• 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.

guard height R-2

hans@dha-architects. said:
well the porch is part of the dwelling unit, no? (they're individual porches only accessible from within the unit), I think it can obviously be interpreted both ways
Click to expand...
I don't think that "obviously" could be interpreted both ways, but it doesn't matter what I think. What does your local AHJ say? That's what matters.
 
tbz said:
1st and foremost the CBC does not use the model IRC for Guard height, its the only state in the USA that requires all guards on open sided floors or balconies to be 42 inches high period. The only exception is on stair flights within a dwelling unit.

So, ICE not understanding what the other 49 states do allow, I get. ;>)

As to the R-2 and separate means of egress, it is simple.

There are parts of the country were they build stacked 2 story condos. Hence the first 2 floors, less than 3 stories, all have their own entrance to the public way and is not shared, then on top of that, there continues to be condos, built lets say going up another 10 stories.

Hence the 2 story street level units with the separate entrance, not sharing M.O.E. are allowed to take advantage of the IRC guard height of 36".

The unit is no different than a townhouse 3 stories or less, for the owners or tenants, except for those above 3 stories.
Click to expand...
I would interpret it such that if whatever element requires a guard, if it's within a dwelling unit or only accessible from that unit, it can be 36" - is it really any different than a three story house with a porch/balcony on the third story? Once those elements become shared/public, then guards need to be 42" - if I had one common porch that connected all the units, it would need to be 42". If I'm using IBC I would typically specify 42" regardless, but something just came up about guards in this project and came across the exceptions - I don't often have porches on the apartments we do so it really hasn't been an issue before, the last one I did had four private porches and we did 42" guards. Honestly, It doesn't really matter to me which it is, I really just want a definitive answer - I'm sure I could ask three different building officials and probably get three different answers
 
hans@dha-architects. said:
well the porch is part of the dwelling unit, no? (they're individual porches only accessible from within the unit), I think it can obviously be interpreted both ways
Click to expand...

My guess at the intent would be this^^^^^Guards "serving an individual dwelling unit"....Common areas get 42" Your "house" gets 36" just like the IRC, we just need more smart people working on the code...
 
steveray said:
My guess at the intent would be this^^^^^Guards "serving an individual dwelling unit"....Common areas get 42" Your "house" gets 36" just like the IRC, we just need more smart people working on the code...
Click to expand...
I think they must have lawyers co-writing the code so that ICC can then sell a ton of commentary books
 
steveray said:
No....just lobbyists and a handful of code officials...It's not deliberately screwed up, the person that submitted the change knew what they wanted, its just not read the same way by everyone.....Call OSBI?
Click to expand...
yes, I was going to just run it by osbi - not that I don't trust the local BO's judgement, but I've come across a few too many local BO's in other towns who clearly don't know the code (or parts of.....well I'm sure you get the drift)
 
Well knowing the back story and I believe Mike and Dave who had this added in the 2012 cycle.

The bottom line is the reason statement limited to units under 3 stories that had completely separate entrances to the public way.

So though you might try to zig and zag, the bottom line is if you can't get to the public way without crossing a common area, any exterior guard is 42 high, that also was specifically covered by the CTC when they rewrote most of the guard section during the study of climable guards.
 
tbz said:
Well knowing the back story and I believe Mike and Dave who had this added in the 2012 cycle.

The bottom line is the reason statement limited to units under 3 stories that had completely separate entrances to the public way.

So though you might try to zig and zag, the bottom line is if you can't get to the public way without crossing a common area, any exterior guard is 42 high, that also was specifically covered by the CTC when they rewrote most of the guard section during the study of climable guards.
Click to expand...
I’m not really trying to zig zag anything, I could really care less if it’s 36 or 42, I’m just saying how I’m interpreting this section which is so clearly written that there’s a dozen varying opinions about it on this thread. Also, the exception is three stories and under, not under three stories
 
tbz said:
Well knowing the back story and I believe Mike and Dave who had this added in the 2012 cycle.

The bottom line is the reason statement limited to units under 3 stories that had completely separate entrances to the public way.

So though you might try to zig and zag, the bottom line is if you can't get to the public way without crossing a common area, any exterior guard is 42 high, that also was specifically covered by the CTC when they rewrote most of the guard section during the study of climable guards.
Click to expand...
What if it is an "interior" guard?
 
Ray,

There are many levels to the interior, I just recently got passed in the 2024 IBC E82-21 that interiors of R-2's and R-3's that the rise is 25' or less, is allowed to have a 36" high guard.

Specific in this new exception No. 2 is "within the interior conditioned space", this should help clarify further exception No. 1's intent, of "separate means of egress", which if you read the original exception No. 1 proposals reason statement when it was adopted into the model code, it was specific in outlining that the entrance created a space no different than a single family town home site condition, thus a separate MOE not through shared interior space.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top