Results 1 to 10 of 10
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    2,365

    Default City sidewalk to front walkway transition

    New construction - I'm just looking for confirmation before it goes on the report.

    Similar Threads:
    ***IMPORTANT*** You Need To Register To View Images ***IMPORTANT*** You Need To Register To View Images
    OREP Home Inspector E&O Insurance 2

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Santa Rosa, CA
    Posts
    2,286

    Default Re: City sidewalk to front walkway transition

    Matt,

    Yup, looks like new construction to me.

    Department of Redundancy Department
    http://www.FullCircleInspect.com/

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Santa Rosa, CA
    Posts
    2,286

    Default Re: City sidewalk to front walkway transition

    But seriously folks.

    In the old UBC, the bottom step could terminate at a slope and did not have to have a flat landing. I assume that it is also allowable in the IRC.In this case, I think that would have been better rather than intentionally install a trip hazard.

    Department of Redundancy Department
    http://www.FullCircleInspect.com/

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Ormond Beach, Florida
    Posts
    25,308

    Default Re: City sidewalk to front walkway transition

    The old SBCCI Standard Building Code had the same exception.
    - EXCEPTION: Where the bottom or top riser adjoins a sloping public way, walk or driveway having an established grade and serving as a landing, a variation in height of the riser of not more than 3 inches (76 mm) for every 3 ft (914 mm) of stairway width is permitted.

    The IRC does not, however ... the IBC does have something similar (but which does not allow what is shown in the photo).

    From the 2006 IBC. (underlining is mine)
    - 1009.3.2 Dimensional uniformity. Stair treads and risers shall be of uniform size and shape. The tolerance between the largest and smallest riser height or between the largest and smallest tread depth shall not exceed 0.375 inch (9.5 mm) in any flight of stairs. The greatest winder tread depth at the 12-inch (305 mm) walk line within any flight of stairs shall not exceed the smallest by more than 0.375 inch (9.5 mm) measured at a right angle to the treadís leading edge.
    - - Exceptions:
    - - - 1. Nonuniform riser dimensions of aisle stairs complying with Section 1025.11.2.
    - - - 2. Consistently shaped winders, complying with Section 1009.3, differing from rectangular treads in the same stairway flight.
    - - 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).



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

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Columbus GA
    Posts
    3,741

    Default Re: City sidewalk to front walkway transition

    Jerry
    Am I missing something?
    What you posted was about where a riser adjoins an unleveled walkway. But what is pictured is a riser adjoining a landing which adjoins an unleveled sidewalk.

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

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Ormond Beach, Florida
    Posts
    25,308

    Default Re: City sidewalk to front walkway transition

    Quote Originally Posted by Rick Cantrell View Post
    Am I missing something?
    What you posted was about where a riser adjoins an unleveled walkway. But what is pictured is a riser adjoining a landing which adjoins an unleveled sidewalk.

    Rick,

    What is that thing between the sloped walkway and the landing? A riser.

    From the sloped walkway to the landing is a one step stair, one riser and two landings (the sloped walkway and the landing).

    Which brings up another point: Is the sloped walkway deep enough to meet the minimum 36" requirement for a landing?

    From the stairway to the landing, then from the landing to the slope walkway (which is also a landing).

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

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Healdsburg, CA
    Posts
    1,741

    Default Re: City sidewalk to front walkway transition

    Left Coast Codes:
    UBC 1997 1003.3.3.3 Rise & Run: Exception 2: Where the bottom or top riser adjoins a sloping public way, walk or driveway having an established grade (other than natural earth) and serving as a landing, the bottom or top riser may be reduced along the slope to less than 4 inches in height with the variation in height of the bottom or top riser not to exceed 1 unit vertical in 12 units horizontal (8.3% slope) of the stairway width. (See diagram)

    2007 CBC 1009.3.2 is virtually the same wording with the addition of adding a distinctive marking stripe at the nosing or leading edges of treads, which shall be visible in decent of the stair and shall be a slip-resistant surface.

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

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Ormond Beach, Florida
    Posts
    25,308

    Default Re: City sidewalk to front walkway transition

    The two main differences between the old Standard Building Code requirements and those of today are: 1) there did not used to be a minimum riser height, as there is today; 2) the addition of the indicator stripe at the nosing.

    What I did not show in the old SBC section was the rest of the section above it, which includes the maximum riser height of 7-3/4". The wording I posted was an exception to the uniformity section: all risers must be within 3/8" of each other and all treads must be within 3/8" of each other. The uniformity of that riser does not need to meet the 3/8" requirement (it can't - because of the sloping walkway).

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

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Columbus GA
    Posts
    3,741

    Default Re: City sidewalk to front walkway transition

    Thank you Jerry (s)
    But I still have a question. What both of you posted is about Stair treads and risers. Then go on about an unlevel landing (as in the diagram).
    But the OP Pic shows the stairs, a level landing, and an unlevel walkway.
    JP Your reply about the riser being on the landing doesn't seem to fit what the code is talking about (at least to me).
    Thanks

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

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Ormond Beach, Florida
    Posts
    25,308

    Default Re: City sidewalk to front walkway transition

    Quote Originally Posted by Rick Cantrell View Post
    JP Your reply about the riser being on the landing doesn't seem to fit what the code is talking about (at least to me).

    Why?

    It is a "riser". Risers are required to meet specified requirements, except for the riser at a sloping public walkway or driveway, in which case it much meet other specified requirements.

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

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
  •