Appeal 33669

1011.6 Stairway landings.

“… Doors opening onto a landing shall not reduce the landing to less than one-half the required width….” (in our case, a 36-inch landing is required, and therefore the reduction is not to exceed 18-inches when the door is opening).

We propose to reduce the landing (when the door is opening) from the required 18 inches to 15 5/8 inches at doors D003A, D005A, D007A, and 13 1/8 inches at doors D104A, D107A, and D110A.

We propose to reduce the landing (when the door is opening) from the required 18 inches to 15 5/8 inches at doors D003A, D005A, D007A, and 13 1/8 inches at doors D104A, D107A, and D110A.

Having the exterior doors located as proposed, is a better design as it results in:
• more usable floor plans, which is important in these compact units;
• more visible and aesthetic entries from the street; and
• more direct/less circuitous access to egress from the furthest points (second floor).
Due to site and Zoning/Building Code constraints, we don’t have flexibility to adjust the footprint in order to shift the stairs further north (to meet the requirements of OSSC 1011.6).

The ICC Code Commentary notes that “This limits the arc of the door swing on a landing, so that the effect on the means of egress is minimized.”
Our stair design, without guardrails at the last tread, allows for additional clearance - and therefore less physical congestion - at the landing and door, resulting in the safety the Code section intends.

Too, the area within Dwelling Units in R-2 occupancies function like a single-family home, and often have Code exceptions similar to or consistent with R-3 requirements. In our case, exterior door access at the landings will typically be just a couple individuals, making the reduced landing (while the door is opening) not inherently unsafe.

Similarly, the differences between this fourplex and townhouses are subtle. Had we permitted the project as townhouses, we’d be subject to the ORSC which has no such requirement for ‘doors opening onto a landing’.