• 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.

Handrails or No Handrails?

jpowell said:
I would say yes also. Those stairs serve egress from the residence to a yard/public way. See R311.1
Click to expand...
Once the step out onto the porch, they may already be in the yard. So R311.1 does not answer the question of whether steps that are located in a yard are part of the means of egress system.

311.7 gets closer to clarifying it, by saying "where required or provided", as noted by SteveRay.
To fully answer the question, you need to go to:
R311.3.1 Floor Elevations at the Required Egress Doors
Landings or finished floors at the required egress door shall be not more than 11/2 inches (38 mm) lower than the top of the threshold.
Exception: The landing or floor on the exterior side shall be not more than 73/4 inches (196 mm) below the top of the threshold.
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.

311.7.8 than discusses handrail requirements at 4 or more risers, which is shown in post #1.
 
Yikes,

If the concrete patio was poured right to the edge of the wood dock and there was no grass between raise patio and the concrete bulkhead and wood dock I would think harder about the possibility of the patio being the yard, but this projects photographs clearly show 4 risers down to the grade level.

As built a handrail IMO per the FL Residential building code requires (1) handrail be installed on each of the flights of stairs that Jar has posted.

for the rear flight if they are dead set on not installing a handrail, make the first tread down a landing and turn the flight left or right and descend down 3 risers and eliminate the requirement.

Or they can enlarge the bottom tread to be the minimum size for a landing and then again, now 3 risers no handrail required.

As to the front, extend the bottom tread out to minimum landing size and then again, no handrails, but as is, install the handrail.

On a home that size on the water like that, if they didn't want handrails the designer should have done a better job of preparing the plans to avoid having 4 risers.

If the designer did their job to be 3 or less risers and the builder messed up, let the owner take it out on the builder.

But what is there is a no go.
 
Inspector Gift said:
Hmmm… Tiger, do you mean a code section like you gave in post #9…?

But, because you asked, if those stairs were in Oregon, the code section would be R311.7.8.

Thanks for asking!
Click to expand...
The sections that I have quoted are intended to support my position which disagrees with your position. I wondered if you had something to support your position.
 
Isn't that a deck in the back of the house? I know my 2018 IRC does not have a definition of a deck, but I don't think a deck must only be wood. Since there a pool there the ISPSC would call it a pool deck. I think we had other discussions on what is a deck, and I don't think there was any agreement on what it means. It's in Jar's jurisdiction so he can decide if it is a deck or not. If he thinks it a deck it requires handrails.
I think the code should use a different word than "deck" because it means too many things. Next thing you know Jar will require handrails where they are stacking decks at the ICC meetings.
 
Last edited:
Mr. Inspector said:
Isn't that a deck in the back of the house? I know my 2018 IRC does not have a definition of a deck, but I don't think a deck must only be wood. Since there a pool there the ISPSC would call it a pool deck. I think we had other discussions on what is a deck, and I don't think there was any agreement on what it means. It's in Jar's jurisdiction so he can decide if it is a deck or not. If he thinks it a deck it requires handrails.
I think the code should use a different word than "deck" because it means too many things. Next thing you know Jar will require handrails where they are stacking decks at the ICC meetings.
Click to expand...
Is a pool deck a deck or a patio?
 
How is that a pool deck? It looks to me like a porch or deck overlooking a private dock on a public waterway. It doesn't appear to meet any of the exceptions listed in R311.7. Therefore, R311.7.8 applies and at least one handrail is required.
 
Yankee Chronicler said:
How is that a pool deck? It looks to me like a porch or deck overlooking a private dock on a public waterway. It doesn't appear to meet any of the exceptions listed in R311.7. Therefore, R311.7.8 applies and at least one handrail is required.
Click to expand...
Because you can't see the inground pool between the house and the steps that is there. Look from this angle.
6075255.jpg
 
I don't get it what is so hard here,

The online free view 2023 Florida Building code, Residential, eighth Edition, based on the 2021 IRC and Amended by FL on Adoption clearly says.

R311.7.8 Handrails.
Handrails shall be provided on not less than one side of each flight with four or more risers.

There are no exceptions listed after that, goes right in to R311.7.8.1 Height.

https://codes.iccsafe.org/content/F...ing-planning#FLRC2023P1_Pt03_Ch03_SecR311.7.8
Click to expand...

We can all agree there are 4 risers on each flight shown in the photos in post #1

Now as to the debate on to the stair's purpose.

R311.7 Stairways.
Where required by this code or provided, stairways shall comply with this section.

Exceptions:
1. Stairways not within or serving a building, porch or deck.
2. Stairways leading to nonhabitable attics.
3. Stairways leading to crawl spaces

https://codes.iccsafe.org/content/F...lding-planning#FLRC2023P1_Pt03_Ch03_SecR311.7
Click to expand...

So the flight is not required, but it is provided, and exception 1 does not apply, as the flight is serving, call it what ever you want the porch or deck or even the building, as it takes you to grade, you are not at grade when standing on that structure yes/no.

And for those of you calling that whole area a pool deck, I would disagree, there is a pool in one small area, compared to the rest of the walking surface and well the vast majority of it is more like outside living space than just for access to the pool, and if the fall was over 30-inches along it entire edge here is a question would you or not require a guard for it?

As to the ISPSC, my understanding and I could be reading it wrong, Florida follows Chapter 45 in the IRC for swimming pools and spas and does not send you over the ISPSC, again unless I am missing a link.

And chapter 45 from what I have read does not talk about stairs except those required in the pool itself, I see no exemption in Ch45 nor else where.

Chapter Definitions:
[RB] Flight. A continuous run of rectangular treads or winders or combination thereof from one landing to another.
[RB] Stair. A change in elevation, consisting of one or more risers.
[RB] Stairway. One or more flights of stairs, either interior or exterior, with the necessary landings and connecting platforms to form a continuous and uninterrupted passage from one level to another.
Click to expand...

So the way I see it from 1,000 miles away over a small screen in the middle on nowhere, non-compliance until a compliant handrail is installed on each flight.
 
From 2000miles away, adding my 2 cents:
If the handrail omission was not merely an oversight, my guess is that the designer was avoiding it in order to create some unobstructed view from the living room to the water, with the deck edge forming a border / horizon line dropoff, similar to an “infinity pool” effect.
The lawn also appears to be sloped, so as to avoid a 30”+ high edge dropoff that triggers a guardrail along the deck.

They could instead really embrace the stair handrail concept, integrating it into the architecture - - perhaps a nautical flagpole or lamp post as a newel post termination at the top?
 
jar546 said:
I stand corrected. The only side that goes to grade, forces you to go through a gate on picture right. The other side is also a 24" dropoff.

View attachment 15375
Click to expand...

Here is the question if something happened where you wanted to get out and away from the house from one of all those doors leading on to that patio, and even if you were already on the patio and then wanted to get off the very large rear elevated patio where do you believe the traffic would go during the exiting?

From what I can see in the picture posted it looks to me that over 80%+/- of the edge of the raised patio is more than 7.75" above grade, and the maybe aprox. 20%, and that is being generous, is hidden from anyone ever knowing to go that way, and besides that the exposed stair flight is the natural way to travel too and from the boat dock, not the gate at 3 o-clock out of sight or even used for access to the dock.

Here is a question, If you had a rear wooden deck 40 foot wide across the back of a home, 15 projected away, and on the left side was a stair flight down 4 risers to grade, and then 40 feet away on the opposite side of the deck it was at grade, would you not require the handrail down on that one side?

The STAIR FLIGHT is CONNECTED to the RAISED patio.

Choice (1) remove the stairs completely, problem solved!
Choice (2) Install a handrail as required, problem solved!
Choice (3) remove the stairs, install a new landing 1 riser down and add stairs going to the left and right with only 3-risers, no handrails required, problem solved!
Choice (4) file an appeal and go through the process and spend all the money to get a clear cut violation possibly over ruled.
  1. What do the plans SHOW for that stair flight or location?
    1. Stair or no stair?
    2. how many risers if a stair flight is even shown there?
    3. if 4 or more risers shown on the plan, is a minimum of one handrail shown?
      1. if 3 or less shown, why are we even having this conversation....
  2. Depending on the first set of questions above in #1, then apply that to your answer
  3. If nothing shown on the plans for a stair there, have them submit a change in plans.
  4. Then markup the need for a handrail on paper or electronically pending system as a handrail required.
  5. OR they can
    1. Install one handrail bolted to the side of the stair flight and they get there C/O, problem solved.
    2. Take a picture for the file and document that it failed for non-compliance and the handrail was installed, then deem compliant
    3. IF the home owner un-bolts it later and some one falls and gets hurt their insurance carrier will find the records
      1. The homeowners insurance carrier will not cover it and the homeowner will be left in the wind.
  6. They created the non-compliance with their failure in planning ahead and their don't care attitude about the issue they created now!
    1. no left sided Bu**-**it changes what is there, no matter how much they don't like it.
So to your question, no I don't consider the hidden part of the one small corner of the patio at grade with the current layout of the home.

The amount of time they have invested in this likely cost them a entry level Datsun :rolleyes: 3 times over by now.

I believe we have entered the beating a dead horse phase of this thread.....and its only Wednesday.
 
tbz said:
Here is the question if something happened where you wanted to get out and away from the house from one of all those doors leading on to that patio, and even if you were already on the patio and then wanted to get off the very large rear elevated patio where do you believe the traffic would go during the exiting?

From what I can see in the picture posted it looks to me that over 80%+/- of the edge of the raised patio is more than 7.75" above grade, and the maybe aprox. 20%, and that is being generous, is hidden from anyone ever knowing to go that way, and besides that the exposed stair flight is the natural way to travel too and from the boat dock, not the gate at 3 o-clock out of sight or even used for access to the dock.

Here is a question, If you had a rear wooden deck 40 foot wide across the back of a home, 15 projected away, and on the left side was a stair flight down 4 risers to grade, and then 40 feet away on the opposite side of the deck it was at grade, would you not require the handrail down on that one side?

The STAIR FLIGHT is CONNECTED to the RAISED patio.

Choice (1) remove the stairs completely, problem solved!
Choice (2) Install a handrail as required, problem solved!
Choice (3) remove the stairs, install a new landing 1 riser down and add stairs going to the left and right with only 3-risers, no handrails required, problem solved!
Choice (4) file an appeal and go through the process and spend all the money to get a clear cut violation possibly over ruled.
  1. What do the plans SHOW for that stair flight or location?
    1. Stair or no stair?
    2. how many risers if a stair flight is even shown there?
    3. if 4 or more risers shown on the plan, is a minimum of one handrail shown?
      1. if 3 or less shown, why are we even having this conversation....
  2. Depending on the first set of questions above in #1, then apply that to your answer
  3. If nothing shown on the plans for a stair there, have them submit a change in plans.
  4. Then markup the need for a handrail on paper or electronically pending system as a handrail required.
  5. OR they can
    1. Install one handrail bolted to the side of the stair flight and they get there C/O, problem solved.
    2. Take a picture for the file and document that it failed for non-compliance and the handrail was installed, then deem compliant
    3. IF the home owner un-bolts it later and some one falls and gets hurt their insurance carrier will find the records
      1. The homeowners insurance carrier will not cover it and the homeowner will be left in the wind.
  6. They created the non-compliance with their failure in planning ahead and their don't care attitude about the issue they created now!
    1. no left sided Bu**-**it changes what is there, no matter how much they don't like it.
So to your question, no I don't consider the hidden part of the one small corner of the patio at grade with the current layout of the home.

The amount of time they have invested in this likely cost them a entry level Datsun :rolleyes: 3 times over by now.

I believe we have entered the beating a dead horse phase of this thread.....and its only Wednesday.
Click to expand...
This is an excellent evaluation of the situation. Thanks for taking the time to write this one up. I hope everyone else appreciates it.

Now let's add some context to the photos to take this to another level.

This was an existing home with a CO. The stairs were not added recently, they were part of the original build 20 years ago. There was a permit to replace the pavers in the back with the material you see now. That is what the permit was for, pavers on the patio and around the pool and of course cover the existing stairs. How does that affect anyone's opinion?
 
You say the stairs existed previously but the pavers are new. Yet they both appear to be the same finish material. Are you telling us that the stairs previously existed with a different finished surface, and they have recently been resurfaced with a new material to match the new deck pavers?

Also, when the stair was first built years ago, did they comply with the applicable code at that time?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top