# down spouts and walkways



## JayHawkInspector (Feb 19, 2010)

I have a commercial building in plan check right now, basically the problem I’m having is in the front of the building there are four down spouts from the gutter and they are discharging right on top the concrete walkway that lead to the main entrance of the building and my question is are there any codes that prohibited this or is this just a design issue?


----------



## Coug Dad (Feb 19, 2010)

Re: down spouts and walkways

Is the walkway on the same property with the building?  Is the walkway part of the means of egress discharge to the public way?

1101.2 Where required.

All roofs, paved areas, yards, courts and courtyards shall drain into a separate storm sewer system, or a combined sewer system, or to an approved place of disposal. For one- and two-family dwellings, and where approved, storm water is permitted to discharge onto flat areas, such as streets or lawns, provided that the storm water flows away from the building.


----------



## JayHawkInspector (Feb 19, 2010)

Re: down spouts and walkways

The walkway is right next to the building and as for the walkway being part of means of egress to the public way is up to interpretation.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Feb 19, 2010)

Re: down spouts and walkways

We are constantly pointing this exact problem out with out of state warm climate Architects. During certain times of the year during evening and early morning hours what you describe will create ice skating rinks for side walks and parking lots. Most DP's are glad for the input


----------



## JBI (Feb 19, 2010)

Re: down spouts and walkways

JayHawk - "...as for the walkway being part of means of egress to the public way is up to interpretation." Yes, it is. YOURS! (assuming you are the Code Official)

Hazardous for the reasons espoused by my esteemed colleague from Montana.


----------



## FredK (Feb 19, 2010)

Re: down spouts and walkways

Well most large commercial projects here drain to a retention area.

Then again we only get 7 inches of rain and 1-maybe 2 weeks of cold weather.  :roll:


----------



## brudgers (Feb 19, 2010)

Re: down spouts and walkways



			
				JayHawkInspector said:
			
		

> The walkway is right next to the building and as for the walkway being part of means of egress to the public way is up to interpretation.


If that's the best you can cite, allow the discharge even if it is bad design.


----------



## Mule (Feb 19, 2010)

Re: down spouts and walkways

Are they draining the AC units on top of the roof also????


----------



## north star (Feb 19, 2010)

Re: down spouts and walkways

*JayHawkInspector,*

*You can use Section 102.9 in the 2006 IPC.*

*102.9 Requirements not covered by code. *

*Any requirements necessary for the strength, stability or proper operation of an existing or proposed*

*plumbing system, or for the public safety, health and general welfare, not specifically covered by this*

*code shall be determined by the code official.*

*I agree with John D.  &  mtlogcabin!            The code official is the one to determine if the 'proposed' area of*

*discharge will present a hazard to the public.    Also, in some areas of warm, humid conditions,  that green*

*slimy stuff could present a potential slip hazard too!      Or,  you 'could'  follow the gentleman from Alabama'*

*suggestion and allow the [ questionable ] design.*

*brudgers suggested:*



> If that's the best you can cite, allow the discharge even if it is bad design.


*_*


----------



## Mule (Feb 19, 2010)

Re: down spouts and walkways

Northstar, I don't believe you can quote the IPC...this has nothing to do with plumbing.


----------



## brudgers (Feb 19, 2010)

Re: down spouts and walkways



			
				Mule said:
			
		

> Northstar, I don't believe you can quote the IPC...this has nothing to do with plumbing.


He wasn't actually quoting anything, he was just making up a reason to say no.

The code allows construction which requires ongoing maintenance...even when it upsets a code official.


----------



## Mule (Feb 19, 2010)

Re: down spouts and walkways

101.3 Intent. The purpose of this code is to establish the minimum

requirements to safeguard the public health, safety and

general welfare through structural strength, means of egress

facilities, stability, sanitation, adequate light and ventilation,

energy conservation, *and safety to life and property from fire*

*and other hazards attributed to the built environment and to*

*provide safety to fire fighters and emergency responders during*

*emergency operations.*


----------



## brudgers (Feb 19, 2010)

Re: down spouts and walkways

Minimum requirements not best practices.


----------



## Mule (Feb 19, 2010)

Re: down spouts and walkways

If the opinion BO determines that the installation will cause a unsafe situation then I believe he could require a change in the plans.

brudgers, if you designed a building that was unsafe, even though you met the "minimum" code, do you think you would be liable IF someone were to be injured because of your design? You see it happen all the time.

Would you design a building like this?


----------



## Pcinspector1 (Feb 19, 2010)

Re: down spouts and walkways

JayHawk,

Sounds like a design issue, double check your muni-code!

*Don't think Mizzou can handle the big boy Aldridge inside! :cry:

Professor brudgers,

We would'nt want that "serving wench" to slip and fall with our ale's would we?


----------



## north star (Feb 19, 2010)

Re: down spouts and walkways

*From the 2006 IPC,  Chapter 2 - Definitions:*

*Leader: An exterior drain pipe for conveying storm water from the roof or*

*gutter drains* *"to an approved method of disposal."*



*Also, see Section 1106.2 - Vertical conductors and leaders.* * Vertical conductors and leaders shall be sized for*

*the maximum projected roof area, in accordance with Table 1106.2.   PLEASE  REFER  TO  TABLE  1106.2  IN*

*THE `06  IPC.  [  I could not ' cut & paste ' the table into this message.  ]*

*Kinda sounds like a plumbing issue to me! * 

_


----------



## mtlogcabin (Feb 19, 2010)

Re: down spouts and walkways

Brudgers

If a BO gave you a FYI about the hazards of this design due to the climatic conditions in winter areas would you not pass this on to your client so as reduce their potential liability prior to a slip and fall claim later?

Coug Dad what code does 1101.2 refer to?

I have inlcuded many FYI comments that where not addressed by the adopted code. I do this for 2 reasons

1: Good customer service will create a better final product.

2: CYA if the building department gets called into testify or some request to look at a project file there is documentation that the DP/Owner was aware of a potential problem.


----------



## Mule (Feb 19, 2010)

Re: down spouts and walkways

north star

Well...I'll be!


----------



## Coug Dad (Feb 19, 2010)

Re: down spouts and walkways

2006 IPC


----------



## Pcinspector1 (Feb 19, 2010)

Re: down spouts and walkways

north star,

Well...I'll be 2!


----------



## north star (Feb 19, 2010)

Re: down spouts and walkways

*mtlogcabin,*

*All that CYA  & customer service stuff is not ' billable time '.   You know that the private sector isn't*

*going to do anything extra, that they can't bill for.*

*As I have tried to tell you good people on here before,*

*"It's all about the money! * 

_


----------



## north star (Feb 19, 2010)

Re: down spouts and walkways

*BTW,*

*JayHawkInspector,  ...does this help you? *


----------



## georgia plans exam (Feb 19, 2010)

Re: down spouts and walkways

Mule brought up a good point about roof AC units. If they are discharging thier condensate to the gutter, IMC Section 307.2.1 could prohibit the discharge to the sidewalk as it would "cause a nuisance".

GPE


----------



## north star (Feb 19, 2010)

Re: down spouts and walkways

*GPE,*

*Great input!   * 

*This is why this forum works so well!    We have a plethera of information available to all.*

*[ Almost ] everyone wants to assist in some positive manner.*


----------



## Uncle Bob (Feb 19, 2010)

Re: down spouts and walkways

2006 International Plumbing Code. Chapter 11 STORM DRAINAGE.

1101.2  Where required.  All roofs, paved areas, yards, courts and courtyards shall drain into a separate storm sewer system, or a combined sewer system, or to an approved place of disposal.

Chapter 2 Definitions.

APPROVED. Acceptable to the code official or other authority having jurisdiction.

[storm drains should desend from the roof to a covered opening (grated cover is acceptable) in the sidewalk that directs storm water from the roof to the parking lot or other approved location; without spilling onto the sidewalk.]

Uncle Bob


----------



## brudgers (Feb 20, 2010)

Re: down spouts and walkways



			
				Mule said:
			
		

> If the opinion BO determines that the installation will cause a unsafe situation then I believe he could require a change in the plans.brudgers, if you designed a building that was unsafe, even though you met the "minimum" code, do you think you would be liable IF someone were to be injured because of your design? You see it happen all the time.
> 
> Would you design a building like this?


I'll just address similar comments here.

Ice buildup is a maintenance issue.

As I'm sure you know, in certain climates ice will even build up where there is no building, and eliminating the roof discharge will not eliminate the potential for ice formation in Kansas.

How I would design a building is irrelevant to the question at hand.

Although I tend to tie rain leaders into the underground where it is practical and desirable, that doesn't make it code.

If there's a fire, and if the walkway adjacent to the parking lot (and immediately adjacent to the burning building), there is an alternate exit discharge through the parking lot or similar surfaces.

The exit discharge argument is a reach...or rather a leap beyond the code minimums into the realm of pet peeves.

My personal opinion is that code officials ought to be cautious against using chapter one for disapproval.  It should be a last resort not a catchall for denial.


----------



## Uncle Bob (Feb 21, 2010)

Re: down spouts and walkways

This is one way it should look;

(click on picture to enlarge; downspout from roof)





(grate and drain to pavement)





(the drain cut into the sidewalk & downspout to drain)





Some use a solid cover on the sidewalk drain.

Uncle Bob


----------



## FM William Burns (Feb 21, 2010)

Re: down spouts and walkways

UB,

You sure spend a lot of time at Hotels


----------



## jar546 (Feb 21, 2010)

Re: down spouts and walkways



			
				brudgers said:
			
		

> Mule said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'll just address similar comments here.

Ice buildup is a maintenance issue.

As I'm sure you know, in certain climates ice will even build up where there is no building, and eliminating the roof discharge will not eliminate the potential for ice formation in Kansas.

How I would design a building is irrelevant to the question at hand.

Although I tend to tie rain leaders into the underground where it is practical and desirable, that doesn't make it code.

If there's a fire, and if the walkway adjacent to the parking lot (and immediately adjacent to the burning building), there is an alternate exit discharge through the parking lot or similar surfaces.

The exit discharge argument is a reach...or rather a leap beyond the code minimums into the realm of pet peeves.

My personal opinion is that code officials ought to be cautious against using chapter one for disapproval.  It should be a last resort not a catchall for denial.

The IPC very clearly covers this subject and the only way that you can discharge to a sidewalk would be if the BCO determined that the sidewalk was "approved".  I don't know of anyone who allows that up this way.

Maintenance issue my ass.  Get your butt up to the north some time.


----------



## brudgers (Feb 21, 2010)

Re: down spouts and walkways



			
				jar546 said:
			
		

> The IPC very clearly covers this subject and the only way that you can discharge to a sidewalk would be if the BCO determined that the sidewalk was "approved".  I don't know of anyone who allows that up this way.  Maintenance issue my ass.  Get your butt up to the north some time.


If there is an element which is not mandated by the code and has no detrimental effect on occupancy when out of commission then it's not a building code issue.

In other words if you can set up orange cones and yellow tape and still meet egress requirements, then it is a maintenance issue.

Stormwater from the roof ultimately travels to the same location as stormwater from all the other impervious surfaces on the site (eg the concrete walk and parking lot).

This board demonstrates there's no way a person can possibly anticipate all the crazy arbitrary **** a building official can imagine to be non-compliant.

As I've said discharging the gutters at that location may be bad practice (and for exactly the reasons you cite).

But the code is a minimum standard not a guide to good practice, and trying to enforce it as the latter is unprofessional.

Unless the concrete walk is code mandated, how does it not comply with the requirements for a splash block?


----------



## brudgers (Feb 21, 2010)

Re: down spouts and walkways



			
				Uncle Bob said:
			
		

> This is one way it should look;(click on picture to enlarge; downspout from roof)
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I love it.

Now the ice forms in the parking lot where a person:

1. cannot see it when getting out of their car.

2. cannot avoid it when using the parking lot.

It's epic.

But a little to subtle for there I fixed it.


----------



## Uncle Bob (Feb 21, 2010)

Re: down spouts and walkways

FM,

It's one of the new "extended stays".  I've lived here for the last 5 months; while looking for a place to settle.  The rent for weekly is $189, but, I got a suite; month to month; for only $499 per month; and I have a full kitchen with regular size fridge, cook top, micro wave, sink, and cabinets; a full bath, fresh towels daily, cable tv and internet.  All the comforts of home for a single guy, for now anyway; but, I will be happy when I can get all my household furniture out of the climate controlled storage; and sit in my own back yard in the morning with a cup of tea.   

Uncle Bob


----------



## texasbo (Feb 22, 2010)

Re: down spouts and walkways

As others have said, "approved place of disposal", and the definition of "approved" are all you need. Period. End of story.

Sure, there are many unscrupulous design professionals out there who are more worried about making a buck than they are compliant design.

In the end, those unscrupulous design professionals are exactly why we are here. And in the end, it's the code officials interpretation of approved location that matters. I'd love to see an appeals board rule against the code official in this particular case, with the clear and obvious hazards involved in such a negligent design.

And when the empty threats of lawyers come around, do as I do, and chuckle to yourself, knowing you are well within your authority (Sec 202, 2006 IBC) to make the correct interpretation...


----------



## brudgers (Feb 22, 2010)

Re: down spouts and walkways



			
				texasbo said:
			
		

> As others have said, "approved place of disposal", and the definition of "approved" are all you need. Period. End of story. Sure, there are many unscrupulous design professionals out there with a chip on their shoulder who are more worried about their pet peeves than they are compliant design.
> 
> In the end, those unscrupulous design professionals are exactly why we are here. And in the end, it's the code officials interpretation of approved location that matters. I'd love to see an appeals board rule against the code official in this particular case, with the clear and obvious hazards involved in such a negligent design.
> 
> And when the empty threats of lawyers come around, do as I do, and chuckle to yourself, knowing you are well within your authority (Sec 202, 2006 IBC) to make the correct interpretation...


Do you get your imaginary code requirements wholesale, or retail at the dollar store?

It's obvious they don't come from the code books.

This has nothing to do with "unscrupulous design professionals."

When stormwater discharge from the roof is directed to the same location as stormwater from the parking lot and other site impervious surfaces  discharge, it is invariably headed to an approved location such as a vault or pond.

Since you haven't read section 1101.2, I'll tell you what it says.

It says "All roofs, paved areas, yards, courts, and courtyards shall drain... to an approved place of disposal."

(If you ever actually open a real code book you will also find a comprehensive list of prohibited locations in section 1101.3.)

The parking lot is no more an "approved place of disposal" than the sidewalk.

The code, for better or worse does not differentiate between where a roof must go and where the parking lot goes.

It only requires one stormwater system.


----------



## north star (Feb 22, 2010)

Re: down spouts and walkways

*...and that "approved place of disposal" shall be determined by the code official, "NOT"*

*the DP!*


----------



## texasbo (Feb 22, 2010)

Re: down spouts and walkways

Brudgers started out with this gem:



> Do you get your imaginary code requirements wholesale, or retail at the dollar store?


Actually I get my code requirements from code books that I ordered over the internet. You know, the same place where you ordered your architect's license.

Brudgers said:



> Irrelevant rant, including: (If you ever actually open a real code book you will also find a comprehensive list of prohibited locations in section 1101.3.)


Wrong as usual. If it were "comprehensive", the word "approved" wouldn't be placed in front Of "place of disposal".

Amidst the venom, Brudgers also said:



> The parking lot is no more an "approved place of disposal" than the sidewalk.


 Ha! fortunately for the public, that interpretation is MINE to make, and not YOURS.

Thank you for continuing to validate exactly why communities need code professionals to protect them.


----------



## brudgers (Feb 22, 2010)

Re: down spouts and walkways

Under your interpretation, you have made the parking lot is an approved disposal area for stormwater from the roof.

That's clearly contrary to the intent of the code.

If you want to prohibit downspouts from discharging onto the walk fine.

Put on your big boy undies and amend your land stormwater regulations instead of holding the CO hostage just to stoke your ego.

By the way, the list in 1103.3 is comprehensive.

It just doesn't say what you think says.

Nor does it say what you want it to say.

In fact it doesn't even say the things you want make up as you go along.

The unfortunate thing is that despite knowing all that, you can't seem to live with enforcing the code as it is written rather than as you wish it to be.

I guess it's too simple.


----------



## brudgers (Feb 22, 2010)

Re: down spouts and walkways



			
				north star said:
			
		

> *...and that "approved place of disposal" shall be determined by the code official, "NOT"*
> 
> *the DP!*


The determination should be based on the code and other land use regulations, not what the code official wishes it said.

If you want to prohibit it, fine.

Put on your big boy undies and go through the democratic processes required to amend the code.


----------



## texasbo (Feb 22, 2010)

Re: down spouts and walkways

I guess "big boy undies" is the phrase of the day. Here's a word of advice: I'd be careful using it a third time in the same thread; wasn't that catchy the first two times...

Brudgers said:



> Under your interpretation, you have made the parking lot is an approved disposal area for stormwater from the roof.


You mean I've approved a "flat area" such as a street or lawn an area for storm water discharge from the roof? Well of course I can't do that!!! Everybody knows I can't do that!!!

Hold on, Brudgers; 1101.2 :... "and where approved, storm water is permitted to discharge onto flat areas such as streets or lawns."

Well looky there, Brudgers, the code says I can approve roof drains to discharge to flat areas. I just happen to think a parking lot is a flat area, how about you? Therefore, I approve those roof drains to discharge to the parking lot, but not a sidewalk, because I don't approve discharge to sidewalks. And guess what? I can do that. And that's a Nieman Marcus interpretation, not a dollar store one.

Brudgers said:



> By the way, the list in 1103.3 is comprehensive. It just doesn't say what you think says.


 No Brudgers, the code only says what Brudgers thinks it says, right? It's comprehensive in the fact that even I can't approve storm discharge into sanitary. There are other places that it can't discharge to as well. You know where those other places are? Places that I haven't approved, that's where they are, Brudgers.

Now when the International Sewer Code Reference for the Unscrupulous ( I-SCRU) comes out, then Brudgers can make up his own rules and get away with them. Until then, your interpretation doesn't matter, because you aren't the code official.

You'll find I-SCRU at the dollar store, on a shelf right next to your little boy panties.

I'll leave you with one bit of advice that you didn't take last time I offered it to you: how about you ditch the boorish, insolent behavior, and participate in this forum like an adult? You might find people will start to actually take you seriously, and care what you have to say.


----------



## Uncle Bob (Feb 22, 2010)

Re: down spouts and walkways

Brudgers,

You are an Architect; and we need and welcome, good Architects on this forum; especially if they have a working knowledge of the Codes; which, you don't have, given your constant assumtions that a lawyer is necessary for a Building Official to carry out his/her responsibilities; and your assumption that you and not the Building Official has the authority and responsibility to interpret and administer the Codes.

This forum is comprised of some of the most knowledgeable Master Code Professionals, Building Officials, Engineers, Plans Examiners, Inspectors, Fire Marshals and Fire Inspectors and yes, Architects in this country.

You have an obvious problem with code compliance and authority.  Do you use childish quips like; "Put on your big boy undies" when meeting with Code Officials in Auburn?

If you have helpful information to contribute; it will be greatly appreciated; but, please leave your disrespectful middle school remarks in you hometown playground.

Uncle Bob


----------



## brudgers (Feb 22, 2010)

Re: down spouts and walkways

If the stormwater for the roof is disposed of once it hits the pavement, then it need not be held onsite in a vault or pond.

And the "hazard" has been increased.

Brilliant.


----------



## LGreene (Feb 22, 2010)

Re: down spouts and walkways

In January of 2006, a friend of mine came out of a restaurant in central NY and slipped on ice caused by this exact situation.  When she fell, she hit her head on the pavement which caused her to have a seizure.  It was later determined that she cracked her neck in several places and she had to have surgery to stabilize the vertebrae with plates and pins.  Her insurance company won't pay her medical bills because her injury was the result of negligence by the restaurant.  The restaurant is part of a LARGE national chain and is looking for any excuse to avoid paying for her medical care.

When she drove by the same restaurant a couple of weeks ago, they had orange cones marking the hazardous ice patch.  She wasn't the first person who fell, and I'm sure she wasn't the last either.

I hope you can find a code-based reason to require the downspout discharge to be changed on the building you're looking at...then tell me what it was so I can tell her legal team.  

- Lori


----------



## brudgers (Feb 22, 2010)

Re: down spouts and walkways



			
				Uncle Bob said:
			
		

> Ben Rudgers,You are an Architect; and we need and welcome, good Architects on this forum; especially if they have a working knowledge of the Codes; which, you don't have, given your constant assumtions that a lawyer is necessary for a Building Official to carry out his/her responsibilities; and your assumption that you and not the Building Official has the authority and responsibility to interpret and administer the Codes.
> 
> This forum is comprised of some of the most knowledgeable Master Code Professionals, Building Officials, Engineers, Plans Examiners, Inspectors, Fire Marshals and Fire Inspectors and yes, Architects in this country.
> 
> ...


As I said initially, it may not be good design but it may meet minimum code requirements.

I was called "unscrupulous" for pointing out that a code official ought to interpret the code literally and if they don't like what the code says, they should amend it rather than making up their own interpretation.

I have no problem with code compliance...unlike a code official my house, savings, and other assets are personally on the line for anything I seal...there's no sovereign immunity and no corporate protection.

I do take issue with code officials who construct reasons and torture logic for the sake of denying permits and holding CO's hostage over items that are not explicitly in the code.

The IPC requires stormwater to be disposed of.

It allows the code official the discretion to permit mere discharge to constitute disposal for non-residential structures and requires the code official to accept mere discharge as constituting disposal for one and two family dwellings.

It prohibits using sanitary sewers as a means of disposal.

Without additional regulations or amendments, that's it.

The IPC is permissive when it comes to stormwater because stormwater is typically handled by other codes and regulations...as it should be -- Civil engineers don't look to the IPC primarily, they look to the land development regulations.

In my opinion, Stormwater regulations are the proper place for whatever requirements are justified by local or site specific conditions.

From a design and construction standpoint, gutters and leaders can easily fall into the margins.

They are often unaddressed or vaguely addressed in the design documents because of common methods of obtaining professional services for commercial projects (e.g. separate Owner contracts with architect and civil engineer).

Secondly, the work is performed by a separate trade from plumbing.  Often one that arrives on site a long long time after the sitework is complete...they may even be the last trade mobilized.

Finally the termination of rain leaders falls into the netherworld of "5' from the building."

If it gets to CO and the leaders are a draining onto the concrete and the Code Official has a problem with it, then it might be the design professional's fault.

But only if there is something explicit in the code that the Code Official can point to.

If there isn't, then even if you buy into "because I said so," you should have said so during plan review or at least during underground inspection.

Holding the CO hostage by torturing the code rather than undertaking the hard work of amending it, is and will remain, in my opinion, grossly unprofessional.

I advocate using a lawyer when it is necessary to get a code official to interpret what the code says rather than making up requirements.  That's the nature of our great free country.  Only a code official who doesn't respect our democratic freedoms would take issue with such an approach.  A code official isn't a king who can rule by fiat.

Unlike a code official you won't see me going on and on about authority.

Instead I have responsibility for meeting the code.

It comes with the pencil.


----------



## Big Mac (Feb 22, 2010)

Re: down spouts and walkways

All I can really add to what Texasbo and UB said was



> *AMEN*


----------



## texasbo (Feb 22, 2010)

Re: down spouts and walkways



> As I said initially, it may not be good design but it may meet minimum code requirements.


It may. If the *Code Official* accepts discharge onto sidewalk as an approved location.



> I was called "unscrupulous" for pointing out that a code official ought to interpret the code literally and if they don't like what the code says, they should amend it rather than making up their own interpretation.


Wrong. I referred to "unscrupulous design professionals" because I knew it would get under your skin, which it did. I referred to "unscrupulous design professionals" because of quotes including, but not limited to, the following:



> Brudgers: The code allows construction which requires ongoing maintenance...even when it upsets a code official.





> Brudgers:This board demonstrates there's no way a person can possibly anticipate all the crazy arbitrary **** a building official can imagine to be non-compliant.





> Brudgers: Epic





> Brudgers: Brilliant


In other words, I brought myself down to your level, by using petulant, juvenile comments instead of having a debate like an adult.

Brudgers:



> I do take issue with code officials who construct reasons and torture logic for the sake of denying permits and holding CO's hostage over items that are not explicitly in the code.


I think most of us do. The only difference is that you fail to accept the fact that other people have other opinions about what constitutes "constructed reasons" and "tortured logic" that matter every bit as much, if not more than, yours.

Brudgers:



> The IPC is permissive when it comes to stormwater because stormwater is typically handled by other codes and regulations...as it should be -- Civil engineers don't look to the IPC primarily, they look to the land development regulations.In my opinion, Stormwater regulations are the proper place for whatever requirements are justified by local or site specific conditions.


Don't move the goal posts, Brudgers. This discussion is about code.

Brudgers:



> From a design and construction standpoint, gutters and leaders can easily fall into the margins.They are often unaddressed or vaguely addressed in the design documents because of common methods of obtaining professional services for commercial projects (e.g. separate Owner contracts with man with pencil who draw and civil engineer).
> 
> Secondly, the work is performed by a separate trade from plumbing.  Often one that arrives on site a long long time after the sitework is complete...they may even be the last trade mobilized.
> 
> Finally the termination of rain leaders falls into the netherworld of "5' from the building."


You're obfuscating. None of the above has any relevance to the discussion at hand.

Brudgers:



> If it gets to CO and the leaders are a draining onto the concrete and the Code Official has a problem with it, then it might be the design professional's fault.But only if there is something explicit in the code that the Code Official can point to.


Done that; you didn't accept it.

Brudgers:



> If there isn't, then even if you buy into "because I said so," you should have said so during plan review or at least during underground inspection.


Nobody once has said "because I said so". And I completely agree with you about plan review/underground inspection, 100%.


----------



## brudgers (Feb 22, 2010)

Re: down spouts and walkways



			
				texasbo said:
			
		

> Nobody once has said "because I said so". And I completely agree with you about plan review/underground inspection, 100%.


Helping the OP find reasons for holding up a CO is not walking it.


----------



## brudgers (Feb 22, 2010)

Re: down spouts and walkways



			
				texasbo said:
			
		

> In other words, I brought myself down to your level, by using petulant, juvenile comments instead of having a debate like an adult.


You have a natural talent for it.


----------



## Mac (Feb 22, 2010)

Re: down spouts and walkways

Here's how I deal with it (from the local code):

140-7.  Snow, ice and other obstructions.

A.	The owners of buildings or structures adjacent to public streets and sidewalks shall prevent the falling of snow, ice or water from such buildings upon village streets or sidewalks.

Instances where the gutter discharge is not onto a public sidewalk, the stormwater system serving a parking area is actually ideal for also handling building runoff.  Project engineers can design for the additional load. What's the problem?

What jurisdiction denied Budgie's design or otherwise torqued him? off?


----------



## FM William Burns (Feb 22, 2010)

Re: down spouts and walkways



> Fire Marshals and Fire Inspectors


Thanks UB


----------



## mtlogcabin (Feb 22, 2010)

Re: down spouts and walkways

brudgers



> Helping the OP find reasons for holding up a CO is not walking it


The OP



> I have a commercial building in plan check right now,


The OP is trying to address this at the plan review stage. He is not holding up a CO or denying a permit or anything like that. He has recognized a potential problem and is looking for a solution. So can we help him get a good year round safe design either through code requirements or as UB's photos showed.


----------



## globe trekker (Feb 22, 2010)

Re: down spouts and walkways

Looks like this is going into extra innings...


----------



## texasbo (Feb 22, 2010)

Re: down spouts and walkways

Brudgers:



> I advocate using a lawyer when it is necessary to get a code official to interpret what the code says rather than making up requirements. That's the nature of our great free country. Only a code official who doesn't respect our democratic freedoms would take issue with such an approach. A code official isn't a king who can rule by fiat.


No he is not a king. However, if he is acting within the boundaries of his duties, and can defend his interpretation, he will prevail whether you like it or not. Sorry brudgers, that's just the way it is, as case law shows time after time after time.

Brudgers:



> Unlike a code official you won't see me going on and on about authority.


Because you don't have any.

Raise your hand if you think brudgers would not go on and on about authority if he had any. That's what I thought.

Brudgers:



> Instead I have responsibility for meeting the code.It comes with the pencil.


 I just threw up in my mouth. And we have the responsibility of making sure you meet the code too. You know, just to make double sure...


----------



## TJacobs (Feb 22, 2010)

Re: down spouts and walkways



			
				Brudgers said:
			
		

> Instead I have responsibility for meeting the code.It comes with the pencil.


There is a lot more to your job as pencil pusher than "to meet the code."  But since you design to the lowest common denominator, let's review some code text, shall we?  (This may be the first time you have ever seen these...)

Straight from the 2006 IBC:

Definitions:

MEANS OF EGRESS. A continuous and unobstructed path of vertical and horizontal egress travel from any occupied portion of a building or structure to a public way. A means of egress consists of three separate and distinct parts: the exit access, the exit and the exit discharge.

EXIT DISCHARGE. That portion of a means of egress system between the termination of an exit and a public way.

PUBLIC WAY. A street, alley or other parcel of land open to the outside air leading to a street, that has been deeded, dedicated or otherwise permanently appropriated to the public for public use and which has a clear width and height of not less than 10 feet (3048 mm).

*1003.4 Floor surface.*

*Walking surfaces of the **means of egress** shall have a **slip-resistant surface** and be securely attached.*

ANSI A117.1:

104.4 Floor or Floor Surface.

The terms floor or floor surface refer to the finish floor surface or ground surface, as applicable.

302.1 General. 

Floor surfaces shall be stable, firm, and slip resistant, and shall comply with Section 302. Changes in level in floor surfaces shall comply with Section 303.

There is no code requirement for a slip-resistant parking lot but there is a code requirement for a slip-resistant means of egress to a public way (parking lot), plus the entire accessible route.

Until you have arrived at a public way, and unless the sidewalk is more than 10' wide between the exit and the public way, you need to comply with 1003.4 and 302.1.  What part of ice-covered sidewalk is a "slip-resistant surface"?

Maybe this does not happen in GA or FLA but it happens here big time.  The right thing to do would be to provide downspouts directly connected to a storm water system or the sidewalk grates or some other system or put the downspout discharge somewhere away from the sidewalk.

The plan reviewer has identified a potentially hazardous condition which through experience he knows to be created by this design.  I'm with the plan reviewer.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Feb 22, 2010)

Re: down spouts and walkways

Leave it to the fire boys to have something.

I know this is a maintenance section so ask the owners (not the DP) for a maintenance plan to keep ice from forming at the downspout discharge areas. I bet when they factor in the on going cost the owners will ask the DP why he designed the downspouts to discharge across the sidewalks

brudgers can respond but it meets code, it is your maintenance problem not my design error.

IFC 1028.3 Obstructions.

A means of egress shall be free from obstructions that would prevent its use, including the accumulation of snow and ice.


----------



## Dr. J (Feb 22, 2010)

Re: down spouts and walkways

Sorry, this looked like too much fun, I had to join in.

Wouldn't this be a similar situation to a snow-country building where a below-grade egress lead to a stair in an area-way on the north side?  There is no doubt that this "pit" would always be full of snow and ice.  Is this a code violation or a maintenance headache?   The IFC section Mtl referenced could be read as requiring preventing snow and ice from ever forming, not just a plan to remove.  In otherwords, my egress pit example would required a snow melt system or a roof (I speak from experience on this one).

BTW - for the record, I tend to be a "the words of the code" type of guy, and just hate it when an AHJ says "because I said so".  But in this case, I would say "approved location" is clearly defined, and could be a red polka dot inflatable swimming pool if that is what is "Acceptable to the code official or other authority having jurisdiction".

This issue is not limited to places with real weather, condensate dripping from an AC unit can leave a nasty slime trail.


----------



## TJacobs (Feb 23, 2010)

Re: down spouts and walkways



			
				mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> Leave it to the fire boys to have something. I know this is a maintenance section so ask the owners (not the DP) for a maintenance plan to keep ice from forming at the downspout discharge areas. I bet when they factor in the on going cost the owners will ask the DP why he designed the downspouts to discharge across the sidewalks
> 
> brudgers can respond but it meets code, it is your maintenance problem not my design error.
> 
> ...


Also an often overlooked section, thanks for posting that.  The beauty of the IFC is that you could use this section on existing situations as well as new.


----------



## Paul Sweet (Feb 23, 2010)

Re: down spouts and walkways

The church I attend has a similar situation to the OP.  The main entrance has a sidewalk going directly to a parking area.  A side entrance has a sidewalk going directly to another parking area.  A third sidewalk connects these 2 sidewalks, and runs  along the side of the building where some downspouts discharge over it.  It's a stupid design, and I would have found a way to keep the water off the sidewalk if I had designed it, but I don't see where it's a code violation.  This third sidewalk isn't required for egress, so they could block the walk if it gets icy, or put in a lot of extra effort to keep it salted and sanded.

If I were reviewing this I would advise the DP that it is a bad design, and creates a potential liability for him (or her) as well as the Owner.  On the other hand, I would not allow the downspouts to discharge over a walk that is part of the means of egress.


----------



## brudgers (Feb 23, 2010)

Re: down spouts and walkways



			
				TJacobs said:
			
		

> Brudgers said:
> 
> 
> 
> > Instead I have responsibility for meeting the code.It comes with the pencil.


There is a lot more to your job as pencil pusher than "to meet the code."  But since you design to the lowest common denominator, let's review some code text, shall we?  (This may be the first time you have ever seen these...)

Straight from the 2006 IBC:

Definitions:

MEANS OF EGRESS. A continuous and unobstructed path of vertical and horizontal egress travel from any occupied portion of a building or structure to a public way. A means of egress consists of three separate and distinct parts: the exit access, the exit and the exit discharge.

EXIT DISCHARGE. That portion of a means of egress system between the termination of an exit and a public way.

PUBLIC WAY. A street, alley or other parcel of land open to the outside air leading to a street, that has been deeded, dedicated or otherwise permanently appropriated to the public for public use and which has a clear width and height of not less than 10 feet (3048 mm).

*1003.4 Floor surface.*

*Walking surfaces of the **means of egress** shall have a **slip-resistant surface** and be securely attached.*

ANSI A117.1:

104.4 Floor or Floor Surface.

The terms floor or floor surface refer to the finish floor surface or ground surface, as applicable.

302.1 General. 

Floor surfaces shall be stable, firm, and slip resistant, and shall comply with Section 302. Changes in level in floor surfaces shall comply with Section 303.

There is no code requirement for a slip-resistant parking lot but there is a code requirement for a slip-resistant means of egress to a public way (parking lot), plus the entire accessible route.

Until you have arrived at a public way, and unless the sidewalk is more than 10' wide between the exit and the public way, you need to comply with 1003.4 and 302.1.  What part of ice-covered sidewalk is a "slip-resistant surface"?

Maybe this does not happen in GA or FLA but it happens here big time.  The right thing to do would be to provide downspouts directly connected to a storm water system or the sidewalk grates or some other system or put the downspout discharge somewhere away from the sidewalk.

The plan reviewer has identified a potentially hazardous condition which through experience he knows to be created by this design.  I'm with the plan reviewer.

Eliminating roof discharge onto the walk does not eliminate ice from the walk.

As I stated before, in many climates keeping ice off the walk is a maintenance issue and will be one regardless of where the downspouts are located.

Complying with the means of egress requirement is an ongoing issue.

And the code official is obligated to determine slip resistance of a surface at the time of inspection.

If at the time of inspection the surface meets the slip resistance requirement, then it meets the code.

Removing ice from the walking surface is no less a maintenance issue than removing boxes to maintain egress width.

The concrete walkway is not a required element.  It is provided for convenience and if it is not maintained or non-existent persons can and will discharge through the parking lot.

The exit discharge can ..and quite frequently does...pass through the parking lot. in order to provide access to a public way.

As you know, it is the Architect not the Building Official who designs and designates the exit discharge.

If you want downspouts to do certain things, put it in your ordinance rather than attempting to practice architecture by designating the exit discharge.

Not having an ordinance is like downspouts on the sidewalk, often bad practice.

And just to disabuse you of false notions, meeting code is the primary responsibility of my architectural licenses.

Within Alabama I often provide services in areas with no building department, whatsoever...without sovereign immunity and corporate liability limitations.

Out of curiosity do you require sidewalk grates to be made of plastic?

Otherwise, the walkway will not meet egress when meth-heads steal the grates for recycling.


----------



## Coug Dad (Feb 23, 2010)

Re: down spouts and walkways

Has anyone pointed out that the grates in UB's photos do not meet code because the long dimension of the holes is required to be perpindicular to the primary path of travel?


----------



## TJacobs (Feb 23, 2010)

Re: down spouts and walkways



			
				brudgers said:
			
		

> TJacobs said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Eliminating roof discharge onto the walk does not eliminate ice from the walk.

As I stated before, in many climates keeping ice off the walk is a maintenance issue and will be one regardless of where the downspouts are located.

Complying with the means of egress requirement is an ongoing issue.

And the code official is obligated to determine slip resistance of a surface at the time of inspection.

If at the time of inspection the surface meets the slip resistance requirement, then it meets the code.

Removing ice from the walking surface is no less a maintenance issue than removing boxes to maintain egress width.

The concrete walkway is not a required element.  It is provided for convenience and if it is not maintained or non-existent persons can and will discharge through the parking lot.

The exit discharge can ..and quite frequently does...pass through the parking lot. in order to provide access to a public way.

As you know, it is the Architect not the Building Official who designs and designates the exit discharge.

If you want downspouts to do certain things, put it in your ordinance rather than attempting to practice architecture by designating the exit discharge.

Not having an ordinance is like downspouts on the sidewalk, often bad practice.

And just to disabuse you of false notions, meeting code is the primary responsibility of my architectural licenses.

Within Alabama I often provide services in areas with no building department, whatsoever...without sovereign immunity and corporate liability limitations.

Out of curiosity do you require sidewalk grates to be made of plastic?

Otherwise, the walkway will not meet egress when meth-heads steal the grates for recycling.

I don't operate under the assumption that I have any immunity...I operate under the assumption that as an adult and an educated code professional tasked with the responsibilty of public safety in the built environment I'm going to be on the witness stand defending my decisions someday.

The location of downspout discharge does not eliminate ice, it prevents concentrated ice.  We can't control the weather but we can control downspout discharge.

We don't REQUIRE the grates, that is the DP choice.  Maybe you as the DP won't choose that method because of your knowledge of their theft.  I won't knowingly approve downspout discharge across a means of egress because I know better.  The theft of manhole covers for scrap doesn't negate the requirement for manhole covers

Even when code text and other experience is presented to you you stick to your position.  Any further response by me could be interpreted by the moderator as personal.


----------



## brudgers (Feb 23, 2010)

Re: down spouts and walkways



			
				TJacobs said:
			
		

> Even when code text and other experience is presented to you you stick to your position.  Any further response by me could be interpreted by the moderator as personal.


There's a difference in context between an actual code review and an online discussion of issues surrounding the code.

Among them is that out in the real world, I don't give a crap when my competitors' plans are rejected.


----------



## JBI (Feb 23, 2010)

Re: down spouts and walkways

Anyone for a rousing debate on attic stairs? :lol:  :lol:  :lol:


----------



## brudgers (Feb 23, 2010)

Re: down spouts and walkways



			
				Coug Dad said:
			
		

> Has anyone pointed out that the grates in UB's photos do not meet code because the long dimension of the holes is required to be perpindicular to the primary path of travel?



View attachment 80


View attachment 80


/monthly_2010_06/Graphic1.jpg.f2e4022b344b0f18e44b369cb6112522.jpg


----------

