|
Posted by david ashworth on October 9, 2006, 9:00 am
sir, the boca code requires the following: 80" of headroom "anywhere" on the
stair run PERIOD... as for your contractor, he has plans submitted and
approved by the town or county, follow them. You may not change the location
of stairs for various safety issues( egress, sideline requirements) without
a written plan change approved by your local officials. a staircase (unless
spiral) shall have 36" tread width , 9.25" minumum tread depth, and maximum
8.25" rise per stair ( all are to uniform including landings). rach place
there is a change in direction there is a required platform of 36" by 36". I
am a contractor with 26 years experience. these are the rules, have the
contractor follow them. By the way, why did you PAY him to tear the other
ones down? If they have design issues, that can be calculated ON PAPER prior
to building. remove the soffits on the side of the house. this move should
have been done initially, a contractor with extensive experience would not
have missed this.
>I have been posting on problems that I have had in building a 2nd level
> deck through a local contractor. The deck fits into an "L" corner of
> the house, so it borders the house on two sides, a pool on one side,
> and one side that has no structure against it.
>
> One of the issues was with the staircase leading to the deck. The
> staircase had a limited space where it could be put due to the
> proximity of a pool and pool fence. I guess that a stair case could
> be put on the only end of the deck not butting the house or next to the
> pool, although I would not prefer this, and once again this would
> entail more cost and time. The staircase was against a wall of the
> house, and the eve of the house is quite low relative to the level of
> the deck. The staircase is pretty much up against an exterior wall of
> the house with an eve extending 15" past the wall of the house and over
> the staircase. The staircase goes up to the deck at a similar angle
> to the eve of the house. After the contractor had partially
> constructed the stairs it became clear that as he had constructed it, I
> would hit my head (im 5' 9" ) at multiple places goin g up the
> staircase if I walked up the side of the stairs next to the house) ,
> so I paid the contractor to tear it down. Now he is planning to
> reconstruct it at a steeper angle than previously which allows adequate
> head clearance (over 74") until the final step onto the deck. The
> final step onto the deck only has about 66" on the portion of steps
> against the house. The portion of the steps (about 27" of stair width)
> has no eve above it so it is totally clear.
>
> Would the fact that 15" of the last step onto the deck has low head
> clearance pass code? Once again, there is about 27" of width that has
> no eve above it. If this does pose a code violation, would it rectify
> the situation to place a rail at the top of the deck preventing
> stepping onto the deck at a location with eve above it? I personally
> can see no way to rectify this situation without tearing out the pool
> fence to allow movement of the stairs away from the eve of the house
> (of course having no pool fence is probably a code violation too), or
> totally moving the stairs to the end of the deck not next to a portion
> of the house or pool .
>
| 
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
XML Sitemap