Please assist if possible … Have a house with front door that exits on to stoop only and the front lawn.
There is no “clearly defined walkway” only grass.
Is there ANY official documentation that say that a residential home HAS to have a clearly defined and illuminated walkway from the front a a home to the street
NO ! Only over the door. And I think that has been changed.
An exterior door must have at least a stoop, that is all that is required.
I agree, I’d call out a missing stoop or light, but I wouldn’t give a thought to no walkway.
I would call out a walkway with significant upheavals that can be a trip hazard though
The only place I know they are defined and required is from a handicapped parking spot to the door of a commercial building: http://www.nachi.org/comsop.htm#14
Agreed, the light at the doorway is also required.
The pedestrian approach to residences first and foremost should accommodate two persons side by side. This necessitates a minimal width of four feet. And remember, any dimensioning of walkways should be proportionate to that of the aforementioned landing and the architectural treatment of the residential entrance. For large estates, a 5’ walkway might be appropriate.
From a design standpoint, the alignment of walkways from buildings should commence in a perpendicular fashion; i.e., they should not immediately assume a curving position. The latter scenario occurs when the walkway leads to either side of the residence. Right angles, then, should be employed in the vicinity of the doorway.
The hard surface paving selected for walkways should be compatible with that of the driveway landing, as well as any step-up entranceway to the residence. Also, materials of the building facade itself should influence walkway surfacing. Brickwork in separate areas especially must match with similar qualities in order to avoid visual discord. Flagstone and concrete are standard paving materials, and can be jointly employed with brick for varietal interest, bearing in mind that any combination of construction elements must be coordinated in accordance with the principles of design (future topics).
Happy Landscaping!
James B. Root is a Land Architect from the University of Georgia, having practiced golf/residential site planning primarily in Charlottesville and northern Virginia over 34 years. With teaching experience as an ***'t Professor in the West Virginia University Department of Landscape Architecture, Jim is well qualified in all phases of land planning consultation and design. “From Courtyard Concepts to Sculptured Greens” thus embodies the scope of architectural endeavors.
Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=James_B._Root
Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/3619800
4’ in width?
A rarity i my neck of the woods.
Depends on the need of the owner. 3’ is adequate if you don’t meet anyone. 3’ is mostly for owners use or single file access by others. 
The original question was posted on May 22, 2014:D
I did not see it then or I would have posted…
2012 International Residential Code
**SECTION R311 MEANS OF EGRESS
R311.1 Means of egress. **
All *dwellings *shall be provided with a means of egress as provided in this section. The means of egress shall provide a continuous and unobstructed path of vertical and horizontal egress travel from all portions of the *dwelling *to the exterior of the *dwelling *at the required egress door without requiring travel through a garage. **
R311.2 Egress door. **
At least one egress door shall be provided for each *dwelling *unit. The egress door shall be side-hinged, and shall provide a minimum clear width of 32 inches (813 mm) when measured between the face of the door and the stop, with the door open 90 degrees (1.57 rad). The minimum clear height of the door opening shall not be less than 78 inches (1981 mm) in height measured from the top of the threshold to the bottom of the stop. Other doors shall not be required to comply with these minimum dimensions. Egress doors shall be readily openable from inside the *dwelling *without the use of a key or special knowledge or effort. **
R311.3 Floors and landings at exterior doors. **
There shall be a landing or floor on each side of each exterior door. The width of each landing shall not be less than the door served. Every landing shall have a minimum dimension of 36 inches (914 mm) measured in the direction of travel.
Exterior landings shall be permitted to have a slope not to exceed 1/4 unit vertical in 12 units horizontal (2-percent). **
Exception:
**Exterior balconies less than 60 square feet (5.6 m2) and only accessible from a door are permitted to have a landing less than 36 inches (914 mm) measured in the direction of travel.
**R311.3.1 Floor elevations at the required egress doors. **
Landings or finished floors at the required egress door shall not be more than 11/2 inches (38 mm) lower than the top of the threshold. **
Exception: **The landing or floor on the exterior side shall not be more than 73/4 inches (196 mm) below the top of the threshold provided the door does not swing over the landing or floor.
Where exterior landings or floors serving the required egress door are not at grade, they shall be provided with access to *grade *by means of a ramp in accordance with Section R311.8 or a stairway in accordance with Section R311.7.
**R311.3.2 Floor elevations for other exterior doors. **
Doors other than the required egress door shall be provided with landings or floors not more than 73/4 inches (196 mm) below the top of the threshold. **
Exception: **A landing is not required where a stairway of two or fewer risers is located on the exterior side of the door, provided the door does not swing over the stairway.
**R311.3.3 Storm and screen doors. **
Storm and screen doors shall be permitted to swing over all exterior stairs and landings.
**R311.4 Vertical egress. **
Egress from habitable levels including habitable attics and *basements *not provided with an egress door in accordance with Section R311.2 shall be by a ramp in accordance with Section R311.8 or a stairway in accordance with Section R311.7. **
R311.5 Construction.
****R311.5.1 Attachment. **
Exterior landings, decks, balconies, stairs and similar facilities shall be positively anchored to the primary structure to resist both vertical and lateral forces or shall be designed to be self-supporting. Attachment shall not be accomplished by use of toenails or nails subject to withdrawal.
I hope this can be of some help to you.:nachi::nachi:
I was referring to a walkway Frank.
Thanks anyway.
I have the IRC code on means of egress and have pointed it out on occasions that require its interpretation.
I mostly see rear sliding doors. The minimum width opening becomes the means of egress.
No landing and I will not hesitate to write it up.
I did a clandestine observation about 3 years back.
The IRC code definition being a “back door” causing confusion.
The egress door shall be side-hinged, and shall provide a minimum clear width of 32 inches (813 mm) when measured between the face of the door and the stop,
The misinformation was cited several times by homies. They recommended remove the sliding door and put a hinged door.
The width and square footage become the egresses definition or at least that has been my interpretation.
Quebec does not follow the IRC building code but certain well know home inspectors cite the IRC. The province is in the midst of configuring their own building code. 2017 the date of completion.
I knew that you were referring to walkways but when I did a “search” of the*** entire ***IRC for that “specific word” this is an example of what I found.
501.2.1.1 Exhaust discharge.*
Exhaust air shall not be directed onto walkways.*
804.3.4 Horizontal terminations.*
Horizontal terminations shall comply with the following requirements:
804.3.5 Vertical terminations.*
Vertical terminations shall comply with the following requirements:
The list goes on and on but nothing came close to what you were referring to.
I figured that the information that I provided to you would be of some small help not only to you but to others.
In this case …I guess I was wrong!#-o
I apologize for wasting your time.
It would seem to me from all the information presented here, that once exiting beyond the required landing or stoop of the egress door, and the landing is already at grade (ground level), there are no more requirements for means of egress. Is this what everybody else gets out of this?
Frank I am perplexed by the verbiage, “I apologize for wasting your time.”
Your vast amount of expertise, knowledge, message board manner and experience are a great gift and not a waste of time.
I was hired to do an insurance clam, fire damage, and the builder was negligent with the means of egress for ALL the tenants and to the adjacent building. They shared a common egress path to a public pathway.
If another fire would have occurred tenants would be trapped.
That is unless they cared to jump 15 down or try to crawl out of a basement window that did not conform to a means of egress.
You would have to have no backbones or spinal cartilage either.
Not only that, the next door tenants would find their side egress blocked and no common pathway and one basement unable to flee.
This was 6 weeks after the event.
Now the contractor did not want me there after my initial report was given to his son the lawyer.
He was going to leave timbers burnt beyond 60% of the dimentions and other restoration methods that required revisions.
The owner, my client, explained well in advance he was very confrontational and could I work like that.
No issues with payment in advance.
I came highly recommended.
I was vetted very closely.
With a solid report in hand he asked to break the contract because I was not there to meet the contractor and express my concerns where valid BUT I was not there to meet with the contractor.
The contractor showed up unannounced, how could I be there I asked?
As expressed, the contractor and insurance company did not want me there.
The client just wanted to get the work done.
No issues. I broke the contract and mailed back the post dated checks and keep my $1,000.00.
Here is some more on means of egress.
Robert,
I have found {especially on*** this*** message board} that the “written word” can EASILY be misconstrued/misinterpreted. I have seen a lot of very nasty “message board wars” started by a very simple misunderstanding. I have found that all of the cursing, name-calling, and personal insults only diminishes BOTH parties.
There is never a “winner”.
My cardiologist has warned me “not to get angry, not to get excited, and not to let frustration/resentment build up within me”! That is why I stay away from the “message board wars”.
I have thoroughly enjoyed our interaction on this message board.
I have found you to be very kind, polite and very professional. That is why I took the time and trouble to add the “emoticons” in order to convey the message that I was “joking” with you.
*{I figured that the information that I provided to you would be of some small help not only to you but to others.
In this case …I guess I was wrong!#-o
I apologize for wasting your time.;-)* }
I’m glad that you took the time and trouble to thoroughly explain the situation. One of my toughest inspections was conducted in front of approximately 17 lawyers, six insurance agents, and at least six insurance investigators.
It involved the carbon monoxide death of a young father and his 16-year-old son. It was truly heartbreaking!
After the inspection and out of hearing range of everyone …I explained to my client that they were thoroughly in the wrong and that they should “pay up”!
Over the last 42 years I’ve learned to present the “facts” and to be able to thoroughly document “in writing” everything that I say!
I wish you the best of luck in this matter:nachi:
Sorry for my attitude, Frank.
Old 7/16/14, 11:25 AM :roll:
So… it took you over four years to apologize?
You OK over there Rob?.. or just bored…
I was following a friends post, one of 86, and Yes, I felt poorly and can admit my faults.
Let’s read what Frank posted.
Robert,
I have found {especially on this message board} that the “written word” can EASILY be misconstrued/misinterpreted.
Food for thought?:roll:
Considering that Frank hasn’t been on here in over three years, your apology is meaningless. you should try to be more timely with your regrets and apologies.