Height of sconces on a stairway

[Todd Ebenhoeh]

I have failed an inspection because the inspector says that my fixtures do not comply with UBC (Residential) " R 314.3 " he says I need 80" of headroom. I say that my sconces located on one wall protrude less than 4" and the stairway is 42" wide. Who is right and why?

 

[George Stolz]

I do not know about the UBC, but the IRC/IBC has the same requirement.

I think the reason for the requirement being the way it is, is because people walking on stairs favor the edge of the stairs - so having a really wide staircase would not make the walls fair game for headroom obstructions.

 

[Todd Ebenhoeh]

All the interpitation drawings and photos refer to stairway headroom as the ceiling above, not the wall fixtures. ADA requirements 4" or less protrusion.

 

[480sparky]

Besides, who wants hair full of broken glass???

 

[George Stolz]

I don't suppose you have the actual text handy? Diagrams and illustrations can sometimes be deceiving, it helps to have the actual legal text handy.

For what little it's worth, here is how the IBC is worded:

1009.2 Headroom. Stairways shall have a minimum headroom clearance of 80 inches (2032 mm) measured vertically from a line connecting the edge of the nosings. Such headroom shall be continuous above the stairway to the point where the line intersects the landing below, one tread depth beyond the bottom riser. The minimum clearance shall be maintained the full width of the stairway and landing.

If it's anything like this, you're beat.

Is this at rough or trim?

 

[Todd Ebenhoeh]

The minimum clearance shall be maintained the full width of the stairway and landing. I say the definition of "full Width of Stairway" is intended to apply to the minimum width required and the handrail also has to be accounted for. I think they are refering mostly to the ceiling so you dont hit your head

 

[Todd Ebenhoeh]

the house has passed its Final electriic and the power is turned on and it is failing the final CO. City of Austin, TX and the builder has done nothing but make the city mad at him . I am the Eight (8) electrician on this house

 

[cowboyjwc]

Todd it doesn't say the minimum clearance shall be maintained for the "minimum" required witdth. It says for the full width of the stairway.

 

[eprice]

I don't suppose you have the actual text handy? Diagrams and illustrations can sometimes be deceiving, it helps to have the actual legal text handy.

For what little it's worth, here is how the IBC is worded:

Quote:
1009.2 Headroom. Stairways shall have a minimum headroom clearance of 80 inches (2032 mm) measured vertically from a line connecting the edge of the nosings. Such headroom shall be continuous above the stairway to the point where the line intersects the landing below, one tread depth beyond the bottom riser. The minimum clearance shall be maintained the full width of the stairway and landing.


If it's anything like this, you're beat.

Is this at rough or trim?

Actually, I think the sconces as described would be allowed under the IBC. Section 1003.3.3 covers horizontal projections into means of egress paths:

1003.3.3 Horizontal projections. Structural elements, fixtures
or furnishings shall not project horizontally from
either side more than 4 inches (102 mm) over any walking
surface between the heights of 27 inches (686 mm) and 80
inches (2032 mm) above the walking surface.

Exception: Handrails serving stairs and ramps are permitted
to protrude 4.5 inches (114 mm) from the wall.

[Edit to add:] But unfortunately, looking through my old copy of the UBC, the best I can come up with is an allowance for 1 1/2" projections (other than handrails) into the width of the stairway. So in Todd's case, from what I can find, the inspector is right.

 

[realolman]

Stairways shall have a minimum headroom clearance of 80 inches (2032 mm) measured vertically from a line connecting the edge of the nosings. Such headroom shall be continuous above the stairway to the point where the line intersects the landing below, one tread depth beyond the bottom riser. The minimum clearance shall be maintained the full width of the stairway and landing.

I think Todd's point is : interpreting that literally and strictly, you couldn't have a handrail unless it was 80" high... so if the handrail is OK and the steps are plenty wide, the ceiling height is OK, and the sconces are not obvious head bangers... it's no problem.

I agree. Where was this guy at rough in?

 

[George Stolz]

Todd, since you are the eighth electrician on the house, I imagine you had nothing to do with the rough - so just be sure to be paid for the change, if it becomes necessary.

Realolman, do you think the section that Eprice posted would change your mind about how the IBC would cover the situation?

 

[Todd Ebenhoeh]

Thank You " realolman" I am amazed and apalled at the number of inspectors and people of authority cannot interpet the code and its intent. They think just because their job has a title that they are all knowing. It is unfortunate that they don't take the initiative to educate themselves.
I went to the City earlier today and politely pled my case and they agreed with me that they are OK as long as they do not protrude more than 4" and the stair mantains minimum width clearances. Thanks Again realolman for taking the effort as I don't have building code books at my access.

 

[Inspectorcliff]

I don't suppose you have the actual text handy? Diagrams and illustrations can sometimes be deceiving, it helps to have the actual legal text handy.

For what little it's worth, here is how the IBC is worded:

[/SIZE][/FONT]

If it's anything like this, you're beat.

Is this at rough or trim?

Oh sure George, through that in about the Full width of the staircase. uhum..