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

[RickAstoria]

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.

They probably would have to sister every joist to make it habitable except for maybe head clearance height issues and then adding dormers to address some of that.

 

[JMORRISON]

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

In Washington State:

WAC 51-51-0311 Section R311--Means of egress.

((R311.1 General.)) R311.4 Vertical egress. Stairways, ramps,

exterior exit balconies, hallways and doors shall comply with this

section.

EXCEPTION: Stairs or ladders within an individual dwelling unit used for access to areas of 200 square feet (18.6 m2) or less, and not

containing the primary bathroom or kitchen.

 

[globe trekker]

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

TimNY,

I would agree with fatboy as well! These are not [ yet ] a compliant set of fixed stairs, so no landing requirements kick in ( Section R311.5.4 ). The weatherstripping requirement WOULD apply though! Thanks Jeff!

Also, FWIW, apparently we haven't yet killed this old horse yet! :lol: Even after 11 pages,

there is still life in this topic. Soooooooooo, what are we waiting for, ...let's get after it!

Thanks for the pic. Tim !

.

 

[skipharper]

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

If the attic area to be accessed is designed to be converted to habitable space at some point in time (30# or 40#) floor joists, attic trusses, or whatever, are currently in place, the stairs shall comply with R311.5. Storage only can be pull down stairs, ship ladders, or just an attic opening accessible by a step ladder.

 

[brudgers]

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

If the attic area to be accessed is designed to be converted to habitable space at some point in time (30# or 40#) floor joists, attic trusses, or whatever, are currently in place, the stairs shall comply with R311.5. Storage only can be pull down stairs, ship ladders, or just an attic opening accessible by a step ladder.

Are you saying that if the attic is designed with 40# LL, it requires stairs?

 

[TimNY]

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

If the attic area to be accessed is designed to be converted to habitable space at some point in time (30# or 40#) floor joists, attic trusses, or whatever, are currently in place, the stairs shall comply with R311.5. Storage only can be pull down stairs, ship ladders, or just an attic opening accessible by a step ladder.

The attic joists are 2x10, full OSB floor, full height ceiling with kneewalls. Not sure of the spans, but have yet to see a modular wider than 14'. I would guesstimate the clear area as ~800 sqft. If I had to bet, I would bet that the floor meets 40psf.

Edit: the space is not conditioned, which would be the game changer for me. I personally feel a landing is required because their is a set of [stairs] that fit the requirements for "Stairways". It's definitely a tough one, because I wouldn't necessarily require a compliant set of stairs to the attic. However, by that logic, I would theoretically allow them to install stairs to the attic with a 8.75" tread depth and then not require landings. Which doesn't make sense either. Now I'm confused.

Fortunately I am off the hook with this one.

 

[skipharper]

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

That is my opinion. One thing I have learned in 15 plus years of code enforcement is we do not use "what if". If I am reviewing a set of plans and attic trusses are designed to carry floor live loads as outlined in the IRC for bedroom and living space (30#/40#) then it is the intention of the designer to have habitable space at some point and time in the future. This may be a harsh way of going about it, but have never been challanged.

 

[TJacobs]

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

No definition for means of egress in the IRC (unbelievable). IBC says means of egress defined as:

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.

The Stairways section of the IRC says all stairways, no exception for attic access; except stairways is in the Means of Egress chapter and as long as the attic remains unoccupied, no means of egress is necessary so noncompliant stairways are OK.

Someone should at least warn the owner that if they have any intention of creating habitable space accessed by the noncompliant stair, the stair won't be "existing" for the purposes of the grandfathering he thinks he's going to be able to claim when caught creating the habitable space without a permit or when you do the plan review of his alteration down the road. Not to mention the possible zoning violation because the "attic" floor will become living area someday which could put him over height restrictions in your zoning code. A lot of nonconforming stuff out there is created in just this way. If there is nothing documented in the file about the nonconforming stair, it slips through the cracks. Put it in writing for future use.

 

[SCBO1]

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

Just hang a knot rope from the attic roof rafter collar tie? Then see how hard it is to get the christmas tree in the attic!

"Someone using a crystal ball" for those future uses again"

I'll have to get another file cabinet for the nonconforming stairs file!

 

[brudgers]

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

No definition for means of egress in the IRC (unbelievable).

Not really when you know the history of the life safety codes and their relationship to dwellings.

Historically, the concept behind life safety in dwellings is not means of egress but means of escape.

Take a look at Chapter 24 of NFPA 101 (2003).

Nothing about means of egress.

Requiring means of egress within dwellings is just another case of ICC's Not Invented Here Syndrome...and as one would expect with a poorly thought out approach driven by a complulsion to change things every code cycle, it's a cluster.

 

[TJacobs]

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

No definition for means of egress in the IRC (unbelievable).

Not really when you know the history of the life safety codes and their relationship to dwellings.

Historically, the concept behind life safety in dwellings is not means of egress but means of escape.

Take a look at Chapter 24 of NFPA 101 (2003).

Nothing about means of egress.

Requiring means of egress within dwellings is just another case of ICC's Not Invented Here Syndrome...and as one would expect with a poorly thought out approach driven by a complulsion to change things every code cycle, it's a cluster.

So the exit door in R311.4.1 isn't really an exit but a means of escape? I'm not really interested in what 101 has to say about dwellings (nothing), and yes, I know the history and politics behind dwellings. Go back and pull out your 1986 CABO and look up stairways. It is in its own chapter, no Means of Egress chapter. Same for 1998 CABO. Guess what, a stair was a stair. That's why you have posters on this board that would require the OP's stairway to comply. Apparently the Means of Egress chapter in the IRC was created to further differentiate between egress elements and nonegress elements.

EERO was under the exit chapter in 1986 CABO, so I could see the confusion where an EERO might be allowed to qualify as an exit. 1998 CABO had EERO in its own chapter, I assume so it wouldn't be confused as qualifying as an exit (my assumption). 2006 IBC does not place EERO under the Means of Egress chapter but it has the exit door there, along with stairways, ramps, exterior egress balconies and hallways.

 

[brudgers]

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

What I'm saying is that applying means of egress concepts to dwellings inherently creates a mismatch between the requirements of the occupancy and such concepts.

That's why traditionally (i.e. over the past 100 years) the means of escape concept has been worthy of survival through all the revisions to NFPA 101.

It's also why when a code tries to apply means of egress concepts (exit access, exit, exit discharge) to dwellings, it doesn't work smoothly.

Thus NFPA talks about primary and secondary means of escape, while the IRC has an undefined means of egress and the cumbersome emergency escape and rescue openings.

Given that the IRC is supposed to be stand alone, there's no good reason for it to try warp means of egress into it...other than the fact that it has to be different from what's worked for 100 years.

 

[Uncle Bob]

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

A similar observation;

It's somewhat like going to a framing inspection and seeing 4 full sheets of OSB or plywood laying unattached on top of the the garage ceiling joist. The obvious conclusion is that after final inspection the builder or homeowner is going to secure them to the ceiling joists and use that space for storage or worse.

Do you pass a framing inspection with unattached (loose) materials laying across ceiling joists?

Uncle Bob

 

[SCBO1]

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

Crawl space yes, R408.4

Attic area if material is left over from the rough-in inspection I will list it on the inspection report for fear it could fall on someone. Is there a code reference, can't find it?

Some times the guy paying the bills never steps on the job site!

I've seen several sheets of $25.00 exterior wall siding being used to get from the house to the road in the mud.

 

[TJacobs]

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

What I'm saying is that applying means of egress concepts to dwellings inherently creates a mismatch between the requirements of the occupancy and such concepts.That's why traditionally (i.e. over the past 100 years) the means of escape concept has been worthy of survival through all the revisions to NFPA 101.

It's also why when a code tries to apply means of egress concepts (exit access, exit, exit discharge) to dwellings, it doesn't work smoothly.

Thus NFPA talks about primary and secondary means of escape, while the IRC has an undefined means of egress and the cumbersome emergency escape and rescue openings.

Given that the IRC is supposed to be stand alone, there's no good reason for it to try warp means of egress into it...other than the fact that it has to be different from what's worked for 100 years.

I think there was room for improvement, and I like the way it is in the 2006 IRC. I guess that makes me a contrarian.

 

[brudgers]

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

I think there was room for improvement, and I like the way it is in the 2006 IRC. I guess that makes me a contrarian.

"Because code officials like it" is not a sound basis for writing codes...even if it does serve as rational for much of the International series.

Hence, a bedroom with two doors one of which leads to a hallway and the other which leads to a bathroom with a door to the exterior does still requires an EEARO under IRC.

 

[TJacobs]

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

I think there was room for improvement, and I like the way it is in the 2006 IRC. I guess that makes me a contrarian.

"Because code officials like it" is not a sound basis for writing codes...even if it does serve as rational for much of the International series.

Hence, a bedroom with two doors one of which leads to a hallway and the other which leads to a bathroom with a door to the exterior does still requires an EEARO under IRC.

Because the bathroom is subject to locking...I'd say more but there would be no point. The I-codes are written for code officials by code officials (supposedly). I'm still not going to use 101 for dwellings. We will agree to disagree.

 

[kilitact]

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

brudgers wrote;

Hence, a bedroom with two doors one of which leads to a hallway and the other which leads to a bathroom with a door to the exterior does still requires an EEARO under IRC.

The IRC code wouldn't require a second exit in this case.

 

[brudgers]

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

brudgers wrote;

Hence, a bedroom with two doors one of which leads to a hallway and the other which leads to a bathroom with a door to the exterior does still requires an EEARO under IRC.

The IRC code wouldn't require a second exit in this case.

It would still require the EEARO because the door to the bathroom does't "open directly onto a public street, public alley, yard or court."

In otherwords, under the IRC a second means of egress cannot substitute for the EEARO, and in my opinion, that's just stupid.

 

[mtlogcabin]

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

It would still require the EEARO because the door to the bathroom does't "open directly onto a public street, public alley, yard or court."In otherwords, under the IRC a second means of egress cannot substitute for the EEARO, and in my opinion, that's just stupid./quote]

If memory serves me correctly from the old SBCCI days privacy locks where required on bathrooms in SFR's so TJacobs brings up a valid point for brudgers scenerio

 

[kilitact]

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

brudgers wrote;

kilitact wrote:brudgers wrote;

Quote:

Hence, a bedroom with two doors one of which leads to a hallway and the other which leads to a bathroom with a door to the exterior does still requires an EEARO under IRC.

The IRC code wouldn't require a second exit in this case.

It would still require the EEARO because the door to the bathroom does't "open directly onto a public street, public alley, yard or court."

In otherwords, under the IRC a second means of egress cannot substitute for the EEARO, and in my opinion, that's just stupid.

brudgers wrote;

Hence, a bedroom with two doors one of which leads to a hallway and the other which leads to a bathroom with a door to the exterior does still requires an EEARO under IRC.

The IRC code wouldn't require a second exit in this case.

It would still require the EEARO because the door to the bathroom does't "open directly onto a public street, public alley, yard or court."

In otherwords, under the IRC a second means of egress cannot substitute for the EEARO, and in my opinion, that's just stupid. [/quote:3ob0p7al]

I'm not seeing, in the IRC code, where a EEARO, "exit door", in the room wouldn't, can't, be approved. Perhaps you can point out a code section that prohibits this??

 

[mtlogcabin]

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

2006 IBC Exception 6.

Emergency escape and rescue openings are not required from basements or sleeping rooms that have an exit door or exit access door that opens directly into a public way or to a yard, court or exterior exit balcony that opens to a public way.

I believe this maybe what brudgers is refering to what's lacking in the IRC but in his scenario you would have to go through the bathroom to reach the exterior door therefore it would not comply with the IBC either.

A door located in the sleeping room that leads directly outside exceeds the minimum opening requirements in the IRC and would therefore be permitted and no other EERO would be required.

 

[kilitact]

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

Thanks mtlogcabin, I thought we were still talking about the IRC, musta missed the leap to IBC

 

[kilitact]

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

mtlogcabin wrote:

I believe this maybe what brudgers is refering to what's lacking in the IRC but in his scenario you would have to go through the bathroom to reach the exterior door therefore it would not comply with the IBC either.A door located in the sleeping room that leads directly outside exceeds the minimum opening requirements in the IRC and would therefore be permitted and no other EERO would be required.

Section 1026 exception #6, allows exit access doors, so if this door in the bathroom opened directly into a public way etc it would meet IBC code requirements in lieu of an EERO. I believe it would also comply with IRC