• Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades

Attic Access - a new twist (you know you want to look)

TimNY

TimNY

Platinum Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2010
Messages
1,133
Location
Charleston, SC
01122010.jpg[/attachment:awpc2lup]A new twist on an old dead horse.The jury is out on whether stairs to an attic need to comply with the section of code for stairways.If they have a compliant stairway as attic access, does it have to comply with the section for landings?Space above is unconditioned attic (at least for now it is)

View attachment 1300

View attachment 1300

/monthly_2010_05/01122010.jpg.bd353347151e8f155416d3315b55372b.jpg
 
Re: Attic Access - a new twist (you know you want to look)

OK, so they take out the stair, pass the inspection, put the stair back in after you leave.

What's been accomplished accept you've given people a greater incentive to perform work without benefit of a permit?

In other words, if it's a grey area approve it.
 
Re: Attic Access - a new twist (you know you want to look)

Don't you issue C of O's for residences? Do you have section for special conditions?

I would put special conditions that limit the attic floor to attic storage purposes only and no habitable rooms such as sleeping rooms, quote the rest of the code here shall be permitted. Add any other conditions in the house and call it a day. They're on their own.
 
Re: Attic Access - a new twist (you know you want to look)

Does not meet the prescriptive requirements for "stairs", so any of those requirements do not apply. It is an access, (ladder) to an unconditioned, unoccupied space. I would require the ceiling joists of the floor below, (the attic floor) be sized for light storage.

Possible future use does NOT come into play here. JMHO

EDIT: And please, don't post the technical definition of a "ladder", what I am saying is it is not a "stair", it is merely another way to access an attic.
 
Re: Attic Access - a new twist (you know you want to look)

Oh Jeff, you troublemaker.......... :lol:

But yes, good point, it is part of the thermal envelope.
 
Re: Attic Access - a new twist (you know you want to look)

Each and every time I have looked at a set of steps to the attic, they have been compliant with R311.7

The builders assume they have to be, and I have no reason to not enforce that so it has not been an issue here. It is rare to see them anyway.
 
Re: Attic Access - a new twist (you know you want to look)

So Jeff, if you were presented with the access in the OP, what say you?
 
Re: Attic Access - a new twist (you know you want to look)

fatboy said:
So Jeff, if you were presented with the access in the OP, what say you?
Click to expand...
It would not have gotten past plan review.

If they made a change I would require it be compliant with all stairway requirements

If they don't agree, they can go to the appeals board and they can make the decision.

Is there an official interpretation by the ICC on this?
 
Re: Attic Access - a new twist (you know you want to look)

I apologize, I think my "at least for now" comment mislead a lot of people. The possibility of the space being finished in the future is not what I am asking you to consider.

Under consideration is an interior flight of stairs with no landing at the bottom. Or maybe they're not stairs at all. Or maybe it's an exterior flight of stairs, since it's outside the thermal envelope :)

brudgers: I don't know why they would have to take out the stairs. Seems it would be cheaper to place the door at the top of the stairs, no landing required. If they were considered a stairway. Removing the stairs never crossed my mind.

Plans Approver: Yes, we do issue C.O.'s. And yes, we do put special conditions. Namely every CO issued states "unconditioned attic" or "uncoditioned basement", or both, when they apply. See comment above, I am not trying to initiate a pre-emptive strike.

fatboy: I was of the thinking that they do meet the prescriptive requirements for stairs. Tread, riser, nosing, profile, do meet the prescriptive requirements.

jar: Good call on the thermal envelope. It's a solid door, however weatherstipping is required.

The picture was really just food for thought. The fact of the matter is that this is a modular home, plan review and the majority of the inspecting was done and approved by New York State. I don't really have a say in the matter.

Personally, I would have called it out at plan review and suggested the door be placed at the top of the stairway. I don't think it would have been an issue.
 
Re: Attic Access - a new twist (you know you want to look)

I was looking at the width, it appears to be less than 36". Still unconditioned, unoccupiable attic access for me.....redline as such and move on.

Again JMHO, obviously others have their own opinions which they are entitled to enforce.
 
Re: Attic Access - a new twist (you know you want to look)

Because they are not stairs!

"Here we go round the Mulberry bush, the Mulberry bush............" :lol: :lol:
 
Re: Attic Access - a new twist (you know you want to look)

fatboy said:
Because they are not stairs!
Click to expand...
So if the treads and risers that connected the 1st floor to the 2nd floor did not have the proper landings at the top and bottom, you would not make them comply with the code because technically those risers and treads don't meet the definition of stairs? :eek:
 
Re: Attic Access - a new twist (you know you want to look)

The attic stairs vs attic access has been discussed pretty thoroughly :roll:

Of course, most of that centered around whether the "stairs" would have to comply with rise/run etc as dictated in the code.

I thought this scenario was interesting because the "attic access" does comply with the stairways section of the code. So, we have a compliant (albeit non-required) stairway, but should the landings be required?

As I mentioned earlier, I would have hopefully caught it at review. I'm not sure that I could have forced them to change it (even at plan review), nor would I have tried to forced the issue.

I would have contacted the designer and explained the situation and recommended that the door be located at the top. Either way there would have been a record of any correspondence.

I don't think there will ever be a consensus, but I thought it was interesting. Thanks for your thoughts.
 
Re: Attic Access - a new twist (you know you want to look)

Tim - You know Albany's position, and I'm surprised to see that in any SFD in NYS - even a modular. Have you contacted DOS to find out who fell asleep at the review table? I'm anxious to see if they (NYS) cleaned up the Res Code for 2009 (2010? 2011?) to address this issue. :roll:
 
Re: Attic Access - a new twist (you know you want to look)

Moved from Residential Structural - Residential Framing

RickAstoria said:
kilitact said:
RickAstoria wrote;
I just went through reading the "Stairway to Uninhabited Attic Space" thread. Oh boy....
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Whats your take on the code complaince requirements for these type of stairs. :)
Click to expand...
I'll have to read through just the OP's post because after 11 pages of..... lost track of OP.

My take is the original post is that it is a ladder and not a stairway unless there is a permanent fixed stairs going up to it. I might take it as semi-occupied but it can be treated as unoccupied if it is not in use as an occupied space at all. Only an accessible space in which a person may access equipment up in the attic.

As a designer, I may design the joists supporting the attic to support a working load like that on the occupied spaces of the floors below. I would say that this may require an non-registered or registered design professional (For purpose of this post, I'm not going by IRC definition but a broader industry definition for the words "design professional"). I delineate design professional to mean any designer in the design profession and use RDP when referring to Registered Design Profession. Non-registered obviously means Not being Registered.

As for code enforcement goes, an RDP (Refer to Chapter 2 of IRC for definition of Registered Design Professional) would not be required because of ORS 671.030 & ORS 672.060 in an Oregon project. A person licensed or not may prepare the plans and shall prepare the plans and specifications with the appropriate calculations in accordance with accepted standards. You just have to make sure the terms used on the plans and docs submitted are written and applied to not convey the person is a "Professional Engineer" or "Architect". People in your position will most often ONLY see a title use issue or an unlicensed person working on a non-exempt building.

My stance on that kind of issue is that a competent designer prepares the plans and IS registered if the project requires it under the statutes of the jurisdiction having authority where the project is located. I do believe that a home owner should not prepare building plans unless they are trained / experienced in preparing plans for buildings and has a firm understanding of how buildings are built.
 
Re: Attic Access - a new twist (you know you want to look)

TJacobs said:
Moved from Residential Structural - Residential Framing
Click to expand...
Kil, the answer to your question found bottom of previous page.
 
Re: Attic Access - a new twist (you know you want to look)

I'am with Dave W,

in regards to the landings required. IRC2006 R311.5.4

Plan review should catch no landing at the bottom of stairs,

should have 36" deep min. x stair (width) landing,

handrail R311.5.6

and a light over stairs needed. R303.6

Threshold for thermal envelope protection should be required if unconditioned space.

Is 311.7 a 2009 code?
 
Re: Attic Access - a new twist (you know you want to look)

I have actually done work in two seperate homes which had this exact same condition. Except that the attic was a finished space. Homes were built probably 60 plus years prior to the new work. With todays code, they could not build habitable space int eh attic. Of course our oridinance would prohibit that as well if it were a two story home.
 
Re: Attic Access - a new twist (you know you want to look)

There is an old proverbial saying, if the rise is greater then the run then it is a ladder. If the rise is less then the run then it is a stair. I take to accept an object is a stairs if the rise and run is equal but it is a non-compliant stairs.

Bottom line: if it resembles anything like that shown in the photo on first page, it is a stair not a ladder.

Stairs rules would apply regardless of what the landing point is. It can be an unoccupied attic. If the stairs is only to make it easier to get to the attic to repair HVAC or electrical. However, if I can expect a person to be able to stand up in the space at ANY point then I would design the joists for full live load standard even though it is unoccupied. The reason is the weight distribution of a person would be smaller because your weight load would be concentrated to where your feet are and the 1 to 4 joists that it would carry your load. The flooring will not mean squat as it would only carry the load between the adjacent joists. Cross bridging will only amount to a small amount to reducing deflection of the joists. However, if it is only enough space to be a crawl space then the load would be distributed over a minimum of 8-10 joists for an average size adult. So a lower live-load would make sense. That is how I would see such a space.

The stairs itself shall be made like any other stairs and the minimum landing area would be designed to full live + dead load as would a deck or floor of the occupied space. Hand rail shall be present and clearance height at landing shall be 80" (6'-8"). That would be how I look at it. At a minimum, the landing at the attic would be treated as an occupied space if there is a stairs going up to it. This is my point of view as a building designer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top