Question on landing

[tbz]

I have a situation and need some advice

This location is a fire house bay/garage area. The existing buildings bay floor was removed and lowered 6 inches. Older building which had the steps from the rear side door go straight up and out the door.

2009 IBC, requires new landing inside the door and 3 steps, still waiting to here if O/L is over 50, but would seem not to be ? right.

Would love to put a 42" landing in, but then the trucks run a good risk of banging in to it. So they want the minimum which the exception allows for under 50 for the stairs to be only 36", thus landing 36, thus when you add the handrail around the landing as a non-required guard shrinks width to just over 27"

I was thinking of moving the handrail out to the edge on plates to give more room, but the concrete always gives ways.

Anyway my main question is, the code interps to 36" when you add the handrail around on post, like a guard, how do you all feel about the reduction?

See plan view sketch below

 

[Codegeek]

I believe that you have met the techinical requirements as the code does allow for up to a total 9 inch reduction with handrails on both sides. Whether the jurisdiction will allow the offset as you have drawn it, may be another matter. Most people are used to the handrail being at the edge of the walking path/surface with a smaller projection. Essentially, you have moved the handrail away from the edge taking advantage of the full 4 1/2 inch allowance.

Just my opinion and you know what they say about opinions...

 

[globe trekker]

Regardless of the code "requirement", what does the Fire Official say?

They may have a justifiable need for the movement of large sized gear

/ equipment / other through this door. Check with them.

FWIW, the 27 15/16" seems kinda tight to me.

.

 

[tbz]

globe,

The fire official from what I am told wanted to keep the 3 straight steps and the building inspector was fine with it also till the architect handed in the drawings with the steps and handrails drawn non-compliant then all of a sudden no go.

This is a back side door in to the bays, not sure if anyone is really going to use it or not.

FWIW, the 27"+ does not seem kinda tight, it is tight IMO, but that's what they would like.

CODEGEEK, the handrail is a (2) strand pipe with posts core drilled in to the concrete landing and floor.

We always offset maximum in for strength at the posts. The inside edge will be at 4.5 when we set it.

I know the handrail is allowed on the steps, I just wanted to know how others feel about the handrail on the "L" shape landing acting like a guard more than a handrail and closing in the landing area?

 

[brudgers]

Regardless of the code "requirement", what does the Fire Official say?They may have a justifiable need for the movement of large sized gear

/ equipment / other through this door. Check with them.

FWIW, the 27 15/16" seems kinda tight to me.

.

Doesn't look accessible.

On the other hand, most Fire Stations keep anything they need to roll in the the apparatus bay - and carrying equipment down a set of stairs while the alarm is ringing seems like a good way to blow out a knee.

 

[peach]

it's not, per se, a public building.. the people using the stair are going to adapt to the situation. It's nice to say that all buildings need to be code compliant, but jurisdictions always bend the rules for their own buildings.

 

[Jobsaver]

This is a back side door in to the bays, not sure if anyone is really going to use it or not.

Anybody suggest eliminating the door altogether? Is it required?

 

[RJJ]

The sketch will not open for me. This sounds like a good place for the appeals board to grant relief. I like to see the sketch. Maybe pm me!

 

[mark handler]

I cannot see the picture but can the door be recessed, to allow a exterior landing?