Results 1 to 14 of 14
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    2,797

    Default Yet another landing question


    2006 IRC
    R311.4.3 Landings at doors.
    There shall be a floor or landing on each side of each exterior door. The floor or landing at the exterior door shall not be more than 1.5 inches (38 mm) lower than the top of the threshold. The landing shall be permitted to have a slope not to exceed 0.25 unit vertical in 12 units horizontal (2-percent).
    Exceptions:
    Where a stairway of two or fewer risers is located on the exterior side of a door, other than the required exit door, a landing is not required for the exterior side of the door provided the door, other than an exterior storm or screen door does not swing over the stairway
    .


    To settle a dispute:

    1) Not required exit door
    2) Storm door only swings over stairway

    However per IRC requires landing as three or more risers.

    Correct?

    Similar Threads:
    ***IMPORTANT*** You Need To Register To View Images ***IMPORTANT*** You Need To Register To View Images
    Inspection Referral SOC
    Michael Thomas
    Paragon Property Services Inc., Chicago IL
    http://paragoninspects.com

  2. #2
    Jim Zborowski's Avatar
    Jim Zborowski Guest

    Default Re: Yet another landing question

    looks like three risers to me. that'd mean you need a landing.


  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Ormond Beach, Florida
    Posts
    26,248

    Default Re: Yet another landing question

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Thomas View Post
    Correct?
    Yes sir.

    Jerry Peck, Construction / Litigation Consultant
    Construction Litigation Consultants, LLC ( www.ConstructionLitigationConsultants.com )
    www.AskCodeMan.com

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    2,797

    Default Re: Yet another landing question

    Thanks.

    I was told I was reading 311.4.3 wrong.

    Not.

    Michael Thomas
    Paragon Property Services Inc., Chicago IL
    http://paragoninspects.com

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Western Montana
    Posts
    261

    Default Re: Yet another landing question

    I would still call it out anyway as a common sense thing, but guess I'm still a little fuzzy on the language ... "other than the required exit door"

    If this is a back door or some other door other than the required "Exit Door" (i.e. assuming there is another, legal, front door), is a landing still required?


  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Columbus GA
    Posts
    3,746

    Default Re: Yet another landing question

    "If this is a back door or some other door other than the required "Exit Door" (i.e. assuming there is another, legal, front door), is a landing still required?"

    Yes, all doors require a landing,
    From the 2006 IRC

    R311.4.3 Landings at doors.
    There shall be a floor or landing
    on each side of each exterior door.

    Unless there is an exception to having a landing.
    From the 2006 IRC
    Exceptions:
    1. Where a stairway of two or fewer risers is located
    on the exterior side of a door, other than the
    required exit door, a landing is not required for the
    exterior side of the door provided the door, other
    than an exterior storm or screen door does not
    swing over the stairway.

    Notice the exception is not for the required exit door.



    ' correct a wise man and you gain a friend... correct a fool and he'll bloody your nose'.

  7. #7
    Timothy M. Barr's Avatar
    Timothy M. Barr Guest

    Default Re: Yet another landing question

    I look at this way, ever city has their on rules about this type of stuff. Common seen tells me I want a landing both sides of the door. When I run into condition I tell them that I recommend a landing and tell them why. Plain not safe. Try carring a bag food and a kid, hold open the outside door and unlock inside door standing on a narrow step


  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Ormond Beach, Florida
    Posts
    26,248

    Default Re: Yet another landing question

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Thomas View Post
    I was told I was reading 311.4.3 wrong.

    Michael,

    Were you reading it from right to left? Maybe that is what they meant by 'reading it wrong'?

    Jerry Peck, Construction / Litigation Consultant
    Construction Litigation Consultants, LLC ( www.ConstructionLitigationConsultants.com )
    www.AskCodeMan.com

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    2,797

    Default Re: Yet another landing question

    They mean I am trying to do my job, even if it is aggravating them.

    Next up:

    The 9th sq. foot exception does not apply to glazing adjacent to a stairway landing, correct?

    ***IMPORTANT*** You Need To Register To View Images ***IMPORTANT*** You Need To Register To View Images
    Michael Thomas
    Paragon Property Services Inc., Chicago IL
    http://paragoninspects.com

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Ormond Beach, Florida
    Posts
    26,248

    Default Re: Yet another landing question

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Thomas View Post
    The 9th sq. foot exception does not apply to glazing adjacent to a stairway landing, correct?

    The 9 square foot exception is not even in the stair and landing section is it?

    Then how could it apply?

    Thus, to answer your question: Correct again.

    Jerry Peck, Construction / Litigation Consultant
    Construction Litigation Consultants, LLC ( www.ConstructionLitigationConsultants.com )
    www.AskCodeMan.com

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Dearborn Heights, Mi
    Posts
    38

    Default Re: Yet another landing question

    In addition to a landing, how about a handrail for safety?


  12. #12
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    2,797

    Default Re: Yet another landing question

    Quote Originally Posted by Derek Lewis View Post
    In addition to a landing, how about a handrail for safety?
    Noted in the report, along with the underwidth treads.

    Michael Thomas
    Paragon Property Services Inc., Chicago IL
    http://paragoninspects.com

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Healdsburg, CA
    Posts
    1,741

    Default Re: Yet another landing question

    Follow up for fun: See attached photo. Question 1; does this landing meet the 2006 IRC?
    Question 2: Does this landing meet the 2007 California Building Code?

    If either answer is yes, quote code section.

    ***IMPORTANT*** You Need To Register To View Images ***IMPORTANT*** You Need To Register To View Images
    Jerry McCarthy
    Building Code/ Construction Consultant

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Columbus GA
    Posts
    3,746

    Default Re: Yet another landing question

    OK Jerry
    I'll take a swing at it.
    The door looks to be 32" (counting the bricks)
    So it is not (could not/ should not) be the required exit door.
    Looks like it may be a patio door
    (natural light, window shutter)
    That step is not a landing.
    (Landing, 36"x width of door min, not more that 1.5" below threshold)
    So, there is not a landing at that door.
    Should there be a landing there? Yes (if not a garage).

    ' correct a wise man and you gain a friend... correct a fool and he'll bloody your nose'.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •