Where are shower enclosures required?

[MtnArch]

This pertains to a project in California, but I'm hoping maybe someone can point out where I might look regardless.

We've all seen door-less showers, but I can't seem to find where a curtain (or safety glass enclosure) is required.

I've searched through the CBC and CPC and can find references to WHEN enclosures are provided they have to be safety glass, but not WHERE they are required.

Can someone please point me in the right direction?

Thanks!

Alan T. Hendry

Architect

 

[Yankee]

I doubt there is a requirement. There is a requirement for materials in wet areas, having said that the whole bathroom floor and walls within reach can be tiled and the shower head can just hang out in there . . . floor sloped a bit to a drain, no biggie.

 

[Uncle Bob]

Mtn Arch,

Welcome to the forum.

I only have access to the I-Codes; however, the only references I see is 2006/2009 IRC, P2708.1 " Hinged shower doors shall open outward. " (does not state that doors are required).

Although, with the widening of the average person in this country; you'd think they would require a wider access and egress opening than an unobstructed finished width of 22".

Uncle Bob

 

[north star]

* * *

MtnArch,

Welcome to The Codes Forum!

I agree with Yankee! There is no requirement to have them, BUT, if they

are installed, then they have to meet the minimum requirements.

Uncle Bob mentioned the minimum width ( 22" ). There is also a

minimum height of a shower door ( 7.0' - see Section R305.1 )

FWIW, I like the idea of no shower door. Less to clean!

* * *

 

[mark handler]

I agree with Yankee! There is no requirement to have them

I agree with both

 

[brudgers]

Obviously, the code needs to be modified to protect the public from this oversight.

 

[MtnArch]

Thanks, everyone - that's where I felt it was going, but I wanted to make sure I wasn't just reading it the way **I** wanted to read it.

I fully agree that it's a hole that should be addressed, but also a hole that should be addressed within reason. If there's a valid issue (or if it's codified), I have no problem with it. If it's an opinion (plan checker/building official/peer checker/etc.), state it that way - and let either me or my client decide to move forward the way we see fit. Reasonable issues are legitimate - that's what we are all here for!

Thanks again!

 

[mark handler]

Why. If the space is properly designed, It is not Necessary.

 

[MtnArch]

It's a "hole" as long as a plan checker will bring it up in a correction list (which is what brought about this question).

I just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something before I ask for the code reference for WHY he feels I need to provide this.

"Properly designed" is a subjective assessment - what the Owner/I/the Building Official feels is "properly designed" is open to our individual interpretations.

If there is a true code issue, it doesn't matter what our subjective assessment is - it has to meet code requirements, period.

If the objection is purely personal opinion, state it so - and DON'T make it a plan check comment. Otherwise it will either show my ignorance as the design professional - or YOURS as the code official. Personally, I'd rather just get a building permit than argue personal opinions! ;-)

Again, thank you, Mark, for your insights!

 

[Yankee]

Ceiling hgt 7', 6'-8" for the shower. No door height req'ment that I see.

It is not unusual for a custom house here to have a walk-in shower with no door

 

[mark handler]

It's a plan checker making up codes. Do we really need to change/alter the code? Or do we need to make the plan checker Show the code section he/she is citing? Isn't the code big enough without saying "no door required, But if you choose to provide one...."?

 

[texas transplant]

I like the idea of the plan checker having to show the code section when they make a call out. Here when we make a call out on either plan review or field inspection, I require the code section number (plan review we cut and paste the entire code section into the plan review correction list) to go right there on the sheet.

 

[vegas paul]

I didn't see anywhere in the original post as to whether this was residential or commercial. Gang showers have been allowed in commercial facilities (per the UPC) forever, and don't have doors, partitions, or any other requriements for privacy. If it's residential, no requirement for doors as long as the shower receptor meets the minimum requirements.

 

[MtnArch]

Paul -

This is from a single-family residential plan check.

Mark -

I agree. The plan checker happens to also be an architect, and one I went to high school with! I will be asking him to give me the code section.

Thanks to all for your help!

 

[Glennman CBO]

I don't know about California, but safety glazing is required in shower enclosures (this would include the door) per IRC 308.4 #5.

However, no where does it state that you must have a door, or even a curtain, for that matter.

This gives a cerrtain amount of "freedom" to choose whether to have one or not (as I believe brudgers is referring to). Freedom is good.

 

[JBI]

Not required that I'm aware of and frankly not a 'hole' in the code either, IMHO.

"Obviously, the code needs to be modified to protect the public from this oversight." Good one brudgers... LOL

 

[brudgers]

I was beginning to think my sarcasm was going to waste.

 

[TimNY]

How do you do a plan check without citing a section? I believe that is the only thing that you are actually required to do.

 

[mark handler]

How do you do a plan check without citing a section? I believe that is the only thing that you are actually required to do.

Many plancheckers make, off the cuff, notes and comments on the plans, then a note on the write up says "refer to plans for additional note and comments".

Just because something is not usual, does not mean it is a code violation.

 

[Mule]

We have doorless showers installed quite often in our jurisdiction.

 

[MtnArch]

Many plancheckers make, off the cuff, notes and comments on the plans, then a note on the write up says "refer to plans for additional note and comments".

They also will only give a Chapter 1 cite as their reasoning (the one where it says they can as for more information) - but nothing else to back it up.

 

[EPrice]

Isn't the code big enough without saying "no door required, But if you choose to provide one...."?

Absolutely. The code should not list things that you are not required to do, nor things that you are allowed to do, unless it is part of an exception. I just noticed that the code does not say that it is ok to access your laundry room from the kitchen... yikes, I wonder how many homes are built with this violation?!

 

[Mule]

Absolutely. The code should not list things that you are not required to do, nor things that you are allowed to do, unless it is part of an exception.

I have to disagree with you on this one. How would you know what the requirements are if the code does not specify what is required "when" a specific situation happens?

The code is based on "if you do this then you have to do it this way".

 

[Lurker]

I used to run into this fairly often, the shower enclosure was being custom made and was not ready, but of course the house had to close TODAY. Personally, the pressure to pass a house because of a closing deadline only chaffed me and made me less likely to let something slide, but in the case of the shower doors, because there is no requirement to have them, I would approve the inspection and make a note that no doors or enclosure were installed at the time of final. Make sure the builder or homeowner understood that IF an enclosure was installed, it would have to meet code (safty glazing...etc). There is no reason however that one could not simply install a shower curtain or use nothing if that is what they wish.