 
NYC has many buildings that are still under the 1968 code when doing existing building renovations. Not sure why they don't push to the newer adoptions, but each building is designated to different codes based on the address and when built.

As a secondary non-MOE stair flight under the 1968 code, going to the 12'-9" adds 1 riser to the stair flight when you look at they now allow 147", or 12'-3" in the stair flights between risers.

however, I would strongly suggest staying with the 36" width over reduced 30" width, adding one riser is not that much of a change from the standard compared to reducing the width by 1/6th.

Just my thoughts on it.

My thought as well, that the intermediate landing would not be required.
 
I ws forced to modify the design of a high rise dormitory in Manhattan during construction and found the plans examiner to be unreasonably strict and I was using a very expensive code expediter but perhaps I didn't pay him enough. It might help to know the borough.
In the 68 code the minimum nominal width of doors to habitable rooms is 32" and the minimum width for a stair to a mezzanine is 30". Since the 68 code doesn't provide minimum dimensions for an "access stair" the plans examiner might require 30" or 32" or perhaps 36" if he's keen on high rise fire safety or you didn't hire the right expediter.
You can always go in and ask.
Is the issue a tight floor plan, structural limitations or a client who doesn't appreciate the value of a more generous stairway?
 
I ws forced to modify the design of a high rise dormitory in Manhattan during construction and found the plans examiner to be unreasonably strict and I was using a very expensive code expediter but perhaps I didn't pay him enough. It might help to know the borough.
In the 68 code the minimum nominal width of doors to habitable rooms is 32" and the minimum width for a stair to a mezzanine is 30". Since the 68 code doesn't provide minimum dimensions for an "access stair" the plans examiner might require 30" or 32" or perhaps 36" if he's keen on high rise fire safety or you didn't hire the right expediter.
You can always go in and ask.
Is the issue a tight floor plan, structural limitations or a client who doesn't appreciate the value of a more generous stairway?

That's a really helpful response, thanks.

The issue is a bit of all three. The owners want to limit the scope of demolition on the upper level, so it really limits the options and size of the stair. A 36" stair is technically feasible but the scope of demolition would be much greater due to the relationship between the upper and lower level. The planning is basically totally unrelated.
 
So, go with 36" or he will live to regret he didn't.

What does this mean?

Client is very competent and understands 36" is highly preferred and recommended. They own several properties and have been through the process many times before. They do most of their own interior design and are very good at it. I am looking for info on what the requirements are, opinions are fine but we can all agree that 36" is a good recommended minimum when no codes apply. If client wants 30" and no regulations apply then they should get 30".
 
What does this mean?

Code minimum is "legal", you have so told them, right?

Client is very competent and understands 36" is highly preferred and recommended. They own several properties and have been through the process many times before. They do most of their own interior design and are very good at it. I am looking for info on what the requirements are, opinions are fine but we can all agree that 36" is a good recommended minimum when no codes apply. If client wants 30" and no regulations apply then they should get 30".
 
I would agree that you fall into the definition of access stair by the 1968 code. Your means of egress does not change at both floors. You are providing an additional convenience stair, which the code defines as an access stair. It would be nice if the 1968 code specified what is allowed for an access stairs a bit more. I would say take guidance from the code for rails and handrails.
 
Because floor to floor height is more than 12' (its 12'-9") the stair would require an intermediate landing if its part of means of egress. Client just wants to know if they can get rid of the landing and make the stair 30" wide rather than 36".

owner is "Skinny"?
 
Yes you are on the right track, it's an access stair. This is what some would call a convenience stair. The doors to the separate units need to be maintained as they were previous to being combined.
 
It is called as an access stairs but does anyone know what are the minimum dimensions that we need to follow for an access stairs since the code provides the definition of an access stairs but nothing else.
 
Because floor to floor height is more than 12' (its 12'-9") the stair would require an intermediate landing if its part of means of egress. Client just wants to know if they can get rid of the landing and make the stair 30" wide rather than 36".
trying to do it on the "cheap"? Must be a "skinny" guy
 
Top