• Welcome to The Building Code Forum

    Your premier resource for building code knowledge.

    This forum remains free to the public thanks to the generous support of our Sawhorse Members and Corporate Sponsors. Their contributions help keep this community thriving and accessible.

    Want enhanced access to expert discussions and exclusive features? Learn more about the benefits here.

    Ready to upgrade? Log in and upgrade now.

Stair Landing

ICE said:
Just this one.In the grand scheme of things, this landing is not all that dangerous but stairs are where most accidents happen and as slippery as these stairs are, accidents are a real possibility. I would prefer that the entire arrangement be able to pass scrutiny.

...............................................................................

It is worth noting that this forum can make a difference in the results of the practice of code enforcement. Good or bad, it's still a difference

.....................................................................................

Not to forget is the outside chance that I was wrong. That is why I mentioned the forum feedback to the manager. We both pondered the situation. Allow it if you must and I will wonder about that outside chance....nah just kidding. Call it what you will, I am not convinced.
Click to expand...
Good reason for handrails be it (slippery) tile, (slippery) wood, (pilling) carpet and marble wearing socks or shoes. Aside from our opinions the code sets the lowest bar. Call it the minimum.
 
fatboy said:
I too am rethinking this. I posted what we have enforced in the past, but after going back a re-reading the stair section several times looking for an argument to support my interpretation, I'm coming up empty as to why you can't have a winder at the the bottom of compliant stairs, rather than a full landing.
Click to expand...
Oh this is not a good thing. When a stalwart {that's not an insult fatboy} supporter of common sense is led astray I feel that a betrayal of our mission has taken place.
 
Francis Vineyard said:
Good reason for handrails be it (slippery) tile, (slippery) wood, (pilling) carpet and marble wearing socks or shoes. Aside from our opinions the code sets the lowest bar. Call it the minimum.
Click to expand...
I can get more handrails. From 34" to 38" on both sides allows for at least four.
 
ka ka just about covers it. I would buy the winder argument better if it wound somewhere but it's larger than a winder tread needs to be so I'd accept it grudgingly. They'll trip a lot...
 
Yankee said:
It's fine, move along folks nothin' to see here
Click to expand...
Would that we could but somebody gave it five stars.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Seriously, I have read through the relevant sections time and time again, even put it back to my staff to justify our interpretation, and we are coming up , zilch. I don't like it, but, I believe now it is compliant, as far as the winder/landing issue. Not insulted ICE, but you are also thinking. Somebody please tell me I was OK making some of those townhouses change that stair termination. (can't call it a landing, right?)
 
ICE said:
The definition of a winder is simplistic. There is no change of trajectory which in my opinion, would be part and parcel of a winder. While it is correct that this landing shape fits within the definition of a winder, the same can be said of any four sided polygon. To allow this landing by calling it a winder tread leaves open the possibility of creating treads anywhere within a straight flight with more than a 3/8" variation by calling it a winder tread.
Click to expand...
Don't get that! For it to be a winder tread which is part of a larger stairway it'd have to comply with the 3/8" deviation rule. If the rise meets this standard I'd say the landing was at finished floor elevation.

Good to Go!

Bill
 
Been a lot of posting since I last checked this post.

ICE,

As noted in my posts I don't like the layout, but felt strong enough to call a friend who happens to be the guy or should I say person that re-wrote all the stair winder, profiles, walk line and pretty much flight wording in the IRC & IBC in the last 9 years,

I can't use his real name so I will call him Dave......

I sent him the post and he confirmed my interp, it's a winder.

However, the profile dimension is off.

ICE,

You have a simple rule of thumb, if it is correct it passes if it is not it fails, wish more inspectors were just like you.

I hate it when you tell a client that's not compliant and then the inspector says, well I let it pass.

You have egg on your face for doing the right thing and the inspector hangs you out to dry.

Bending to a point is fine, this is not a bend, sleep well it's just pretty ugly,
 
The back door problem can disappear too. We can call it a window. It doesn't look like a window but as long as it fits within the definition of a window, that shouldn't be an issue, right?

The simple solution would be to ask the owner, What is that at the bottom of the stairs?, and if he says it is a landing, agree with him.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top