• 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

Open stair as an AMOE within a story

It is looking like that if neither stage has a set of steps with "direct" access from the stage to the viewing area, then both could have a "non-direct" set of steps (like in the 2nd plan) and a ramp and it would meet the code as you explain it. In that case, the ramp provides an accessible route, and the stair provides the 2nd AMOE. Theoretically, nobody can bound up to or off of the stage "directly" from the viewing area, therefore it is not discriminatory to not have a way for a disabled participant to get on and off the stage directly from the viewing area. The disabled participant still only has one way on and off the stage, so accessibility for them is not improved. But the non-disabled participant will have to go out a side door and discharge through a small hallway to end up in the viewing area and that is ok.

But to play a little devil's advocate and for my own knowledge, on the topic of the elevated stage/platform. If the stage were 7" above the adjoining floor, would a handrail be required? It would meet the riser height as required to be considered a stair. What if it were 8"? It can't be a compliant riser because it's too high. So then would it just be an elevated platform? What if it were 18"? Clearly can't be a riser, but there is no more of a violation than if it were 8". These plans clearly intend that there be stairs in their designs so going down the stair road is not hard for me, but it would not be so clear if they merely elevate the stage 8".

If an inspector encountered a stage elevated 8" above the adjacent grade would it be accepted or rejected it as a non-compliant riser? If the required number and methods of egress are provided from the elevated stage, no exit access from the stage is required off the front, and none provided unless a non-compliant star is counted. Would the same go for the 18" elevated stage? A stair is defined as a change in elevation, consisting of one or more risers. Riser is not defined, only limited as non-compliant if exceeding 7".
 
Sifu said:
Theoretically, nobody can bound up to or off of the stage "directly" from the viewing area
Click to expand...
I don't know about theoretically, but it seems not only possible but likely and expected in normal use. And it seems very possible in litigation over a fall at edge of stage, the owner would loose. Therefore, I liked to spare my clients the liability and avoid the condition if I could.

Where stage is more than 30" high, and sometimes less, I also specify some sort of temporary barrier - usually a net like incord.com/theatre-division/stage-guard/ along with some signage and including in training the requirements of the Life Safety Code 11.2.11.1.6.2 Where a guard is ordinarily required but not provided in accordance with "12.2.11.1.6.1(1) or (2), a written plan shall be developed and maintained to mitigate the fall hazards of unguarded raised floor areas and vertical openings in stages."

I think single rise steps present a significant hazard. They are hard to see and frequently missed. Claiming they are not in a required means of egress seems like a weak excuse.

I wonder after how many falls with injuries the Owner will take it upon themselves to find a solution? Google falls from stage and see how many there are reported, with probably 10 or 50 or 100 times as many not reported. We're not all Tim McGraw.

I'd probably put handrails on up to an 8 or 9" rise, or simply put in a second step with rails at side and nosings marked. They probably love it for regular use.
 
I don't disagree, but I must stay within the mandate of the requirements of the code as a building official. Guards are not required at stages. Handrails are only required on stairs. In this case it is easy, they are providing stairs, so I will require handrails, however doing so will not solve the accessibility problem. I won't be surprised if they eliminate the stairs and just provide an 18" elevated stage/platform which would solve the accessibility problem. The 8" scenario is just devil's advocate, but I do not put it past some to claim it is not a step, just an elevation change at the audience side of a stage...which is permitted.
 
Appreciated. And I won't say I've never tried similar reasoning. Fact is, stages and assembly seating have some unusual conditions, a lot of code exceptions, and are not often a regular building type passing through most building departments. (Maybe it was easier in 1850-1900 when average life of a theatre was 5 years before it burned down - and a good time for those that designed and constructed theatres. Damn things last forever now.)

So, the codes and standards are not always clear, and some fall into the "I'll know it when I see it" category. The single rise stage edge is one of those. It's a known hazard and I know people will fall from stages I designed and be injured. All I can do is try to minimize the count.

On the accessibility issue, you know how I feel about what "directly connect" means and intends, and I'm trying to get more views on that from the Access Board and IBC and others. Also more background why from story to story a stair is ok to for an AMOE but not from a stage to audience area among others. And keep posting - helps my 71 year old brain stay on track.
 
Agreed. "Directly" is subjective. I have warmed to the idea that the stair leading from the stage to the viewing area is direct but that being required to go to the back corner is not. The 2nd design appears to have figured that out as well, so they made it less direct? Unfortunately, because of the subjective nature of the mandate, the envelope will get pushed and the question asked; "what is or isn't considered direct". I am scheduling a meeting with the designers to discuss this, we'll see what they are thinking.
 
FWIW the simpler solution is to depress the audience area in front of the stage, and make stage and circulation around the depressed area all on same level. Also better audience sight lines. Just sharing. Works really well in a school theatre. I have not worked on a stage built up from a floor elevation in a long time. Just getting band equipment and a piano onto a raised stage is a b!tch!

I have gone the Technical Assistance route at the Access Board, and called, and left a voicemail after 30 minutes. I hope I get a reply but am not optimistic. Like for building officials, stages are not few and far between.
 
I'm having zero luck on why stairs from a stage to main floor can't be AMOE. Seems to have been added in 2015 edition. Still working on it.
 
Well, I'm a little surprised by answer from Technical Assistance at Access Board.

"I agree that having the side approach to the performance area isn’t the best design, however it does still meet the requirement to directly connect a performance area to an assembly area with an accessible route.

It’s a little surprising that they would rather have stairs in addition to a ramp when they could just provide the one ramp for everyone to use. If it’s so important to the experience that a person from the assembly area needs to get on stage at the front, then there should also be an accessible route at the front of the stage. Because it does meet the minimum design standards, it would be up to DOJ (the enforcing agency) to decide whether or not the venue is providing an equivalent experience for those with disabilities – and I don’t think they’d preemptively give an answer, just a judgement in court if a lawsuit were filed.

Best I can get you from the minimum ADA Design Standards is a strong recommendation."

I'll stick with my interpretation that a separate route to the side is not equal.

Still working on the stair issue.
 
A portable ramp can be used for graduation and other occasions when it is important to have everybody follow the same route.
 
I explained the situation to the architect. I explained that while it may meet the code as it is written, it may not be a good idea because it could be considered discriminatory. We will see what they come up with. It is unfortunate that the code language is subjective. If they wanted it a certain way then it should be easy to craft language that conveys it. Of course he has used this design everywhere and nobody ever provided a contrary opinion.
 
Paul Sweet said:
A portable ramp can be used for graduation and other occasions when it is important to have everybody follow the same route.
Click to expand...
That is an option for some stages, especially the low cafetorium stages illustrated, but would seem impractical for a more typical stage that is 36 to 48" high. 36 to 48' of ramp and a 5' landing with toe boards and 42" high guards is not a simple portable piece.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top