Exterior Stairways - When is the IRC applicable (and not applicable)?

[FredK]

Is there a distance away from the house where you would no longer regulate those stairs (i.e., front stoop stairs versus stairs at the end of a large patio or long sidewalk more than ten feet from residence)? Where does the means of egress system for the IRC end? As far as I can tell, it ends at the exterior door/egress window/window well. There is no provision for a hard surface access to a public right of way in the IRC. Definitions are lacking, and insufficient to determine the limitations of the IRC Chapter 3 sections. Decks and balconies aren't required to have stairs. Bulkhead stairs serving basements do not have to comply (only one of two types of stairs that are specifically exempted). Stairs between curb and sidewalk do not have to comply. Sidewalks and front stoops at the edge of a split level retaining wall do not have to comply. When 'they' clarify the means of egress section will more than likely be a long time from now. Are the I-codes a minimum safety standard, or minimum economic threshold of what would be expecting to much? In some cases I am not so sure, in others I am sure, and others, only 'they' know.

All good questions.

Here's how I get to my answer of one door.

Here's where I can see other code books for definitions.

R201.3 Terms defined in other codes.

Where terms are not defined in this code such terms shall have meanings ascribed to them as in other code publications of the International Code Council.

R201.4 Terms not defined.

Where terms are not defined through the methods authorized by this section, such terms shall have ordinarily accepted meanings such as the context implies.

Then under SECTION R311 MEANS OF EGRESS I see there's no definition under IRC so under the UBC there is.

Under SECTION 1002 DEFINITIONS there is:

MEANS OF EGRESS. A continuous and unobstructed path of vertical and horizontal egress travel from any occupied portion of a building or structure to a public way. A means of egress consists of three separate and distinct parts: the exit access, the exit and the exit discharge.

And Public Way is also defined.

PUBLIC WAY. A street, alley or other parcel of land open to the outside air leading to a street, that has been deeded, dedicated or otherwise permanently appropriated to the public for public use and which has a clear width and height of not less than 10 feet (3048 mm).

So now I got to be sure one can get to a street, alley, etc.....

Looking under SECTION R311 MEANS OF EGRESS the code is laid out to follow the first things first.

R311.1 General.

R311.2 Construction.

R311.3 Hallways.

R311.4 Doors.

R311.5 Stairways.

Etc.....

So I got to regulate hallways before doors and doors before stairways.

Looking under doors I see

R311.4.1 Exit door required.

R311.4.2 Door type and size.

R311.4.3 Landings at doors.

R311.4.4 Type of lock or latch.

Ok so an exit door is required. How many???

R311.4.1 Exit door required.

Not less than one exit door conforming to this section shall be provided for each dwelling unit. The required exit door shall provide for direct access from the habitable portions of the dwelling to the exterior without requiring travel through a garage. Access to habitable levels not having an exit in accordance with this section shall be by a ramp in accordance with Section R311.6 or a stairway in accordance with Section R311.5.

Not less than one and the next sentence says it is the required exit door. So I get to regulate that to a public way.

Not all doors but only one.

Which one? What ever one the person as labeled on the set of plans. Does it need a ramp, stairs, guard etc.... I wouldn't know until I'm out in the field on what it may need or not.

As for the public way thing across the grass, down the driveway all a legit ways to get there since there's no requirement(ADA) to pave any of it.

Now when you read R311.1 General. Stairways, ramps, exterior egress balconies, hallways and doors shall comply with this section. It would make one believe all stairways have to comply but reading the next section unless those stairways attach to an egress balcony IMHO they don't have to. We make them but a stair off a deck doesn't have to comply neither would stairs from the yard to a lower level unless it's on the means of egress path to the public way.

A rewrite of the whole section is needed IMHO. Hope this helps.

 

[tbz]

This came up a lot on the thing of the thing, but here in lies the basic rule of thumb that is always over looked. The IRC MOE is basic from the house to grade and stops, it does not nor should it be required to reg, from the exit door to the street.

Why you may ask, well those of you who work in what I call populated areas, Jeff chime in, might only have 50 - 150 ft to get to the public street, were as others might have a 1/4 mile or more.

Take a house in the middle of 20 acres, or how about just 4. The to the public way may work on 100 by 200 lots, but think in bigger terms of application.

I have had this discussion with many an inspector and the most widely pushed in my area is home to grade, then home to driveway(the more heavy footed), but home to public way in the IRC is just not there.

Take this example:

100x200 lot, home owner has an exit from the front door down 2 steps at which point the path splits, one path leads to the street and down 4 risers and the second is a level path to the driveway with no risers.

Are the risers to the street landscape or main MOE?

 

[mtlogcabin]

CODE DEVELOPMENT NEWSThe IRC Is a Comprehensive, Stand-Alone Codeby ICC Staff Engineer Fred Grable, P.E.

A common misconception about the International Residential Code (IRC) is that it is always to be used in conjunction with other International Codes, implying that the IRC is somehow incomplete. As stated in the introduction section of the preface of the IRC, it is a comprehensive, stand-alone code that applies only to one- and two-family dwellings and townhouses.

The content of the IRC was developed and has been maintained to provide builders and inspectors with a single code book that covers all aspects of typical home construction. If the subject matter is covered in the IRC, then it is intended that the IRC will provide all of the needed coverage for that subject. Therefore, it is not intended that the IRC be "customized" with additional requirements plucked from the other codes.

IRC users expect all of the applicable requirements to be in the IRC and do not expect to have to determine what additional unknown requirements might apply from some other code. If this was not the case, IRC users would never be sure that all of the applicable requirements were in front of them. The IRC stands alone except when it specifically directs the user to another code. The fact that the IRC does not contain some particular requirement from another code does not mean that the IRC is somehow deficient in its coverage of the broader subject. For example, the IRC covers the design of drainage system piping, as does the International Plumbing Code (IPC). If the IPC contains an additional requirement that is not also in the IRC, that requirement is not to be applied to an installation regulated by the IRC.

In this case, the IRC contains all of the coverage for drainage piping that was intended. In other words, it is not intended that the IRC provisions be "mixed and matched" with provisions of other codes and it is not intended that code users "shop" in or "cherry pick" from other codes when applying the IRC. It is likely, that where the IRC does not contain a particular requirement that is found in another code, such requirement was intentionally left out of the IRC or it relates to atypical construction. See Sections R301.1.1. N1101.2, M1301.1, G2401.1, P2601.1 and E3401.2.

 

[FredK]

mtlogcabin agree to stand alone except for where it "allows" definitions from other codes to be used. One can say it's all in there but it is not.

Example what's an exterior egress balconies in a IRC? Does a deck also fit in there????

BALCONY, EXTERIOR. An exterior floor projecting from and supported by a structure without additional independent supports.

DECK. An exterior floor system supported on at least two opposing sides by an adjoining structure and/or posts, piers, or other independent supports.

 

[mtlogcabin]

The fact that the IRC does not contain some particular requirement from another code does not mean that the IRC is somehow deficient in its coverage of the broader subject

It is obvious the author does not use the IRC everyday

excellent example

 

[JBI]

"Means of Egress" in the RC does not need to be defined, it is fully and completely described in 311.1

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.

Once I'm outside at the required egress door, MOE in my SFD ends. Standing on a stoop that is 4' above grade? Use 312. Need to have stairs to grade? Make sure there is a guard, per 312 and regualte the stairs with 311 - they ARE still attached to the dwelling. Only the MOE stops at the front door, not the Code.

 

[Papio Bldg Dept]

Once I'm outside at the required egress door, MOE in my SFD ends. Standing on a stoop that is 4' above grade? Use 312. Need to have stairs to grade? Make sure there is a guard, per 312 and regualte the stairs with 311 - they ARE still attached to the dwelling. Only the MOE stops at the front door, not the Code.

This appeals to me in in many ways, and yet I also understand what TBZ and FredK are saying in their posts, that there are reasonable limitations to the extents of applicability as well. Historically, our departmental MO for the MOE has terminated at the landing on the exterior of the egress door, or at the top of the ladder in the egress window well. Our departmental MO for stairs, and changes in elevation greater than 30," has been to enforce R311 and R312 for anything adjacent/directly connected to that landing (in some cases labeled a patio), balcony, or a deck. Balconies and decks still need guards for elevations greater than 30" and structural compliance. Stairs still need landings, guards, handrails, rise/run compliance, and structural compliance. Stairs and retaining walls not directly attached to the landing/stairs required at the exterior side of a door (any door, not just the one for egress. surely you wouldn't let someone put in a door on the second floor, without any balcony, landing, or stair because your MOE ends at the door.) are considered accessory structures when they exceed 4' above grade, or are 120 square feet or larger. All decks are required to be code compliant in our jurisdiction.

Within reason? Too much?

What are your thoughts on that approach?

I am sure someone can come up with a loophole.

 

[Papio Bldg Dept]

CODE DEVELOPMENT NEWSThe IRC Is a Comprehensive, Stand-Alone Codeby ICC Staff Engineer Fred Grable, P.E.

What is a 'Staff Engineer?' Bow Staff or Work Staff Engineer, he is well intentioned and yet greatly misinformed on it's everyday practical application. Missed the boat. Can we get the Coast Guard in here?

At best the IRC is a minimum code standard that is a poorly and vaguely defined compromise of good construction practices for the economic betterment of a prescribed and industrialized status quo...it can never be a stand alone, comprehensive, one size fits all compendium. :beatdhrs :banghd :chpill :butt

 

[globe trekker]

Papio Bldg. Dept.,

Rather than "getting the Coast Guard in here", ...you may want to contact

the U.S. Navy Seals. They DO have a history of Gittin'-R-Done! [ No

disrespect to the Coast Guard intended ]. :-D

.

 

[mtlogcabin]

he is well intentioned and yet greatly misinformed on it's everyday practical application

He may be correct about the plumbing and mechanical portions where his experience lies but I think most will agree Part III of the IRC is not a stand alone, comprehensive, one size fits all compendium

FRED GRABLE, P.E., ICC Staff

Engineer, is a master plumber and

registered Professional Engineer

in two states. His professional

experience includes nearly two

decades as an engineer for an

industrial pressure piping manufacturer

and in wastewater treatment

equipment field services. He also

founded his own plumbing company, for which he

managed new construction, remodeling and repair

of residential and commercial plumbing and gas

systems. ◆

 

[mtlogcabin]

Papio i believe your post #31 is an excellent common sense approach and is very reasonable.

 

[Papio Bldg Dept]

Papio Bldg. Dept.,Rather than "getting the Coast Guard in here", ...you may want to contact

the U.S. Navy Seals. They DO have a history of Gittin'-R-Done! [ No

disrespect to the Coast Guard intended ]. :-D

.

That might explain why my son has a navy seals poster on his wall...does the coast guard even have posters?

 

[Papio Bldg Dept]

Thanks MT. For a minute I thought I might just be surley and unreasonable...heavy footed even.

 

[JBI]

Agree about post # 31.

What's meant by 'stand alone document' is that someone can prescriptively build a code compliant one or two family dwelling without need for any other code document - and that is possible. It does not claim to be a comprehensive compendium of anything, in fact it tells you when you wish to deviate from the 'common sense and experience' approach we call prescriptive design exactly where to find alternatives.

 

[Papio Bldg Dept]

What's meant by 'stand alone document' is that someone can prescriptively build a code compliant one or two family dwelling without need for any other code document - and that is possible. It does not claim to be a comprehensive compendium of anything, in fact it tells you when you wish to deviate from the 'common sense and experience' approach we call prescriptive design exactly where to find alternatives.

It probably won't come as any shock that I respectfully disagree here. While I will agree, that for the most part, the IRC does work as a stand alone document right up until it doesn't. The Plumbing section allows for the recirculation of storm water from a sump pump back into a window well. The Electrical section is a near identical copy of the NEC, which does not address the limits of when a wet sink is similar to a kitchen. The Means of Egress terminates at the exterior of the building, and only for the one required means of egress door. These examples do not provide prescriptive design codes, and they do not look at experience or use common sense, in my humble opinion.

 

[Jobsaver]

surely you wouldn't let someone put in a door on the second floor, without any balcony, landing, or stair because your MOE ends at the door

Only because the code says they cannot. One cannot put a any door on the second floor unless they have something to step on within 7 3/4" of the top of the threshold of said door. A 10' riser height for a stair leading from a second story door to grade is too much riser height.

2009 IRC: (italics mine)

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 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 exterior landing or floor 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.

When 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.

 

[Papio Bldg Dept]

When 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.

Jobsaver; I get this. I really do, and yes I made erroneous and oversimplified statement. It has been a frustrating week of designers, administrators, business owners, and contractors challenging the gray areas of the codes, and the Fred Grable IRC article fueled my fire, and I do not agree with him when he says the IRC provides all the needed coverage for every subject.

However, if you go back and look at my original thread post, asking where does that landing stop, what are the limits of the IRC, then shal we say that once I have satisfied the '36" by width of the door' landing, and provide a ramp or stairway to grade. Is the IRC done? Are guardrails required at the edge of that landing? What about the 10' by 20' landing shown in my pictures with the 5'+ drop to grade and the landscaping stone stairs down to terraced grade? Should there be a guard rail at the edge of the patio with a drop off? Is the remainder of the patio, that which is outside the required landing area, considered grade, and then no longer covered by the IRC? What if this was a deck or balcony that had additional supports?

While the IRC is the best we have, I do not have to accept the statement that Fred Grable made in his article. I disagree with his statement that it is a stand alone document that has everything we need to have, and nothing we don't need to have in order to regulate the construction of one and two family dwellings. I originally found the article to be arrogant and patronizing.

 

[Papio Bldg Dept]

Thank you for all of your posts and comments concerning the IRC MOE section issues my department is facing. They have been very helpful.

I apologize to anyone I may have offended for my recent rant on the Fred Grable article. I have always been passionate about my job, and take it seriously, trying to conduct myself in a professional manner, and regret my comments about the Fred Grable article on the IRC, as this is not the place.

 

[globe trekker]

Papio Bldg. Dept.,

I still cannot see your photos! Maybe it's just the security filters on my work

server or something. Maybe a Forum Moderator can chime in to clarify.

I too believe that IRC is NOT a stand alone, "one size fits all" document.

I regularly have to go to other standards and documents and professionals

( code, design, contractors and others ) to seek information and perspective.

At times, I even have to go in to the NFPA standards to perform my research.

Luckily, our dept. has the full 2010 NFPA library.

Your topic and the subsequent discussion , I think, prompts most of us to think

a little more deeply about the various sections in the IRC AND the other I-codes,

which is a good thing.

FWIW, I am not offended by anything that you or others have commented on.

These discussions assist me greatly in thinking outside my own thoughts and

experiences. I say let the discussions continue until you get the answers you

seek. There is always someone on this Forum who will have input.

Keep at it!

.

 

[Jobsaver]

Papio Bldg. Dept.,I still cannot see your photos! Maybe it's just the security filters on my work

server or something. Maybe a Forum Moderator can chime in to clarify.

I too believe that IRC is NOT a stand alone, "one size fits all" document.

I regularly have to go to other standards and documents and professionals

( code, design, contractors and others ) to seek information and perspective.

At times, I even have to go in to the NFPA standards to perform my research.

Luckily, our dept. has the full 2010 NFPA library.

Your topic and the subsequent discussion , I think, prompts most of us to think

a little more deeply about the various sections in the IRC AND the other I-codes,

which is a good thing.

FWIW, I am not offended by anything that you or others have commented on.

These discussions assist me greatly in thinking outside my own thoughts and

experiences. I say let the discussions continue until you get the answers you

seek. There is always someone on this Forum who will have input.

Keep at it!

.

Well said.

At the very least, it is a true thing to say that grey areas exist even after the code is written and read. Poor drafting, poor or different comprehension, or simply having a different perspective than the authors all contribute.

I am reminded of a cartoon illuminating matters of comprehension and perspective:

Frame one: A man reading a sign posted above the clothes dryer section at the laundrymat, "Please remove clothes immediately after buzzer rings."

Frame two: Same as frame one, except the man is standing stark naked, clothes he was wearing on floor.

 

[FredK]

No harm from here.

I like to reason out the code and have since I started. I took classes and the best thing was the instructor would read one sentence at a time let it sink in and we'd discuss it. Really a fun exercise to try alone or with others. When you get done there are more answers than questions sometimes as we'd not stop at commas, etc.....

The best use of any word in the code is "shall". As in "There shall be a floor or landing on each side of each exterior door." No mistake on what's needed or required. It's when it's not there and then confusion reins. Still too much "open to interpt" when it's not in the first sentence IMHO.

I like to thank all for their imput also. That'show we all learn.