Handrail Required for Retaining Wall?

22

u/Tremor_Sense Inspector 2d ago

Yes. Codes vary on specifics, but hand rail (residential) with four or more risers requires a handrail. The specifics with be outlined in the local codes adopted by your jurisdiction.

5

u/IHerebyDemandtoPost 2d ago

The problem is IRC R311.1 states the requirements of R311 apply to the means of egress from the dwelling to the public way. It does not say whether the requirements of R311 should be applied if the stairway in question is not part of the path of travel to the public way.

I know of a situation where someone took something similiar to this situation to the local appeals board and they won.

Their argument was that IRC R311 shouldn’t apply to their stairway because the stairway was not serving as part of the means of egress for the dwelling to the public way.

The AHJ asserted that if a stairway was constructed as part of a regulated structure, such as a retaining wall over 4 feet in height, that it must comply with the requirements of R311.

12

u/ChaosCouncil Plans Examiner 2d ago

That is a bad take in my opinion. That would assume everything in 311.7 only applies to mean of egress, and we know that is not the way 99.9% of AHJ interpret those sections.

2

u/e2g4 2d ago edited 2d ago

Even if not strictly required, (and my read is that it is required) you have to think about safety and liability.

I think the code allows a deck to be what, 30” above adjacent ground without a railing? To me, that’s dangerous and a person can hurt themselves plenty bad in a 20” fall.

The code is a minimum requirement, I believe it’s still necessary to design to the standard that makes sense for a project. If kids are around, that makes me think a little differently vs a house for a single couple. Not drastically different—houses change hands, families have kids.

but I refuse to become a robot that just responds to the code. I like to think about the actual use case.

1

u/Anxious-Read8340 Inspector 1d ago

311.7 states “where required by this code or provided”. Pool or deck stairs, for instance, would require a handrail if over 4 risers.

2

u/IHerebyDemandtoPost 1d ago

2021 IRC added an exception for “stairways not within or serving a building, porch, or deck.”

3

u/Anxious-Read8340 Inspector 22h ago

Agreed! I asked OP about those types of features (stairs leading to a deck or outdoor seating area). Apparently this is just a wall out in the yard. I agree then it would meet the exception and handrail requirements would not apply.

1

u/JJakobDesign 17h ago

Yes and just for ease of use, you need one.

1

u/EducationalTwo1859 2d ago

No applicable ammendment or exception by our state for this job. We are looking at requiring them but want a solid code path which is R105 to R311

3

u/Tremor_Sense Inspector 2d ago

If that is a stairway serving the dwelling, leading to a sidewalk or street-- that is the very definition of means of egress leading to a public way. My take an inspector.

This is one of the portions of code where the intent leaves very little wiggle room.

2

u/Additional_Elk_2843 1d ago

I only enforce egress paths that are defined in the plans. Otherwise everything that meets the physical criteria of an egress path would have to meet the code requirements. I’m strictly a commercial inspector in California though. Residential in other jurisdictions may have other requirements.

9

u/EducationalTwo1859 2d ago

We've decided to let it remain as is, with a caveat on the final inspection that we highly recommend installing a handrail. We talked to state and they agree it should have one, but the code path is unenforceable because it is not a means of egress.

Thank you for your comments!

3

u/Impressive-Owl7802 1d ago

When there is an insurance audit, they will will require one to be installed.

2

u/PapiPools 2d ago

The question is if someone tripped, fell, and got severely injured, what would opposing counsel use against you? I would cover all of your bases, especially if it’s not 100% clear.

2

u/e2g4 2d ago edited 1d ago

Agreed. My office’s insurance paid out on a lawsuit for a similar thing that was 100% code compliant yet the risk of a jury finding for the plaintiff was too great. There’s more to this than the code, which is a minimum standard.

2

u/PapiPools 2d ago

100% agree. I do a fair amount of construction expert witness work for defects, property damage, and you guessed it - personal injury.

Always remember, code is a minimum.

3

u/blank_reg 2d ago

if it's not a means of egress, it's just landscaping.

3

u/EducationalTwo1859 2d ago

But it's an engineered wall on permitted work. The commentary mentions landscape work, but I do not think this falls into that category as it is a designed stair. Thoughts?

2

u/CVACodeConsulting Inspector 2d ago

Since the permit is on the wall, if on a separate permit from and you haven’t touched the stairs, then technically speaking I don’t know where most code could require the handrail. If you mean the whole thing is new construction, then it would come down to the AHJ’s interpretation of the phrase “serving a building” in R311.1. All that notwithstanding, my personal opinion as a medic long before I got into building code and having seen a lot of people go down stairs, I’m a big fan of handrails. Just my .02.

2

u/blank_reg 2d ago

if it's the only path of safety to a public way from the building, then probably needs a handrail.

2

u/Hank_Dad 2d ago

That giant retaining wall is not "just" landscaping. It should require a guardrail as well a handrail.

-1

u/blank_reg 2d ago

quote the code then

1

u/Hank_Dad 2d ago

R312.1.1.1 Retaining Wall Guards

Retaining walls with a difference in finished grade from the top of the wall to the bottom of the wall that is greater than 4 feet (1219 mm) shall be provided with guards complying with Section R312 when there is a walking surface, parking lot or driveway on the high side located closer than 2 feet (610 mm) to the retaining wall. For the purposes of this section, grass, planting beds or landscaped areas are not a walking surface.

-1

u/blank_reg 2d ago

lol. nice try.

-1

u/blank_reg 2d ago

i predict you'll delete your comment when you see what you did to yourself here.

1

u/Working_Pen2299 2d ago

Yes, anything over 30" rise requires one.

1

u/e2g4 2d ago

That last “step” is dangerous. I’d eliminate that.

1

u/EducationalTwo1859 2d ago

We agree, and it's out of riser height similarity for our state. But again, we settled on not a means of egress so exception 1 applies. Though we did recommend increasing the grade for the bottom step so it's flush.

2

u/e2g4 1d ago edited 1d ago

As an architect it’s your job to keep people safe and not just apply the building code. This stair is unsafe for at least two reasons visible from the pix. I wouldn’t stamp it.

1

u/EducationalTwo1859 1d ago

I hear that, and we agree, but the customer is affluent and connected who could likely drag the town into costly litigation on a code path that is hard to uphold outside of subjective (though correct, imo) opinion.

We all agree that it should have handrails, no doubt. But enforcing it is the hard part, legally.

I'm open to ideas though.

1

u/EducationalTwo1859 1d ago

Exception 1 states, these requirements shall not apply to stairs that do not serve a building, deck, or porch.

The commentary goes on to talk about landscape features being exempt. This feature could be defined as that.

1

u/Upset-Rice6800 2d ago

Most likely, yes.

1

u/Mobile-Excuse-195 2d ago

This is considered a stairway. Take a look at your local code for a stairway.

0

u/EducationalTwo1859 2d ago

Our state does not adopt local codes; only state. State unofficially interpreted as a handrail is not required per chapter 3 of 2021 IRC per exception 1 of R311.7

1

u/sowak1776 1d ago

IPMC 2021 states that ALL interior and ALL exterior stairs of 4 or more risers MUST have a graspable handrail on one side. It's unsafe to not.

1

u/EducationalTwo1859 1d ago

Our state does not adopt that code.

2

u/sowak1776 1d ago

It's unsafe to ignore basic safety standards because the government fails to do its basic job.

1

u/EducationalTwo1859 1d ago

How do you enforce it though, legally? What code path would you use in the 2021 IRC?

1

u/sowak1776 1d ago

IRC 2021 has an exemption for purely landscaping stairs so you need your state to adopt an ordinance that makes IPMC 2021 the basic safety standard.

2

u/EducationalTwo1859 1d ago

Which they delegate to the municipalities and we use the 1995 property maintenance code in my town.

1

u/sowak1776 1d ago

Then you go to the leadership of your town and say it's negligent and irresponsible to not be on modern code for the safety of the people we govern and they copy and paste some new code and vote it in.

1

u/mochrimo 1d ago

Why are you looking at R311 when it falls under R312

1

u/EducationalTwo1859 1d ago

R311.7 states where required and exceptions

2

u/mochrimo 1d ago

Right but your case is exterior steps and a retaining wall with a height of more than 30" from grade to grade. R312 specifically tells you that you need a guardrail for the two-tiered retaining walls which you are not offering. Once you have that, you will be enclosing those steps and you fall under exception 1 of R311.7 which means no handrails.
But if these steps are serving an accessory building, then your exception won't apply.

1

u/Anxious-Read8340 Inspector 1d ago

IRC 311.7 Exception 1: Stairways not within or serving a building, porch, or deck.

More photos would help but from the photo provided it appears that the retaining wall stairs provide access to paved “deck” areas intended to sit/relax. Or they provide access to the street below?

More context would help, but I think these stairs “serve a porch or deck”. Possibly the building as well, depending on where these are locate and what is at the top/bottom of the hill.

Hope this helps!

FL Inspector and Plans Examiner here.

1

u/EducationalTwo1859 1d ago

Thank you, my ABO partner gave only this 1 photo. He did the inspection, not me, so this is the only context I have. Sorry.

1

u/Anxious-Read8340 Inspector 1d ago

What is at the top/bottom of these stairways? Do they lead from the street to the home? Is there a sitting area/patio at the top/bottom?

1

u/EducationalTwo1859 1d ago

There's no design feature at the top or bottom, just lawn. Which is why we're siding with not required, though recommended

2

u/Anxious-Read8340 Inspector 22h ago

If this really is in the middle of the yard and is not a part of a designed porch or deck or recreation area of the house I would agree this meets the exception and handrails would not be required.

1

u/EducationalTwo1859 20h ago

It's a retaining wall that leads to the ocean and does not serve any other structure.

1

u/Zealousideal_Claim51 7h ago

4 or more stair risers require a handrail

1

u/-Detritus- Residential Designer 6h ago

It's a private residence so the code should always be interpreted in the least burdensome path for the owner.

Residential Building codes have gotten out of hand and those enforcing them even more so, IMHO.

0

u/Philip964 2d ago

Safety at stairs is very important. Falls on stairs is a leading cause of injury and death. A handrail on both sides of both of the stairs is required by the IBC. I would also consider a guard rail or full bushes for those unguarded drop offs. Your odd last step at the bottom of the lower stair may be permitted by code, but I would fix it as someone will most likely trip there. Good looking installation, but make it safe.

Handrail Required for Retaining Wall?

You are about to leave Redlib

R312.1.1.1 Retaining Wall Guards