Thread: Exterior landings

These landings were outside secodary doors and the door swing to the inside of the home. The step down is about 9 inches. Is this acceptable? Forgot to measure the dimensions of the landing.

Similar Threads:

• Exterior walkpaths - - Question for Texas boys and girls!
• Exterior Installation of Gas Flex Line
• Exterior JB
• Staining on exterior wall near A/C
• Brick Veneer Exterior Wall 90 deg inside joint

"These landings were outside secodary doors and the door swing to the inside of the home. The step down is about 9 inches. Is this acceptable? Forgot to measure the dimensions of the landing"

Not at 9"
Not with the broken uneven landings
and only if the landings are at least as wide as the door x 36" deep.

Nope and nope.

(Riser too tall and landing not deep enough - needs to be 36" minimum in the direction of travel - looks like a 3' wide door, which means the landings would be square or deeper than they are wide.)

The uneven stone is another problem.

Crap I will have to go measure, they are 36 inches in width but not sure the depth. So 9 inches will not work, has to be 7 3/4.

Originally Posted by mathew stouffer

Crap I will have to go measure, they are 36 inches in width but not sure the depth.

Why do you need to go measure their depth?

You just said they are 36" wide, and you KNOW they are not as deep as they are wide, therefore you KNOW they are less than 36" deep.

Wow that was fast. I don't know, can you tell the depth from the photo.

Originally Posted by mathew stouffer

.

These landings were outside secodary doors and the door swing to the inside of the home. The step down is about 9 inches. Is this acceptable? Forgot to measure the dimensions of the landing.

.
7 3/4 is the maximum height down. @ link under threshold.
.
International Code Requirements for Windows & Doors | Window & Door
.

Originally Posted by mathew stouffer

.

Wow that was fast. I don't know, can you tell the depth from the photo.

.
One Way.
.
.

(Riser too tall and landing not deep enough - needs to be 36" minimum in the direction of travel

The "landing" is just a tread if it's not the primary access door, is it not (R311.4.3 exception 1)?
But yes, there's plenty of other reasons to write them up either way.

Originally Posted by Brandon Whitmore

.
The "landing" is just a tread if it's not the primary access door, is it not (R311.4.3 exception 1)?
But yes, there's plenty of other reasons to write them up either way.

.
That's the way I'm reading it.

so the way I am reading this, these doors do not require a landing?

Originally Posted by mathew stouffer

.
so the way I am reading this, these doors do not require a landing?

.
Only if they are not Primary Access Doors.
.

They are just living room doors which exit into the back yard. So I would have to say no. A primary would be the front door or garage man door.

A garage man door is not a primary door.

Originally Posted by Brandon Whitmore

.
A garage man door is not a primary door.

.
Correct http://www.staircraft.com/R311&R312%...2006%20IRC.pdf
.

Might as well add this one to the list:

http://www.stairways.org/pdf/2006%20...C%20SCREEN.pdf

Brandon is correct. it is not required to have a landing.
However, without a landing, the 2 risers need to be the same height.
With a landing, the risers can be different heights.
Either way, still needs to be a relatively smooth surface though.

Originally Posted by Brandon Whitmore

The "landing" is just a tread if it's not the primary access door, is it not (R311.4.3 exception 1)?
But yes, there's plenty of other reasons to write them up either way.

Originally Posted by Billy Stephens

That's the way I'm reading it.

Originally Posted by mathew stouffer

so the way I am reading this, these doors do not require a landing?

Originally Posted by Billy Stephens

Only if they are not Primary Access Doors.

Yall need to read the entire thing and understand that exception 1 does not allow for a riser greater than 7-3/4", nor does it allow for risers which are not within 3/8" of each other.

Look at those photos (and read the first post) and you will see, especially in the second photo, that the risers are not within the maximum 7-3/4" nor are the risers within 3/8" of each other.

Thus that exception is not applicable.

Originally Posted by Billy Stephens

.
7 3/4 is the maximum height down. @ link under threshold.
.
International Code Requirements for Windows & Doors | Window & Door
.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

Yall need to read the entire thing and understand that exception 1 does not allow for a riser greater than 7-3/4", nor does it allow for risers which are not within 3/8" of each other.

Look at those photos (and read the first post) and you will see, especially in the second photo, that the risers are not within the maximum 7-3/4" nor are the risers within 3/8" of each other.

Thus that exception is not applicable.

.
Read ?
.

Originally Posted by Billy Stephens

.
Read ?
.

Billy,

I have no idea what you are trying to point out???

That the 7-3/4" DOES NOT apply?

That the 3/8" DOES NOT apply?

Originally Posted by mathew stouffer

These landings were outside secodary doors and the door swing to the inside of the home. The step down is about 9 inches. Is this acceptable? Forgot to measure the dimensions of the landing.

Originally Posted by Billy Stephens

.
7 3/4 is the maximum height down. @ link under threshold.
.
International Code Requirements for Windows & Doors | Window & Door
.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

Billy,

I have no idea what you are trying to point out???

That the 7-3/4" DOES NOT apply?

That the 3/8" DOES NOT apply?

.
OP Stated The Step Down was about 9 inches.

I responded that 7 3/4 was the Maximum Step Down. ( with a Code Reference )
thus needs repaired or replaced,

The Two Steps Down ( or could be three after repaired ) Does apply and would have to be part of this correction.

As long as the Threads are correct the Width of the " Landing" is not an Issue.
.

Originally Posted by Billy Stephens

As long as the Threads are correct the Width of the " Landing" is not an Issue.

You mean as long as the risers are correct the depth of the landing is not an issue?

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

.
You mean as long as the risers are correct the depth of the landing is not an issue?

Yes Risers.


.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

You mean as long as the risers are correct the depth of the landing is not an issue?

Originally Posted by Billy Stephens

Yes Risers.

The depth of the tread, in that case, would still be an issue as it would need to meet the minimum tread depth. Additionally, the tread would need to meet maximum slope allowances, and the uneven stone surface would also be a negative.

There is a landing in the above case, and that landing is the patio floor.

Just because it becomes a tread does not allow it to be free and clear of meeting code requirements, all it really does is allow the tread to be less than 36" deep minimum.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

Nope and nope.

(Riser too tall and landing not deep enough - needs to be 36" minimum in the direction of travel - looks like a 3' wide door, which means the landings would be square or deeper than they are wide.)

The uneven stone is another problem.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

The depth of the tread, in that case, would still be an issue as it would need to meet the minimum tread depth. Additionally, the tread would need to meet maximum slope allowances, and the uneven stone surface would also be a negative.

There is a landing in the above case, and that landing is the patio floor.

Just because it becomes a tread does not allow it to be free and clear of meeting code requirements, all it really does is allow the tread to be less than 36" deep minimum.

.
Glad to See You Finally Come Around.
.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

You mean as long as the risers are correct the depth of the landing is not an issue?

Originally Posted by Billy Stephens

.
Glad to See You Finally Come Around.
.

*I* haven't changed.

*YOU* changed the scenario.

THE ORIGINAL PHOTOS ARE STILL WRONG.

*YOU* changed the scenario around to *IF* ... *IF* ... all other things were correct ... and they are not ...

*I* have not changed in regard to the original discussion regarding the original post.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

*I* haven't changed.

*YOU* changed the scenario.

THE ORIGINAL PHOTOS ARE STILL WRONG.

*YOU* changed the scenario around to *IF* ... *IF* ... all other things were correct ... and they are not ...

*I* have not changed in regard to the original discussion regarding the original post.

'
Won't Help You there Jerry My Man.
* it was your Post that said it needs to be 36 inches not mine.

Oh and Last Word.
* unless you want to if me some more.

Well I just put it is wrong For 1.7 million there should be a landing.

As interesting as these discussions are on the board for us HI, with situations like this I don't even bother to address the Code req. Riser height is too high, landing size is pretty much irrelevant at that point.
I would write this up as a 'hazardous' condition in my report and explain a few reasons why.
- jagged edges, uneven surface for foot transfer, apparent poor installation, unknown longevity of installation, potential trip hazard in front of glass, etc.
It's a trip hazard. How uneven will those stones be after a winter or two? Client safety is really the issue here from my perspective.
Owner probably installed the patio and or doors and forgot about the step down; thought it wouldn't be a big deal but then realized it was too high; someone thought matching the patio was a good, cheap idea since they had some left over.

Originally Posted by Billy Stephens

'
Won't Help You there Jerry My Man.
* it was your Post that said it needs to be 36 inches not mine.

Oh and Last Word.
* unless you want to if me some more.

Billy,

Looks like another screw up on your part - 'twas not my last post, but my first post, and it was in response to the original post, not your changed scenario, which said "needs to be 36" minimum in the direction of travel".

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

Nope and nope.

(Riser too tall and landing not deep enough - needs to be 36" minimum in the direction of travel - looks like a 3' wide door, which means the landings would be square or deeper than they are wide.)

The uneven stone is another problem.

Go back and learn to read and learn to read in the order of which the information is presented. Absolutely no *IF* in there about that.

Originally Posted by mathew stouffer

These landings were outside secondary doors and the door swing to the inside of the home. The step down is about 9 inches. Is this acceptable? Forgot to measure the dimensions of the landing.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

Nope and nope.

(Riser too tall and landing not deep enough - needs to be 36" minimum in the direction of travel - looks like a 3' wide door, which means the landings would be square or deeper than they are wide.)

The uneven stone is another problem.

Originally Posted by Billy Stephens

.
7 3/4 is the maximum height down. @ link under threshold.
.
International Code Requirements for Windows & Doors | Window & Door
.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

Billy,

Looks like another screw up on your part - 'twas not my last post, but my first post, and it was in response to the original post, not your changed scenario, which said "needs to be 36" minimum in the direction of travel".



Go back and learn to read and learn to read in the order of which the information is presented. Absolutely no *IF* in there about that.

.
.
There You Go. ( in the order )

What Does Secondary Mean ? ( to You )

Aren't Them Be The Ones in R311.4.3 Exception 1 ?

Time to CleanThose Space Command Central Twin Monitors.
* or a trip to Eye Masters.
.

I would guess they finished the house in november and didn't want to pour a pad

Originally Posted by Billy Stephens

What Does Secondary Mean ? ( to You )

It does not matter what secondary means WHEN THE RISERS ARE NOT THE SAME OR WITHIN THE 3/8" TOLERANCE ... when that is the case A LANDING IS REQUIRED between the two difference risers to separate them into two different flights of stairs.

Seems to me that is the part you do not get.

The other option, of course, it to make the risers equal (or within the allowed tolerance), and if that was done, then a landing would not be required there ... BUT THAT CHANGES THE SCENARIO (which is what you did) as the original photo shows the risers not being the same, which requires the landing to separate the stair into two flights of stairs, which means the risers do not have to be the same (but still would not be allowed to exceed the maximum 7-3/4" height).

Billy, first you must be able to recognize what is being shown, then recognize what is being discussed ABOUT WHAT IS BEING SHOWN, then understand what is be discussed ABOUT WHAT IS BEING SHOWN, and then be able to understand that if what is being shown is changed for the purposes of further discussion that the discussion will change based on the proposed changes.

The latter, however, in no way affects the former. The original answers STILL apply to the original discussion.

That latter answers only apply to the proposed changes discussion.

Not sure if this is too in-depth for you to follow?

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

A LANDING IS REQUIRED between the two difference risers to separate them into two different flights of stairs.

.
* no 36inch requirement ( no matter how hard you dance around it.

Seems to me that is the part you do not get.

.
I get you Stated a 36inch Landing was required were None Was.
.
Much Words with no Substance.
* Not Required ( is that too much to Admit ?)
** Is Your Day Job Clouding Your Judgment ( aka Big Head Syndrome ! )
.

Originally Posted by Billy Stephens

* no 36inch requirement ( no matter how hard you dance around it.

I get you Stated a 36inch Landing was required were None Was.

Billy,

Apparently large words are too much for you. Large words such as:

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

(Riser too tall and landing not deep enough - needs to be 36" minimum in the direction of travel -

and

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

Look at those photos (and read the first post) and you will see, especially in the second photo, that the risers are not within the maximum 7-3/4" nor are the risers within 3/8" of each other.

Thus that exception is not applicable.

Is it that I used "Thus" "that" "exception" "is" "not" "applicable" and one or more of them you do not understand?

Before I can help you learn to read and understand, I need to know what it is you do not understand or know how to read.

Let me try to equate this thread to a more easily recognizable math problem.

Does 2+3+1=5?
The answer is "No." 2+3+1=6.

However, if you change any one of the numbers, the answer will no longer be 6, the answer will be based on whatever you changed by the amount changed.

Which is like you changing the top and bottom risers to being equal, and the landing no longer being required to be a landing, it can now be a tread.

Maybe you can follow the math better than the words?

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

Billy,

Apparently large words are too much for you. Large words such as:


and


Is it that I used "Thus" "that" "exception" "is" "not" "applicable" and one or more of them you do not understand?

Before I can help you learn to read and understand, I need to know what it is you do not understand or know how to read.

Let me try to equate this thread to a more easily recognizable math problem.

Does 2+3+1=5?
The answer is "No." 2+3+1=6.

However, if you change any one of the numbers, the answer will no longer be 6, the answer will be based on whatever you changed by the amount changed.

Which is like you changing the top and bottom risers to being equal, and the landing no longer being required to be a landing, it can now be a tread.

Maybe you can follow the math better than the words?

.
Oh Now I Get It 2 + 3 + BS = BS²
.

Originally Posted by Billy Stephens

.
Oh Now I Get It 2 + 3 + BS = BS²
.

After you added all your changes and BS ... Absolutely correct!

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

.
After you added all your changes and BS ... Absolutely correct!

.
.........
.

The winter ice will tear those apart in no time.