# Garden Roof



## Bootleg (Apr 29, 2010)

New SFR with a living/garden roof 2 in 12 pitch roof single story 10' from eve to grade.

Roof is easily accessible would the code require a guard rail?

If required can some kind of setback from edge of roof be done in the garden with shrubbery instead of guardrail to meet code?


----------



## fatboy (Apr 29, 2010)

OK, I'll play.........."easily accessable"?

How? Via stairs, roof hatch, door?

If it is designed to be utilized as a garden, then it really isn't any different than a deck, balconey etc. So yes, I could see a requirement for a guard. Don't know if I would by the landscape setback though.


----------



## vegas paul (Apr 29, 2010)

2 in 12 pitch doesn't seem very "Accessible" to me.  I would require guards just to keep from stumbling off the edge regardless of height above grade!  I envision this "garden" party, with libations, of course - and guests dropping off the edge all night long.

Per the IRC, 2:12 is a ramp, so it would require handrails, landing, etc.!!!


----------



## AegisFPE (Apr 29, 2010)

If my roof required a lot of maintenance, I would want it to be easily accessible, too!  If I go pull weeds (moss) out of my shingles, should I have a guard rail or permanent anchor for fall protection equipment installed?  I don't think so.  If I wanted to install such protection voluntarily (or some sort of alternative protection that made me feel better), I should be permitted to, but I do not see that it is necessarily required.

Strictly speaking, R312.1 applies to "porches, balconies, ramps or raised floor surfaces."  Based on the slope, it may be most similar to a ramp, but the definition of a ramp begins, "A walking surface..."  Hard to consider a roof covering (based on definition of a "covering applied to roof deck for appearance") a walking surface (undefined).


----------



## Yankee (Apr 29, 2010)

It's a deck, it needs guards that meet the load requirements.


----------



## peach (May 7, 2010)

I gotta go with Yankee on this


----------



## brudgers (May 7, 2010)

Let's be clear, at 2:12 it's a roof, not a deck or other outdoor living space...it's not like a person will be comfortable in a chair or standing on it for a long time.

Like any other roof, yes people can go up on it and drink if they are so "inclined."

Putting a rail around it is nonsense.


----------



## fatboy (May 8, 2010)

ah, the voice of reason.

Sorry, this isn't like any other roof, that yes, can be accessed by anyone wanting to do maintenance or drink or whatever. It has been designed and specified that it WILL be accessed for gardening, there WILL be people up there, it IS more than 30" above grade. Put a guard around it for a final inspection, no guard, no C.O. Or, get rid of the "garden". What you do after that is up to you.

And this is what happens when a designer draws a line in the sand..............


----------



## GHRoberts (May 8, 2010)

I will vote with those in favor of "NO guard rail."

I would hate to be the inspector who was sued because someone fell off of a a 2/12 roof without a guard rail when this project set a precedent for a guard rail.


----------



## fatboy (May 8, 2010)

I would hate to be the building inspector who was sued for NOT requiring the guard, when I had prior knowledge that the roof GARDEN was going to be regularly accessed, obviously for more than regular maintenance. The precedent would be, if you have a roof that you are accessing for more than maintenance of the roof itself, then a guard is required. See the Mechanical Code, they don't think professionals are capable of not falling off flat roofs, within 10'.


----------



## fatboy (May 8, 2010)

Bootleg..you never answered my first reply, what is "easily accessed"?


----------



## peach (May 9, 2010)

kind of dumb to build a garden roof on anything but a flat roof..   (don't we try to keep vegetation OFF of low slope roofs).  The planting material is not going to improve the life of the roof).  Really, I can't buy the concept.


----------



## brudgers (May 9, 2010)

fatboy said:
			
		

> ah, the voice of reason.Sorry, this isn't like any other roof, that yes, can be accessed by anyone wanting to do maintenance or drink or whatever. It has been designed and specified that it WILL be accessed for gardening, there WILL be people up there, it IS more than 30" above grade. Put a guard around it for a final inspection, no guard, no C.O. Or, get rid of the "garden". What you do after that is up to you.
> 
> And this is what happens when a designer draws a line in the sand..............


Used for gardening?

That's agriculture and exempt from the IBC.


----------



## brudgers (May 9, 2010)

fatboy said:
			
		

> I would hate to be the building inspector who was sued for NOT requiring the guard, when I had prior knowledge that the roof GARDEN was going to be regularly accessed, obviously for more than regular maintenance. The precedent would be, if you have a roof that you are accessing for more than maintenance of the roof itself, then a guard is required. See the Mechanical Code, they don't think professionals are capable of not falling off flat roofs, within 10'.


The OP said it was a "living/garden roof."  These typically have plants selected for durability, low maintenance, and reduced energy use.

I don't see anything in the post that suggests the roof has been "designed and specified" for gardening.

I know it's takes less effort to say "No" than "Yes," but I didn't know that the greatest danger to the public was your being sued.


----------



## fatboy (May 10, 2010)

Look, I didn't bring up the suing issue, I was replying to George's comment. I have asked several times for more info on this "garden", specifically how it is accessed. That would be a critical piece for me to make a decision if a guard were required. If you noticed, my original reply stated that I could see the need for the guard. Based on the info we have been given at this point, yes, I would require it, erring on the side of caution, and safety. If one were to make a compelling argument that a guard wouldn't be required, I would listen to it.

And I didn't say no, I said yes.............


----------



## brudgers (May 10, 2010)

Until there is evidence to the contrary, it's a roof.

Instead of erring on the side of caution, etc.  why not just get it right?


----------



## fatboy (May 10, 2010)

It's been stated that it is more than a roof, it's a roof garden. What does that mean? I don't know, but until evidence to the contrary IS presented, my assumption is it will be more than occaisionally accessed. As I said, no different than mechanical equipement having guard requirements...................

And, not to surprisingly, I really don't care if you think it's "right".


----------



## brudgers (May 10, 2010)

I'm unfamiliar with the code section about making worst case assumptions in lieu of reviewing what is presented.   Is it in an appendix?


----------



## fatboy (May 10, 2010)

DID you read the OP? ROOF GARDEN!

That is what was presented for review......


----------



## MarkRandall (May 10, 2010)

As presented, I'm on the side of a guard not being required. This slopes 2:12. That's not a floor surface of any kind. That's even too steep for a legal ramp. Roof gardens usually are planted with very low maintenance vegetation. Now if I was the architect, I'd have to look at more factors than what has been mentioned so far to determine what I felt should be done above and beyond the code (which I believe is no requirement).

I'll play devil's advocate: If a guard is required, what section of the code would control the height? Is it height as measured at the guard? A point within "x" feet of the guard (similar to parapet requirements).

If this was a low sloped roof, where would guards be required? Since regular access to roof, are guards required on the entire roof to make sure that person doesn't fall? Or only if garden surface is within 10' of an edge? What code sections would you recite for the requirement?

IMHO, as soon as you say a guard is required, you have to back up all these other situations with code sections that apply.


----------



## mtlogcabin (May 10, 2010)

This is a SFR under the IRC I do not see where a guard could be required by the IRC


----------



## Yankee (May 11, 2010)

One needs to get past the term "roof garden" and ask for a narrative of what the activities are to be for the space.

If the garden is meant to be occupiable, as in occupied by people on a regular basis, and as a country bumpkin I assume that gardens require tending, then it requires a railing. If it is just a green roof that doesn't have vegi's or flowers that need watering, picking and tending, and there isn't a place intended for sittin' under a tree, then maybe no railing.


----------



## georgia plans exam (May 11, 2010)

IMHO, It is not required to have a guard rail. 2006 IRC Section R312.1 only requires guards for "porches, balconies, ramps or raised floor surfaces". I suppose one could argue that by planting a garden on a roof the roof becomes a "raised floor surface" but, I don't buy it. It is a roof. No guard required.

GPES


----------



## fatboy (May 11, 2010)

What Yankee said..........


----------



## Bootleg (May 11, 2010)

fatboy said:
			
		

> Bootleg..you never answered my first reply, what is "easily accessed"?


Fatboy,

Yes,

The house is cut into a hill with a one story shed roof sloped to the hill.


----------



## fatboy (May 11, 2010)

So, the other question is.....is this a tended garden? as in produce?

Or is it merely and architectural feature with little to no maintenance?

It is sounding like the latter, in that case I would not require a guard.


----------



## Bootleg (May 11, 2010)

fatboy said:
			
		

> Look, I didn't bring up the suing issue, I was replying to George's comment. I have asked several times for more info on this "garden", specifically how it is accessed. That would be a critical piece for me to make a decision if a guard were required. If you noticed, my original reply stated that I could see the need for the guard. Based on the info we have been given at this point, yes, I would require it, erring on the side of caution, and safety. If one were to make a compelling argument that a guard wouldn't be required, I would listen to it. And I didn't say no, I said yes.............


The deck has a water view and the roof can be easily access from the ground and over a guard rail from a 2nd story balcony.


----------



## Bootleg (May 11, 2010)

fatboy said:
			
		

> So, the other question is.....is this a tended garden? as in produce? Or is it merely and architectural feature with little to no maintenance?
> 
> It is sounding like the latter, in that case I would not require a guard.


Fatboy'

It's green, it reduces the impervious surface.


----------



## fatboy (May 11, 2010)

No guard required, sounds no different from second story windows that may access a first story roof, deliberate effort must be made to access roof.

Bootleg, a little friendly advice . When you post a question, try to give as much info as possible so folks aren't struggling with answers. And, check back on your OP often. You posted the OP on 4/29, and are just now filling in the blanks? Obviously, there were very different "minds eye pictures" of your application.

Again, just friendly advice. Good question, just needed more info. JMHO


----------



## Yankee (May 11, 2010)

If a person can walk up the hill and onto the shed roof, such as there is no significant grade difference where the roof and the hill meet, should it be considerd like a natual cliff, or like a deck? It is built by man, it is a structure, so it would be a deck not a cliff. If it is meant to be walked upon, it is a raised floor surface.


----------



## AegisFPE (May 11, 2010)

Terraced landscaping exists in many locations, with built-up retaining walls (maybe even next door to the subject home cut into the hill).  This house is just one really fancy retaining wall.


----------



## Bootleg (May 11, 2010)

fatboy said:
			
		

> No guard required, sounds no different from second story windows that may access a first story roof, deliberate effort must be made to access roof.Bootleg, a little friendly advice . When you post a question, try to give as much info as possible so folks aren't struggling with answers. And, check back on your OP often. You posted the OP on 4/29, and are just now filling in the blanks? Obviously, there were very different "minds eye pictures" of your application.
> 
> Again, just friendly advice. Good question, just needed more info. JMHO


Fatboy,

I'm on vacation this week and next and over 1300 miles from home and this is my first day on wire-less on a lap-top.


----------



## brudgers (May 11, 2010)

fatboy said:
			
		

> No guard required.


No kidding.


----------



## fatboy (May 12, 2010)

Stuff it brudgers.........it must be nice in your perfect little world, everything is black and white, not so here. Sorry if asking for more information might cause an applicant a delay, if they haven't provided enough to begin with.

It's my job.........


----------



## brudgers (May 12, 2010)

The important thing isn't that I was right.

It's that you were wrong.

Twice.

First about the roof which is trivial.

Second with your predisposition to say "no," which is habitual.


----------



## fatboy (May 13, 2010)

whatever floats your boat dude.......


----------



## brudgers (May 13, 2010)

fatboy said:
			
		

> whatever floats your boat dude.......


The ocean.  I'm sure you'll require a pool barrier around it.


----------

