# Am I SCREWED? Stairs & building code.



## 47_47 (Sep 11, 2007)

What is the maximum rise you have and the maximum rise allowed by code? This maximum rise cannot be exceeded. I believe you will have to replace or move your stringers.

Added.
Do not make a 1/2"-3/4" ramp. This will be more of a trip hazard than a high step.


----------



## Armitage (Jan 4, 2008)

Here's a quick sketch...


----------



## Armitage (Jan 4, 2008)

47_47 said:


> What is the maximum rise you have and the maximum rise allowed by code? This masximum rise cannot be exceeded. I believe you will have to replace or move your stringers.
> 
> Added.
> Do not make a 1/2"-3/4" ramp. This will be more of a trip hazard than a high step.


My max rise is about 7 5/8. I believe the max rise allowed by the code is 8" - I need to get a look at the original code + our local amendments, which should happen tomorrow.

I agree regarding the 1/2 -> 3/4 ramp. I think I'd prefer to have the floors flush, and the first riser 3/4" shorter then the rest. 

Not perfect of course - but tearing out & redoing these steps is likely thousands in materials and 2 months of work at the hours I can put toward it. Makes me sick to my stomach just thinking of it.


----------



## 47_47 (Sep 11, 2007)

Let me get this straight, you have 8-1/8" from the finished top of the first tread to the top of the subfloor and your finished floor is 1¼" thick.


----------



## TexasEd (Jun 13, 2008)

Well you eliminated my first option of adding height to the top of the treads.

Could you use thinner hardwood flooring or get the inspection done before the hardwood goes down?


----------



## Armitage (Jan 4, 2008)

47_47 said:


> Let me get this straight, you have 8-1/8" from the finished top of the first tread to the top of the subfloor


Yes
If it were done right, the subfloor should be 1/2" higher then it is now - the addition of 3/4" of flooring would then make it flush with the existing interior floor.
And the finished top of the first step should be 3/4" higher then it is now - which would make it 7 5/8" higher then the finished landing floor.



> and your finished floor is 1¼" thick.


No, the finished floor is 1 1/4" (1/2" subfloor + 3/4" hardwood) above the subfloor of the landing. A distinction without difference I guess.


----------



## Armitage (Jan 4, 2008)

TexasEd said:


> Well you eliminated my first option of adding height to the top of the treads.


Yea - the stair treads are hardwood anyway. Might have been an option if they were carpeted.

Just entertained the idea of putting a carpet runner down the steps, under which I could raise the height of the tread. But I'd need 3/4", which is to much, and would then screw up the height at the top step (which I do have right). If I'm going to have a short step, I'd prefer it at the bottom.



> Could you use thinner hardwood flooring or get the inspection done before the hardwood goes down?


Yes I could plane down the hardwood - or even chop out the landing subfloor and lower it. But that just makes the difference from exisiting floor to the landing subfloor that much worse.


----------



## Termite (Apr 13, 2008)

Ok...

Per the 2003 IRC, your maximum rise on a stair is 7-3/4". 3/8" variance is allowed between any two rises, but no rise can exceed 7-3/4". A hump in the flooring on the landing (top or bottom) would not be permitted. The landing has to be flat and level for the first 36" from the top or bottom stair nose.


----------



## Termite (Apr 13, 2008)

TexasEd said:


> ...or get the inspection done before the hardwood goes down?


Hehehe. I've seen that tried before. :no:


----------



## Clutchcargo (Mar 31, 2007)

I believe the code calls for the max between the shortest riser and tallest riser to be 3/8" but you can only be 1/8" off between 2 adjacent steps.
Is the landing actually the first floor or is there one more step off the landing?
If I understand correctly, can't you just add a layer of ply over the landing?


----------



## Termite (Apr 13, 2008)

Clutchcargo said:


> I believe the code calls for the max between the shortest riser and tallest riser to be 3/8" but you can only be 1/8" off between 2 adjacent steps.
> If I understand correctly, you may be able to just rebuild the landing.


Not true. The code allows 3/8" variance between any two steps on the flight of stairs. As an inspector, I can measure the top and the bottom and compare them, or I can randomly choose two other rises...Adjacent to each other or not...And they have to be within that 3/8" range. 

Examples:

Top rise 7".
Bottom rise 7-1/4".
All other rises 7-3/8".
Not a problem.

Top rise 7".
Bottom rise 7-1/4".
Most other rises 4-1/4.
One riser 7-1/2".
Problem.


----------



## Armitage (Jan 4, 2008)

thekctermite said:


> Ok...
> 
> Per the 2003 IRC, your maximum rise on a stair is 7-3/4".


Would you happen to have a section reference for that? My local code makes the following exceptions, which I think refer to riser height, but I can't confirm until I go to the library to look at the code.

_"RBC303.4.24 Section R311.4.3. In the exception after the second paragraph, delete “7¾ inch (196.85 mm)” and replace with “8 inch (203.2 mm).”

RBC303.4.25 Section R311.5.3.1. In the first sentence, delete “7¾ inch (196.85 mm)” and replace with “8 inch (203.2 mm).”
_


> 3/8" variance is allowed between any two rises, but no rise can exceed 7-3/4". A hump in the flooring on the landing (top or bottom) would not be permitted. The landing has to be flat and level for the first 36" from the top or bottom stair nose.


Yea, I don't plan any hump directly in front of the stairs. What about a 3/8" to 3/4" ramp from the landing into the existing house? Certainly not ideal, but I'm grasping here.


----------



## Armitage (Jan 4, 2008)

Never mind on the code reference for max riser height - my issue isn't the max riser height, but rather the max variance. If it's 3/8" between any step, and my max riser now is 7 5/8", then the lowest I could could go on that first riser would be 7 1/4" Which means I could put down 7/8" of flooring (1/8" plywood + 3/4" hardwood) which brings me to within 3/8" of the interior floor.

What do you guys think about a 3/8" -> 3/4" ramp over 6" as you go from the landing into the existing house?


----------



## Termite (Apr 13, 2008)

You've got the hang of rise variances. 

If the ramp is located within the 3' required landing, it would not be allowed. No portion of a landing can exceed a 2% slope, which equates to 1/4" maximum slope per 12" of landing.

If it is not in the landing, but out in the floor of the house, it would be allowable.


----------



## Armitage (Jan 4, 2008)

thekctermite said:


> You've got the hang of rise variances.
> 
> If the ramp is located within the 3' required landing, it would not be allowed. No portion of a landing can exceed a 2% slope, which equates to 1/4" maximum slope per 12" of landing.
> 
> If it is not in the landing, but out in the floor of the house, it would be allowable.


The ramp wouldn't be directly in front of the stairs - but rather in the doorway adjacent to and at a right angle to the stairs.

So, it's within 36", but it's off to the side. When I post a pic tonight it will be clearer.


----------



## Termite (Apr 13, 2008)

Sounds like it might be ok. Hard for me to say for sure without a pic.


----------



## Clutchcargo (Mar 31, 2007)

thekctermite said:


> Not true. The code allows 3/8" variance between any two steps on the flight of stairs. As an inspector, I can measure the top and the bottom and compare them, or I can randomly choose two other rises...Adjacent to each other or not...And they have to be within that 3/8" range.


You're right, I'm quoting Massachusetts code, I thought it was International. 
I my case I guess it depends on which edition the town is using. I got it slightly wrong it's 3/16"

From 6th edition.
3603.13.2 Treads and risers: ... The greatest riser height within any flight of stairs shall not exceed the smallest by more than 3/8 inch (9.5 mm) and any two successive risers shall not deviate by more than 3/16-inch in height....

From 7th edition
5311.5.3.1 Riser Height... The greatest riser
height within any flight of stairs shall not
exceed the smallest by more than 3/8 inch (9.5
mm).
No mention of adjacent steps.


----------



## Termite (Apr 13, 2008)

Clutchcargo said:


> I'm quoting Massachusetts code.


Cool, but the OP is using the 2003 I-codes. Gotta be careful we're giving out the correct information when citing code.


----------



## Armitage (Jan 4, 2008)

Here's a picture finally. The area outlined in blue is where I propose to make the 3/8" -> 3/4" transition ramp.


----------



## Clutchcargo (Mar 31, 2007)

Again, wouldn't adding a layer of ply and a threshold solve the problem?


----------



## Armitage (Jan 4, 2008)

Clutchcargo said:


> Again, wouldn't adding a layer of ply and a threshold solve the problem?


No because then the height of the first riser would be to short relative to the rest of them.


----------



## samjack (Jun 24, 2008)

Would you be opposed to removing the first tread and shimming the stringer 3/8"? When the finished floor went in you'd be at 7 2/8" on the first rise, 7 2/8" in the second rise, and 7 5/8" on the remainder.

-Sam


----------



## Armitage (Jan 4, 2008)

samjack said:


> Would you be opposed to removing the first tread and shimming the stringer 3/8"? When the finished floor went in you'd be at 7 2/8" on the first rise, 7 2/8" in the second rise, and 7 5/8" on the remainder.
> 
> -Sam


That's an interesting idea, and would give me a flush floor. It would likely require replacement of the first tread and the risers above and below it, because they are nailed (liquid & otherwise) in there pretty well. I'll take a look at it.


----------



## Termite (Apr 13, 2008)

That ramp thing isn't a code violation where it is located. The required landing is only as wide as the stairs, and anything outside of that is floor space, assuming it isn't within 36" of a top or bottom of the stairs _*in the direction of travel.*_


----------

