• 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

Tapered Steps

I see no accessible parking and one sign that says wheel your way up that brick path that looks steeper than 5%.
 
Man, you guys are so nosey!

Yes, it's Delaware. I'm not that familiar with the building layout, but I do remember walking that path and feeling that was kind of steep.

As far as I'm aware.... if you have a disability and you park close to the entrance, then you will need to go up that steep brick path, reach the top and the go back to the front of the building to get in.

The other possibility is to park by the Old courthouse and make your way somehow from "The Green cir." to the back of the New Court House and then into the top of the brick pathway.
 
Maybe I'm missing something, but wouldn't this comply with 1009.4.4 of the '09 IBC: Where the bottom or top riser adjoins a sloping public way, walkway or driveway having an established grade and serving as a landing, the bottom or top riser is permitted to be reduced along the slope to less than 4 inches (102 mm) in height, with the variation in height of the bottom or top riser not to exceed one unit vertical in 12 units horizontal (8-percent slope) of stairway width. The nosings or leading edges of treads at such nonuniform height risers shall have a distinctive marking stripe, different from any other nosing marking provided on the stair flight. The distinctive marking stripe shall be visible in descent of the stair and shall have a slip-resistant surface. Marking stripes shall have a width of at least 1 inch (25 mm) but not more than 2 inches (51 mm).

In the OP's photo, it looks like, if the lowest tread has a distinctive marking stripe, then it would comply with this (as long as the cross slope is not steeper than 1:12).
 
I missed that section, thanks for pointing it out. However, I think the key phrase here is "established grade". I believe the intent there is for retrofit on existing sites, where changing the sidewalks is impractical. Was the project in the OP all new construction including the site? If so, then I don't think the exception applies, but that is certainly open to interpretation. (same deal for the courthouse too)
 
Just noticed this after re-reading the thread. The 3D handrails are not quite compliant as shown. The sloping handrail should follow the tread noses for 1 tread depth past the first riser, and the additional 1' extension is NOT required (that's been changed since the '03 ANSI) The way they are shown now, the extensions also stick out into the walkway. If it loops down to 27" then that portion would technically not be considered a protruding object, but it's not a very good design to have handrails poking out into the sidewalk. I suggest that they be redesigned.

View attachment 924

View attachment 924

/monthly_2013_11/572953cef13e8_fig505.10.3.jpg.ceae9257421f7f73e0d1053057fd212b.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top