• Welcome to The Building Code Forum

    Your premier resource for building code knowledge.

    This forum remains free to the public thanks to the generous support of our Sawhorse Members and Corporate Sponsors. Their contributions help keep this community thriving and accessible.

    Want enhanced access to expert discussions and exclusive features? Learn more about the benefits here.

    Ready to upgrade? Log in and upgrade now.

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

Papio Bldg Dept

Papio Bldg Dept

REGISTERED
Joined
Jan 24, 2011
Messages
1,414
Location
Papillion
Exterior Stairways - When is the IRC (2006) applicable (and not applicable)?

Scoping provisions of the IRC (2006) seem to indicate that structures over 4' are covered by the IRC, however, is this only for loading?

Do sections R311 & 312 not apply to landscaping stairs at the edge of patios?

Is the term 'stairways' in R311.1, General, referring to 'all stairways (no matter what location on property?'

My instinct is yes, however this is not something that is not, to my knowledge, activily enforced in our jurisdiction. My understanding of the IRC is that just because a structure is exempted from permit, it is not exempted from compliance with the IRC; and I see no exemptions landscaping, leading me to believe that all main and accessory structures, wherever occuring within the building lot lines, shall comply with the code.

Am I missing something here? Is there something besides a GOD clause and AHJ amendments that I am missing here?
 
It is important to understand that the IRC contains coverage for what is conventional and common in residential construction practice. While the IRC will provide all of the needed coverage for most residential construction, it might not address construction practices and systems that are atypical or rarely encountered in the industry. Sections such as R301.1.3, R301.2.2, R320.1, R322.1, N1101.2, M1301.1, G2401.1, P2601.1 and E3401.2 refer to other codes either as an alternative to the provisions of the IRC or where the IRC lacks coverage for a particular type of structure, design, system, appliance or method of construction. In other words, the IRC is meant to be all inclusive for typical residential construction and it relies on other codes only where alternatives are desired or where the code lacks coverage for the uncommon aspect of residential construction.

R101.2 Scope.

The provisions of the International Residential Code for One- and Two-family Dwellings shall apply to the construction, alteration , movement, enlargement, replacement, repair, equipment, use and occupancy, location, removal and demolition of detached one- and two-family dwellings and townhouses not more than three stories above grade plane in height with a separate means of egress and their accessory structures .

ACCESSORY STRUCTURE. A structure not greater than 3,000 square feet (279 m2) in floor area, and not over two stories in height, the use of which is customarily accessory to and incidental to that of the dwelling(s) and which is located on the same lot .

STRUCTURE. That which is built or constructed.

So yes a stairway leading down a walkway to a lower part of the property would have to comply with the code. A retaining wall with no defined walking surface adjacent to the retaining wall may not depending on the AHJ interp.
 
I will disagree with mtlogcabin on this one although he spent time to put together a convincing argument. "Constructed" paths through a terraced or sloped yard do not require stairs per the IRC and can be constructed of any materials without handrails.
 
Papio - It actually sounds like the code is being properly applied...

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.

(the OP is regarding exterior stairs, so 311 does not apply.)

SECTION R312 GUARDS

R312.1 Where required. Guards shall be located along open-sided walking surfaces, including stairs, ramps and landings, that are located more than 30 inches (762 mm) measured vertically to the floor or grade below at any point within 36 inches (914 mm) horizontally to the edge of the open side. Insect screening shall not be considered as a guard.

(THIS section would apply... if the grade falls to more than 30" below and within 36" vertically from the edge of the stairs.)
 
MarkRandall said:
I will disagree with mtlogcabin on this one although he spent time to put together a convincing argument. "Constructed" paths through a terraced or sloped yard do not require stairs per the IRC and can be constructed of any materials without handrails.
Click to expand...
What about guard rails as JBI suggests? Is this not also a valid argument?
 
The following are some examples we are experiencing. These examples are unique in our AHJ as their proximity to the house raises questions about the applicability of the code:

attachment.php


attachment.php


attachment.php


On the one hand, I understand that not every landscaping component is intended to comply with the code (i.e., a walking trail through private property wood at the edge of a retaining wall, etc). I guess, what I am asking, is when and where do you, as AHJ's (or designers/contractors), draw that line? Is it a case by case basis? Are therer proximity guidelines you establish (i.e., 5' from house, etc.)? Are all these structures, accessory structures, regardless of where they occur on a residential lot? Or is this just a gray area, and each AHJ needs to amend the code as they see fit?

I am looking for well reasoned opinions for against requiring these types of examples to comply.

Thank you to MTlogcabin, MR, and JBI.
 
As much as I hate to send you there, there were several extremely long discussions on this very topic on the old ICC board. There was never a consensus, and the points of view presented above pretty much cover the topic. There just isn't a silver bullet for this one.
 
permitguy said:
As much as I hate to send you there, there were several extremely long discussions on this very topic on the old ICC board. There was never a consensus, and the points of view presented above pretty much cover the topic. There just isn't a silver bullet for this one.
Click to expand...
In other words, would it be better to leave it that it is up to each AHJ to amend the code (if necessary) to fit their interpretation of it's applicability and scope?
 
Papio Bldg Dept said:
they are also in my 'code' album on my profile if you can not see them.
Click to expand...
don't want to hijack . . "code section" on our profiles and, , albums? what have I been missing, , and I don't see where that is?
 
New in the 2009 IRC

R311.7.4.4 Exterior wood/plastic composite stair treads.

Wood/plastic composite stair treads shall comply with the provisions of Section R317.4.

R311.7.7.4 Exterior wood/plastic composite handrails.

Wood/plastic composite handrails shall comply with the provisions of Section R317.4.

R317.4 Wood/plastic composites.

Wood/plastic composites used in exterior deck boards, stair treads, handrails and guardrail systems shall bear a label indicating the required performance levels and demonstrating compliance with the provisions of ASTM D 7032.

R317.4.1

Wood/plastic composites shall be installed in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions.

Is the intent to regulate the materials or was it placed in the end of the stair and handrail requirements because if you build an exterior stair it is built to the code required riser height, tread depth and profile including hand rails. A smart DP will place a landing every 4 risers and avoid the handrails.

I am very flexible when using lanscape materials such as natural stone, brick, logs, railroad ties etc but not if you use dimensional lumber or the plastic composite stuff.
 
Papio Bldg Dept said:
What about guard rails as JBI suggests? Is this not also a valid argument?
Click to expand...
Yes, it's a valid argument, if it is part of the means of egress. This is a difficult subject to argue on my part because it's nearly impossible to prove a point about something that is NOT in the code. Those saying complaint stairs are required everywhere are taking the code out of context and yes it makes a very convincing argument.

I had a great childhood and was blessed with lots of property to explore that was quite hilly in some areas. We made walking surfaces (I called them trails) all over the place and many of these walking surfaces were adjacent to drop offs dropping quite steep. I'm just not in the mindset that IRC (or even the IBC) ever intended landscape features to meet the requirements specified in the code. I don't think it's reasonable, either. Now as an architect, I do take these items into consideration if I design a situation that I feel may be unsafe and may fence or provide guards in areas where code does not require them. My arguing that that these things are not required by code doesn't mean I don't see things that should be designed beyond code requirements. But you can not define a scope other than where it is part of the means of egress from the structure (in this case a residence).
 
mtlogcabin said:
Is the intent to regulate the materials or was it placed in the end of the stair and handrail requirements because if you build an exterior stair it is built to the code required riser height, tread depth and profile including hand rails. A smart DP will place a landing every 4 risers and avoid the handrails.I am very flexible when using lanscape materials such as natural stone, brick, logs, railroad ties etc but not if you use dimensional lumber or the plastic composite stuff.
Click to expand...
That is a difficult question, and there doesn't seem to be a clear cut answer to why they would have included it's reference at the back of R311, when they clearly don't reference material regulation for any other materials in that section. And it would seem to me, if those exterior stair structures anchored to the dwelling, were to be implicitly under the scope of R311, why would they not also indicate that in a scoping provision at the beginning of R311. One could also imply from the exemptions of exterior bulkhead enclosure stairways in R311.7.9.2, that other similar exterior stairs would not need to comply R311.3 & R311.7.

Conjecture and hyperbole are my two words for the week, especially after my round and round in the NEC on the definition of a wetbar sink.

Thanks again for your input. It is very helpful.
 
Unless it's on the means of egress path from the one required exit door then IMHO nothing get regulated. I only see where one means of egress is to be required. (See the door section.) So if it's the front doorand has stairs I regulate that one only.

When they clarify the whole means of egress section then I do more than the required exit.
 
* * * *



No Yankee, it is not just you........Papio Bldg. Dept. ' pics. are not viewable

on this topic, ...yet!



* * * *
 
2009 IRC definition

STAIRWAY. One or more flights of stairs, either interior or exterior, with the necessary landings and platforms connecting them to form a continuous and uninterrupted passage from one level to another within or attached to a building, porch or deck.

I think this would clarify some of the issues

FedK The IBC Chap 10 is the same title "Means of Egress" If you had a SFR building where only 1 exit is required but 3 are provided and the front exit is grade level but the 2 in the back are 6 ft above grade you won't regulate the stairs provided at those 2 exits. How is that different if the same building I described was a small commercial office instead of a SFR?
 
FredK said:
Unless it's on the means of egress path from the one required exit door then IMHO nothing get regulated. I only see where one means of egress is to be required. (See the door section.) So if it's the front doorand has stairs I regulate that one only.When they clarify the whole means of egress section then I do more than the required exit.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Just to clarify my comments of what's not required is items part of the landscape that are not part of the means of egress. Any element of the building whether required or not is required to meet code.

Example:

An exterior stair connected to any deck or patio: to be per code.

Steps in the landscape to get to front yard from back yard: no requirements

The real grey area is the the required 3' exit door path. Lets say the exit door is to a front concrete patio that then has a stair to grade. That stair to be per code. Once you're at grade, I don't think there's any more requirements as I don't believe IRC says you have to provide a path to the public way like the IBC does. Once you're out of the structure and at grade, code requirements end. Personally, if this structure is on a sloping lot, I would make any stair on that path to the public way to be constructed per code, but I'm not sure if code would require it. I'd have to do more code research than I have time for right now.
 
* * * *

One definition that I have seen attached to these "exterior types" of

walking surfaces, ...is "steps" vs. stairs.....I looked in the IBC &

the IRC and could not find any reference to "steps".......This

probably should be addressed at the local level vs. having a

scoping requirement in the IRC or the IBC....And Yes, it will vary

greatly from each jurisdiction.

The distance away from a SFR [ from the IRC ] to be considered

as no longer in the MOE is subjective to each AHJ.....We code

officials have had this conversation before, and some have said

that 10 ft. is o.k.....Others say 25 ft. is o.k.....Still others say a

minimum of 50 ft. away is what they consider to be out of the MOE,

similar to Section 1024.6 [ in the `06 IBC ], Exception # 2.

* * * *
 
Last edited by a moderator:
2009 IRC

STAIR. A change in elevation, consisting of one or more risers.

STAIRWAY. One or more flights of stairs, either interior or exterior, with the necessary landings and platforms connecting them to form a continuous and uninterrupted passage from one level to another within or attached to a building, porch or deck.

The word step does not even appear in the IRC until Chapter 6 under foundations. The code uses the word riser, stair and stairway.

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.

Common dictionary definition;

4.

a. A rest for the foot in ascending or descending.

b. steps Stairs.

c. Something, such as a ledge or an offset, that resembles a step of a stairway
 
mtlogcabin said:
STAIRWAY. One or more flights of stairs, either interior or exterior, with the necessary landings and platforms connecting them to form a continuous and uninterrupted passage from one level to another within or attached to a building, porch or deck.
Click to expand...
mtlogcabin, I think you just gave me the proof for my opinion. So if it's not within or attached to a building, porch or deck, it would NOT be a stairway covered by IRC.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top