The Washington State Building Code Council on Oct. 17 adopted an opinion clarifying that the residential-code provision governing stairway landing slope (IRC 311.7.7) applies to stair landings only and does not set the maximum cross slope for ramp landings.

Staff prepared the opinion after a request from Spokane Valley and others who reported that, in some retrofit cases, a ramp terminates at a sloped driveway or sidewalk and the absence of explicit ramp-landing guidance has produced inconsistent local approaches. Council staff and members noted that accessibility standards incorporated in practice (ICC/ANSI A117.1) address ramp-landing cross slope and that A117.1 sets a tighter maximum (1:48) for ramp landings used for accessibility.

The council voted to adopt staff's technical answer: the IRC stairway landing provision is not applicable to ramps; jurisdictions seeking guidance should reference ICC/ANSI A117.1 for ramp-landing slope and cross-slope parameters. Council members said that, while the opinion answers the immediate interpretation question, the council should consider a code amendment in a future cycle to explicitly add ramp-landing cross-slope language to the residential code.

Why it matters: The adopted opinion gives plan reviewers and inspectors a clear reference (A117.1) for ramp-landing cross slope when evaluating accessibility-related ramps and helps jurisdictions manage retrofit installations (for example, home-entry ramps terminating at a driveway). The council also recognized that some adult-family homes and private residential situations may not be covered directly by federal ADA requirements, but referencing A117.1 provides a consistent technical baseline.

Next steps: The adopted opinion will be published in the council's opinion repository and staff recommended the council consider a permanent code amendment during a future code cycle to make ramp-landing requirements explicit in the residential code.

Attribution: Opinion language and references drawn from council staff memorandum and discussion recorded in the Oct. 17 meeting transcript.