• 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.

Stairs to storage room in horse Tack storage building

J

Jon Victor

Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2010
Messages
13
Question...I have a set of stairs going to a storage room above that has a beam that limits the stair clearance in one area to 6' high. We sent off an email to ICC for an official code interpretation and was told that if a stair is being constructed it needs to meet the requirements of section R311.7. My questions is this, if this is an accessory structure and is not a dwelling, does section R311.7 truly apply? This set of stairs is in a residential shop/ storage/ tack room and is not intended to be used as a dwelling. Any comments would be greatly appreciated!

Jon
 
@ ~ @ ~ #





"My questions is this, if this is an accessory structure and is not a dwelling, does section R311.7 truly apply?"
Click to expand...
Section R101.2 says that your Accessory structure falls under the provisions of the whole IRC too !

See this link to Section R101.2: http://publicecodes.cyberregs.com/icod/irc/2012/icod_irc_2012_1_sec002.htm

[ the last 4 words ].

The stairway dimensions in your Accessory structure must comply as well.



# ~ # ~ @

 
north star, I do agree that an accessory building falls under the scope of the IRC, but I don't necessarily agree that an accessory building is a dwelling and as such would not be subject to the provisions of R311.1. It is like saying a pull down stair/ladder is a fully functional stair and is subject to the requirements of R311.7. If there wasn't a stair installed to this area, there would be no requirement, but as soon as a stair is built, suddenly the stair has to be compliant. If this reasoning were true, pull down ladders should be regulated, right? Sounds to me like there are some holes in the code on this one.
 
6 ft is a real head banger. If it is just storage and accessed a couple times a month maybe changing the "stair" geometry would be better. Ships ladder comes to mind.

Another thought is the beam over sized for the loads that are being carried? If so maybe the beam can be modified to provide a few more inches. I realize you may never get the 6' 8" minimum requirement but 6 ft it pretty low for a stair.
 
% - - - %



Jon Victor,

I do not believe that Section R101.2 is defining your accessory

structure as a dwelling........In my view, this section is requiring

One and Two Family Dwellings to comply, AND their accessory

structures.......Two separately defined types of structures,

and the stairways in each must comply with the minimum

dimensional requirements of a stairway [ RE: Section R311.7.2,

`12 IRC ]

To me at least, ...this seems pretty clear !

Stay tuned, ...because there are a lot of holes in the codes.



% - - - %
 
Looking at it Jon has been with us since almost our inception, just lurking I guess........ But yes, welcome to the inner sanctum!
 
Northstar....311 SPECIFICALLY references dwellings vs. the general CH1 stuff....Whilst I agree it is not a great idea at a stair, I believe I would be covered if I allowed it. I would make sure the property owner was aware that they might have an issue with people getting injured, but I am enforcing the minimum code.
 
% ~ % ~ %

steveray,

Which is the most restrictive application [ RE: Section R102.1, `12 IRC ] ?

% ~ % ~ %
 
Section R311 of the Residential Code applies to dwellings. A detached storage structure is not a dwelling.

What does the IBC say? No help there either as it requires 80" headroom for a U occupancy.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
fatboy said:
Looking at it Jon has been with us since almost our inception, just lurking I guess........ But yes, welcome to the inner sanctum!
Click to expand...
fatboy, yes I have been a lurker for quite some time. I took a hiatus for a couple years (thanks to an unfortunate layoff), but I'm back in force! Thanks for the welcome! I'm the Building plans examiner for Twin Falls, Idaho and I also review commercial and residential mechanical plans.
 
The most restrictive is that this is an accessory building, not a dwelling. I would classify this as a U most likely. I know some building classifications have been pretty controversial in the 7 years since I have been a plan reviewer, and most that I talk to say that if there is an 8 foot ceiling in the room and it looks like it could potential be converted to some kind of living space, then we should push the most restrictive requirements of the code and call it a dwelling. But what if the owner just wants a good storage space where they don't have to stoop inside or hit their head on the ceiling. Just because a car is capable of exceeding the speed limit doesn't mean that we prohibit it from driving on the road, right? I believe the better approach would be to have solid documentation on file with the AHJ, and maybe even having a letter from the owner saying this will only be used as storage, and move on. Seems like in the grand scheme of Building Code enforcement, this is a pretty minor thing to be a stickler about.
 
R102.1 General.

Where there is a conflict between a general requirement and a specific requirement, the specific requirement shall be applicable. WHERE IN ANY SPECIFIC CASE, different sections of this code specify different materials, methods of construction or other requirements, the most restrictive shall govern.

My take is it is not a specific case, it is general vs. specific...But thanks for the debate, I just argue or explain like I think I might have to in front of the judge...."Dwelling" was added specifically in the 2009, maybe some commentary might shed some light...
 
~ ~ v ~ ~

Jon Victor,

I guess that we will agree to disagree on this one.......I will

concur with the official interpretation by ICC also, in that

IMO, ...all stairways need to comply with R311.7.........In

having documentation on this design issue, ...I would

have a hard time having an official interpretation on

file by a recognized code agency, and then deciding to

overrule that interpretation.

In your particular application, will the "stairway to the

storage area above" never be used or considered as a

MOE ?

Also, ...glad to see that you have come out of your lurking

status............Please contribute more often ! 8-)



~ ~ v ~ ~
 
Last edited by a moderator:
@ : @ : @

steveray,

Respectfully asking, ...How would you explain to the judge, Section

R101.2 - Scope: "...shall apply to, ...and their Accessory

structures", ...Section R102.1, "the most restrictive shall shall

govern", AND an official, documented interpretation by ICC ?

What written justification would you use ?........"Well judge,

I just do not believe that we have a dwelling in this

application ? :confused:



@ : @ : @
 
north star said:
@ : @ : @steveray,

Respectfully asking, ...How would you explain to the judge, Section

R101.2 - Scope: "...shall apply to, ...and their Accessory

structures", ...Section R102.1, "the most restrictive shall shall

govern", AND an official, documented interpretation by ICC ?

What written justification would you use ?........"Well judge,

I just do not believe that we have a dwelling in this

application ? :confused:



@ : @ : @
Click to expand...
I guess the question becomes, is this an accessory structure? To be an accessory structure, like a shed, it would be unlikely to find a shed on a piece of property without a dwelling. So, sheds, pools, etc. are accessories to the dwelling units. However, if we are talking about a horse barn, it likely isn't an accessory building, even if it is located on the same lot as the dwelling. You have to ask yourself if the building would exist without the dwelling present. In my area, the answer would be yes. While we do have plenty of barns and riding arenas on residential properties, the dwellings are not integral to the operation of the farm and in some cases, there is no dwelling on the lot at all.
 
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.

R311.7 Stairways. That's all it says, "stairways". I doesn't specify where the stairway is or if used for a means of egress, it just says "stairway".

R202 DEFINTIONS. One or more flights of stirs, either interior or exterior, with the necessary landings and platforms connecting them to form a continuous passage from one level to another within or attached to a building, porch or deck.

Nothing in the definition about it only in a dwelling or a means of egress.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top