Thread: Entry step down

If the door swings over this step down is a landing required? This is the garage man door.

Similar Threads:

• Step/Vertical cracks in brick ... NONE in foundation
• Entry Door Inspection-Ocala, FL 34476
• Front entry step
• Step Flashing, lack thereof
• New construction - stair step cracks

.Yes.

Jerry,

If the floor to top of threshold height is less than 7.75", is the landing required? Looks like this one would be close.

Originally Posted by Brent Crouse

Jerry,

If the floor to top of threshold height is less than 7.75", is the landing required? Looks like this one would be close.

Yes, because the door swings out over the riser.

- 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:
- - - 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.
- - - 2. The exterior landing at an exterior doorway shall not be more than 73/4 inches (196 mm) below the top of the threshold, provided the door, other than an exterior storm or screen door does not swing over the landing.
- - - 3. The height of floors at exterior doors other than the exit door required by Section R311.4.1 shall not be more than 73/4 inches (186 mm) lower than the top of the threshold.
- - The width of each landing shall not be less than the door served. Every landing shall have a minimum dimension of 36 inches (914 mm) measured in the direction of travel.

The key is that the door swings out over the riser (stair) and the landing.

I was thinking about exception 3. Now I am trying to figure out what it is "excepting". To me it is not clear what this exception is meant to "except".

Please translate for me!!

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

- 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:
- - - 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.
- - - 2. The exterior landing at an exterior doorway shall not be more than 73/4 inches (196 mm) below the top of the threshold, provided the door, other than an exterior storm or screen door does not swing over the landing.
- - - 3. The height of floors at exterior doors other than the exit door required by Section R311.4.1 shall not be more than 73/4 inches (186 mm) lower than the top of the threshold.
- - The width of each landing shall not be less than the door served. Every landing shall have a minimum dimension of 36 inches (914 mm) measured in the direction of travel.

The key is that the door swings out over the riser (stair) and the landing.

Originally Posted by Brent Crouse

I was thinking about exception 3. Now I am trying to figure out what it is "excepting". To me it is not clear what this exception is meant to "except".

Please translate for me!!

Exception 3 is simply excepting the maximum height of the floor as not more than 7-3/4" down from the top of the threshold (not down from the floor) instead of the specified 1-1/2" down from the top of the threshold. It is not excepting it from the door *not* swinging out over the stair or landing - the door is still *not* allowed to swing out over the stair or landing.

Okay, so as soon as an exterior door swings out, there must be a landing, which can not be more than 1.5 inches below the top of the door threshold. Only exception would be if the garage floor (or deck floor, or patio floor, etc) was within that 1.5 inches.

One more comment. This means that any deck that has an exterior, out-swing door, needs to have the deck floor almost up to the bottom of the door threshold, as the top to bottom height of the threshold itself is pretty close to 1.5". Seems like most decks would fail this one, if they have an out-swing door.

Originally Posted by Brent Crouse

if they have an out-swing door.

Which is likely why you do not find many, if any, outswing doors. Usually either inswing or sliders.

Many homes in South Florida which were built in the 1960s, 70s, and early 1980s had outswing doors as they sealed against the wind and rain of hurricanes better, however, it was later realized that you have an outswing door over a one step stair and landing. A side benefit of an outswing door is, just like for commercial use, the door swings in the direction of egress. One side benefit of an inswing door is that is something happens outside during a storm, you can still open the door inward, with an outswing door you could be stuck. All things change as codes change to reflect current thinking and safety.

We have an out-swing door to our deck. Advantage is that it's off our breakfast area, so with the out-swing door, it doesn't infringe on the limited space of our eating area. Bad thing is that, yes, the deck was built about 2 inches lower than the bottom of the threshold.

So far, OK.............. Now; is this situation code complying.... Yes - No ?

Originally Posted by Jerry McCarthy

So far, OK.............. Now; is this situation code complying.... Yes - No ?

WC Jerry,

Me thinks you posted that photo some time ago ... , of course, going over it again is known as "continuing" "education".

Repeating oneself comes with growing old.........................er.

That doesn't look like an exterior door to me? Looks like an interior door, as it does not appear to have a threshold.

Brent, in all due respect, did you read the title at the bottom of the photo?

Originally Posted by Jerry McCarthy

Brent, in all due respect, did you read the title at the bottom of the photo?

WC Jerry, did I say anything about "continuing education"?

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

WC Jerry,

Me thinks you posted that photo some time ago ... , of course, going over it again is known as "continuing" "education".

Originally Posted by mathew stouffer

If the door swings over this step down is a landing required? This is the garage man door.

Whether it complies with the code is irrelevant to me. That's just a stupid looking design....and not only that their shoes are ugly, too.

This is the garage man door.

You sure it's not to the "Man Cave" because code doesn't apply there.

Jerry,

So an interior door is acceptable for a "house to garage door"?

Originally Posted by Brent Crouse

That doesn't look like an exterior door to me? Looks like an interior door, as it does not appear to have a threshold.

Originally Posted by Brent Crouse

Jerry,

So an interior door is acceptable for a "house to garage door"?

Brent,

Ahhh ... says the blind man ... now I see what you were meaning.

I, and I suspect WC Jerry, took you as meaning that the garage house door was an interior door and not an exterior door.

You meant (as I now think you mean) that the "door itself" was an interior door in an exterior door location.

Am I correct?

Jerry,

Yep, that's exactly what I meant. Just didn't say it very clearly, I guess.

May I illuminate my original post, por favore? It had to do with the landing at an interior door, which in this case is not code required per IRC 2006; 311.4.3 Exception 1.
Now let’s talk about the supposed “fire rated” door between the house and attached garage. That large opening at the bottom of the door sans threshold is a direct violation of the intent of the fire protection afforded by a “fire rated” door. Is it a write up? You bet your booty. At least that’s my opinion, but I’m always open to a reasonably intelligent debate.

mathew,

How does the door open fully. Looks like that shelf with the shoes is stopping the full swing? or my old eyes.......

Steve

Hello
I recall in Scotland any door opening over a step required a landing. The same applies here in New Zealand.

Mark

Mathew, If I'm understanding the code correctly, this door and landing would be ok if
the building code did not require the door to be there as a means of egress in the first place.
So, if the door must to be there according to code, then yes the floor height should be within 1.5" of top of threshold.

Originally Posted by Jerry McCarthy

May I illuminate my original post, por favore? It had to do with the landing at an interior door, which in this case is not code required per IRC 2006; 311.4.3 Exception 1.

WC Jerry,

In reading the above I am trying to understand your statement of "It had to do with the landing at an interior door, which in this case is not code required per IRC 2006; 311.4.3 Exception 1."

That is not addressing interior doors, pro or con. Thus that section cannot be used to state "which in this case is not code required" - you would need to use the appropriate code section before stating that.

The appropriate code section would be, if the floors are not level with each other on each side of a door, you have a stair, a one riser stair but nonetheless a stair. That means you would need to go to R311.5.4 Landings for stairways.

From the 2006 IRC.
- R311.5.4 Landings for stairways. There shall be a floor or landing at the top and bottom of each stairway.
- - Exception: A floor or landing is not required at the top of an interior flight of stairs, including stairs in an enclosed garage, provided a door does not swing over the stairs.
- - A flight of stairs shall not have a vertical rise larger than 12 feet (3658 mm) between floor levels or landings.

- - The width of each landing shall not be less than the width of the stairway served. Every landing shall have a minimum dimension of 36 inches (914 mm) measured in the direction of travel.

Thus, in your photo, there is a landing required at the top of that flight of stairs at that door.

Or did I read something wrong in what you were stating?

Now let’s talk about the supposed “fire rated” door between the house and attached garage. That large opening at the bottom of the door sans threshold is a direct violation of the intent of the fire protection afforded by a “fire rated” door. Is it a write up? You bet your booty. At least that’s my opinion, but I’m always open to a reasonably intelligent debate.

Being as the door is not a *supposed “fire rated” door* but merely a "separation door" (at least in the IRC, may be required to be "fire-rated" in CA), then that would not necessarily apply as you have applied it, however, a threshold WOULD BE required at that door as that wall and that door is the thermal envelope of the building and, when the threshold was installed, that was also solve your write-up.

Now, if that door was the optional "20 minute fire-rated door", yes, the only way that rating is given is "with the threshold installed", and probably even specifies a specific threshold to be installed.

Thus, either way, a threshold is required, and the threshold would be required to be a proper threshold and that opening *looks to be too high* for a proper threshold

Originally Posted by Mark Mitchell

Hello
I recall in Scotland any door opening over a step required a landing. The same applies here in New Zealand.

Mark

Mark,

That's that same thing here and in all the models codes here, including the newer International code series which includes the IRC and the IBC.

When, what year, did the requirements for fire hardening the garage come in to effect?

Thanks
Richard

Originally Posted by Richard Mobley

When, what year, did the requirements for fire hardening the garage come in to effect?

Thanks
Richard

First, I would DEFINITELY NOT refer to it as "fire hardening the garage".

Second, all the older homes I've seen with attached garages/carports were all completely separated with the exterior wall of the house to the garage being the same as the rest of the house - concrete block or stucco on frame all the way to the roof sheathing. Basically making it like attached detached garages - construct the house wall as you normally would, the garage happens to be on one side of one exterior wall (except that from the roof framing you know it was all done at the same time).

Those homes dated back into the 1910s and 1920s.

EC Jerry – I was referring to your quoted IRC code section R311.3,2 - Floor elevations for exterior doors: etc-etc-etc.….. Exception: 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.
Bottom line: we have no argument about the door swing over that step as being improper (foot traffic hazard) and my position is if the door was from the house interior to the garage interior it could contain 2 steps (risers) under the exception noted, but not if it was an exterior door?

However, after taking a second look at the original post it appears that’s a photo of a door serving an opening from the garage interior to the exterior so in essence it is an exterior door in which swings over an interior step which is at a lower elevation that the exterior? Therefore my assumption, if correct, is that if it is a door from the garage interior to the home’s exterior all bets are off and of course it’s none code complying in swinging over a step. I would also assume anybody reading this thread would be by now thoroughly confused by all of our comments.

Originally Posted by Jerry McCarthy

I would also assume anybody reading this thread would be by now thoroughly confused by all of our comments.

Probably true, except that one thing everyone can take away from this is that if the door swings over a stair, one riser or more, that is wrong as it would need a landing.