IB, Eliminating steps as a design mantra! How interesting, and to my mind, boring...This would tend to presume designing for sites that are more or less level, something that obviously doesn't work in many areas of the country. Steps can often have religious or cultural significance, and are often used in places like Bali to deter evil spirits from free entry into a garden or dwelling, where most all garden entries will force one into climbing up a few steps, entering, and then descending into the enclosed garden, even when the site is virtually flat. Steps are also often used in a Japanese garden context to force a change of views, or focus attention by slowing one down to take in the experience at that point in the garden. I was looking through some books at our excellent local book store, Builder's Booksource here on 4th St in Berkeley yesterday evening, and stumbled across a book on Organic Architecture that featured work on Frank Lloyd Wright and son, with particular emphasis on their 1920's work in Los Angeles. Every single project had massive amounts of steps, and often featured interior rooms with changes of levels within them to designate changes of function and mood. I especially liked a bedroom that located the bed at a 4 foot change in level with the steps located right at the bed. Maybe not for everyone, and especially restless sleepers prone to accidentally rolling out of bed, but it had the charm of being in a tree house and looking down upon the world. I personally will always find a hillside garden with steps more interesting than a flat garden, and hillsides also provide many more opportunities for views, changes of perspective, and more opportunities for planting combinations, as well as opportunities to use plants that arch, drape and cascade in ways that a flat garden doesn't. Even in virtually flat sites such as Viscaya in southwest Florida, the use of steps up and down and framed views of water make an essentially flat site much more visually interesting. As well, walking up and down steps everyday also works wonders on a common American predicament, the flabby *ss! I wouldn't want to live in a world without steps, even when they don't appear to be necessary! I hope the OP does submit pictures of the intended application of these massively wide proposed stairs down to the pool, as perhaps the photos will make a case for why Laag's logic either does or does not apply. At the opposite extreme of these proposed super sized steps, the mayan temples in the jungles of Guatemala and southern Mexico are their opposite, so impossibly narrow and steep, that they give one vertigo in climbing up to the top, but evoke a powerful visual presence as well as exertion to make it up and down, clearly intended to stimulate feelings that can only be guessed at 100's of years later.

I have the 5" riser. After assembling the riser, you remove two bolts from the back of the range, slide the riser into place, then replace those two bolts. I have the older model gas range, though, and the newer model is somewhat different. You would assemble the riser, then remove the back panel from the range by removing some screws on each side, then position the riser in place and attach it with three screws on each side, then reattach the back panel. This post was edited by jellytoast on Fri, Jun 28, 13 at 16:17

PB, I think I understand your concern, but I think you are misunderstanding the information supplied. I tried to find the specifications for your unit on the Ânet, but I canÂt. In any case, your unit is to be supplied by a ½" gas line at a minimum of 1" of water column pressure. The regulator will reduce that to the proper amount for the whole appliance. There are at least two ranges that fit your rangeÂs description, and neither lists the total maximum input rating. You may find that on the manufacturerÂs nameplate. You do have quite a powerhouse there. And I am unfamiliar with the unit and ranges, generally. But if the line size and pressure are specÂd.-out and you are within the capacities, your range will work to its design intents. I see that your question derives from, " the gas connector I picked up at the local Home Depot has a chart on the back showing a significant drop off in BTU/hr depending on whether a 3' or a 6' connector is used." This may be the creation of a misunderstanding. If your connector has an automatic gas safety valve between the flex and the ½" IP, the chart you reference is probably the one that tells you the limit of the appliance capacity for the length of flex used. For example, a connector intended to hook up to ½" IP and is itself ½" tubing, might supply a dryer or a range or a gas water heater  medium demand appliances. Because the safety valve is sensing that a massive gas leak may have occurred at the end of the connector, due to breakage or disconnection while the line stop is open, its sensitivity includes the actual length of line between it and the regulator. Laws and the gas code limit this kind of connection to 6 feet. So if you use a 6 foot connector, the safety valve will be tripped at some BTU/H rating different than one that has the regulator at 3 feet. However, while this is considered Âimportant, you may find that the chart limit is already far more generous than you need. Which translates: that if you are getting the normal flow to any of the burners, it will work for all of them. But, at some point, the whole demand of open gas valves will reach what appears to be the safety valveÂs sensing limit. Then and only then, do you need to consider a shorter flex line. (YouÂll know when the whole kabob falls off the stick.) The safety valve will still conduct a certain amount of gas (bypass) which might power one or more burners. This gas needs to flow so that when it accumulates at the shut-off burners, its back-pressure will reset the safety valve to full flow. Pinoke

Several threads here, often started due to heat damage to resin-based backsplashes (e.g. Quartz), have topically deviated into the requirements of the International Mechanical Code (Table 308.4.2). However, one doesn't need to interpret that code oneself all the way to the cooktop installation details. The manufacturer and UL, CE, CSA, etc. will determine the minimum safe distance and put it into the installation instructions. Your local code enforcement officer should be checking actual installations vs. manufacturer's installation directions for compliance. I can't read the installation scans you have provided, so I can't determine in which direction they might have limited combustibles w.r.t. a 12-inch distance. Generally, having combustible materials in walls, particularly the studs, close to heat sources can subject the wood to heat damage that slowly degrades strength and fire resistance due to distillation of chemicals in the wood. As a result, more powerful gas stoves have accessory/optional riser/back-guards that provide a heat buffer. If you looked at the designs, you would probably note similarity with some examples in the IMC table I referenced above. I can't do your safety analysis from here. One of my town inspectors once asserted somewhat in jest that the reason for code compliance was to limit the income of insurance company lawyers (who would be using lack of code compliance to get out of paying for damages). I think building code compliance is one of those situations where the maxim "it is better to ask for forgiveness than permission" is not applicable. Check with your Authority Having Jurisdiction (AHJ) for an opinion. Perhaps modifying the wall won't be a big deal on the scale of the entire kitchen part of the build.