Plant Shelf & Guard Rail Requirement

[GBrackins]

I got a call from a builder I work with a code inquiry. He is building a single family home that was designed and permitted under the 2003 IRC. He has a 4' deep x 8' wide x 7'-6" high (opening) plant shelf with large picture window. The original drawings did not indicate any guard rail on the interior side. The plant shelf is approximately 9' above the floor. The plant shelf cannot be accessed without the use of a ladder.

I have spent some time with my dusty old copy of the code, but I am not certain whether this would be considered a walking area (which would require a guardrail) or not since access is not provided by stairs or permanent ladder. I have not seen a guard rail on a plant shelf before. I thought I'd pose this questions to those more in the know than myself.

 

[mark handler]

The shelf is approx. 9' above the floor. and cannot be accessed without the use of a ladder.

Obvious not a walking surface.

Guard not required on either side

 

[tmurray]

If you called this a walking surface couldn't you call a low slope roof a walking surface as well since they are both accessible by ladder...

 

[GBrackins]

mark and tmurray,

thank you for your replies!

my thoughts exactly .... if an area that can be accessed by a ladder requires guardrails then a roof would be required to have guardrails also.

Just was not sure that I missed something in the code, and like my mama used to tell me, "better to be thought a fool than open your mouth and remove all doubt."

appreciate your thoughts

 

[fatboy]

Completely agree with mark and tmurray, not even close to a walking surface.

 

[Big Mac]

On board with everyone else

 

[Alias]

Ditto here. Agree with everyone else. No guardrail.

Sue

 

[GBrackins]

thanks to all that replied, those were my thoughts. nice to see I sometimes think like others ....

 

[dhengr]

Gary:

It’s not so much a matter of “thinking like others....,” it’s a matter of using some common sense and then a bunch of smart people will generally come to about the same conclusion. But, the use of common sense is pretty uncommon these days. Why is it that if something isn’t explicitly covered by the code we don’t know what to do? And, are afraid to do anything. Why not think about the intent of that item in a code and when it is really needed and how to practically apply or accommodate that? Just as you guys did above. To try to cover every possible condition, under every possible situation, in every location..., we have compelexified the codes to the point that they are almost unuseable and essentially uninterpretable.

Your’s is an interesting question, but I’m hard pressed to imagine why it should even come up, except that we can’t imagine what to do it the code doesn’t explicitly direct us to do or not to do something. There are hundreds of places some damn fool can fall off of if he tries hard enough. And, they don’t all need handrails, which he could climb over if he only tried a little harder. I’m not suggesting that anyone other than me should ultimately be responsible for my design, but others who can’t make a decision shouldn’t stand in the way either. Particularly when they don’t have the engineering knowledge, judgement or experience to really make an informed determination about a right/wrong or good/bad detail or condition. At the same time it is important that everyone involved in the construction business decision making process know enough about good design and construction to call out a really inferior detail or situation. And, in that regard a clean, concise, code would be a good guide for all of us. In the end there isn’t any doubt about who’s responsible for a design, they know just who to sue even if the problem wasn’t his fault. And, an inspector rarely gets called to task unless he flagrantly deviated from the code and good practice. He can generally say, ‘gosh, I never saw that,’ and he’s off the hook. The Arch. or Engr. don’t get off so lightly, so let us practice our profession. And then, keep an eagle eye out for inexperienced designers who aren’t held responsible, or builders who don’t know their hammer handles from Shinola.

 

[Papio Bldg Dept]

did you need someone to argue against the current?

 

[Papio Bldg Dept]

The Arch. or Engr. don’t get off so lightly, so let us practice our profession. And then, keep an eagle eye out for inexperienced designers who aren’t held responsible, or builders who don’t know their hammer handles from Shinola.

I lead off all of my preliminary meetings with RDPs in this way. We fully expect an RDP to practice their profession and provide us with sufficient information to determine compliance in plan review and inspection. About 75% of the time this is well received, the other 25% I am usually informed that I am being heavy handed and that they are not being payed enough to provide the information I am requesting. I tell them to submit what they feel is necessary, and if it is insufficient, I will let them know where I need more information and cite which code sections I am trying to verify compliance with. After about three re-reviews without addressing my comments, then I start to look around for the State Board of Engineer's and Architect's phone number.

 

[GBrackins]

dhengr I appreciate your comments. at one time the codes gave intent, now it seems they are cookie cutters.

Papio, I appreciate the offer. The inspector's contention is that since the plant shelf was 30-inches above the floor it required a guard. I've put together a four page letter referencing the code that the home was designed under and explaining to inspector that a plant shelf is not a walking surface that a person would normally and routinely walk upon, and if it required a guard then kitchen islands (36-inches above the floor and 36" in width) would also since a person could climb upon or access with a ladder. I explained about climbing on a roof, and that if an area of a roof was accessible by fixed stairs so that a person could normally or routinely walk upon that surface (widow's walk) then it would require a guard.

Lastly I explained that the code was written to reduce the chances for injury from normal and routine uses and conditions, not to eliminate all potential of people performing an "unsafe act." If it were then we'd only have one story homes with all floors level, without bath tubs and showers and would not allow people to possess ladders.

I gave it to the builder for his review before submittal. Will wait and see .....

Again thank you all for your time and thoughts!