Sorry for the delay,
I have written about this in past posts, but depending on how the 2009 IRC was adopted section R311.3 Floors and landings is the section that notes you are required to have a landing outside every exterior door.
When I wrote the exception for that section and it was adopted in to the IRC, I was specific that I only reduced the dimension for the 36" requirement to be less than 36" for balconies less than 60 sqft and not removed.
The intent was even if a single door, sliding door or twin door was installed to act as a window, that when a guard was installed across the opening at floor level. that some sort of small flooring section be installed under the guard, even if it was not able to be stood upon.
The technical term would be a false balcony.
In debates with others here and at code hearings more light was shed to me that any walking surface on the outside of the vertical of the "Door(s)" in place is were a landing starts, some argue the outer portion of the door sill is the start of a landing and others argue the door sill is not part of the landing.
The bottom line is simply this, the exception to R311.3 allows a landing to be less than 36" which means it could be 1/16" and thus as long as the opening limitations of the adopted code section is in compliance, weather or not a landing exist, is simply pointless, with the only reason for the landing being required in the first place for R311.3 is to be able to step out and compose yourself before changing direction or descending down a stair flight or ramp, the fact that you can't go anywhere is the true intent for the exception.
There are many who build the guards for this opening with just a horizontal bar set at the bottom of the guard at floor level, it is not really a functional landing, but serves to dispose of those that wont budge from a technical diff that anything out there less than 36" and more than zero complies to the letter of the code.
I hope I did not bore you.
Tom
