1:10 slope between two halves of a retail space

[SMBriz9]

Hello and thanks to all ! Long time lurker just joining. Much, much, much appreciation to all for answers I've found in the past.
A+E, BoA since ’00, NCARB.

I have an existing building, new tenant. OH.
The front area, which will be for retail customers, is currently divided in the middle across its entire 35' breadth by a 6"h 1:10 slope.
Each of the two 'areas' of the retail currently have a front door directly to the exterior (front). The upper area is flush, while the lower door currently has a landing-less 1:6.2 ramp.
Both doors are flush at the exterior courtesy of grading.


This entire front area is part of the Alteration scope of work, and will compromise a singular retail space with a completely new layout including 2 sales kiosk type counters (upper area rear). A landing with steps planned at the interior of the lower area, as I am able to get the 75' CPoETD per 1006.2.1 for a single exit.

Q. As the slope is part of the open area for public customer use, is it considered in its entirety as part of the means of egress, and thus required to be 1:12 ?

for reference:
'24 OHBC - 1003.5 Elevation Change, 1012 Ramps, 1015 Guards, 1103.1 Accessibility Scoping, 1104.3 Connected Spaces, 1104.4 Multistory, 1104.5 Location
'24 OHEBC - (uses '09 A117.1) 306.7 Alteration Accessibility, 306.7.2 Accessible Egress
'09 A117.1 - 303.4 Ramps, 403 Walk Surfaces, 405 Ramps,

Thanks in advance to any and all !

 

[steveray]

Well that is messy....The right thing to do would be to put one or two properly ramped areas in for accessible route and AMOE, but code might not actually require it...I'd probably have a hard time with the new stairs too....Good first post and Welcome to THE Forum!

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

Irrespective of means of egress, the sloped floor is part of the accessible route. It's a change in elevation. A117.1 section 303.4 says changes of elevation exceeding 1/2-inch shall be by a ramp complying with Section 405 or by a curb ramp complying with Section 406. It's indoors, so a curb ramp is not under consideration.

Looking at Section 405 for ramps, Table 405.2 allows ramps with slopes steeper than 1:12 but not exceeding 1:10 for changes in elevation up to 6 inches. The sticky wicket is that ramps are required to have handrails on both sides, and your store has no handrails. That sloped section of floor is a trip/fall hazard.

If I were doing it, I would block off most of the sloped floor and leave one or two areas as designated ramps, with handrails.

There's a Hallmark card shop in a strip mall near me with this exact problem. It's on a sloped site and the Hallmark store occupies two tenant spaces, which have different floor levels. They used a dedicated ramp for the transition. Ditto for a restaurant occupying two other tenant spaces in the same strip mall.

 

[SMBriz9]

Well that is messy....The right thing to do would be to put one or two properly ramped areas in for accessible route and AMOE, but code might not actually require it...I'd probably have a hard time with the new stairs too....Good first post and Welcome to THE Forum!

Thank you steveray ! and thank you for using the word messy, it certainly feels that way (as the LL and tenant argue over who is paying to address it and the BCO official is 'trying to find old drawings').
I can't see getting away from at least a single 1:12 passage between the two halves. I have a difficult time seeing the remainder to be 1:10 though, as it is part of the customer public area.
I am stuck in the vacuum between 'accessible ramp' and 'guard required'... 'other pedestrian ramps' seems to be the hang-up, being allowed @1:8.
My mind defaults to 'anywhere a customer walks qualifies as a path of egress', which I've repeated in my mind over the years, but cant quite find the code section that applies now that I am looking for it.

 

[SMBriz9]

Irrespective of means of egress, the sloped floor is part of the accessible route. It's a change in elevation. A117.1 section 303.4 says changes of elevation exceeding 1/2-inch shall be by a ramp complying with Section 405 or by a curb ramp complying with Section 406. It's indoors, so a curb ramp is not under consideration.

Looking at Section 405 for ramps, Table 405.2 allows ramps with slopes steeper than 1:12 but not exceeding 1:10 for changes in elevation up to 6 inches. The sticky wicket is that ramps are required to have handrails on both sides, and your store has no handrails. That sloped section of floor is a trip/fall hazard.

If I were doing it, I would block off most of the sloped floor and leave one or two areas as designated ramps, with handrails.

There's a Hallmark card shop in a strip mall near me with this exact problem. It's on a sloped site and the Hallmark store occupies two tenant spaces, which have different floor levels. They used a dedicated ramp for the transition. Ditto for a restaurant occupying two other tenant spaces in the same strip mall.

Thank you Yankee Chronicler !
I originally proposed making it two levels with a guardrail and stair/ramp access between, and stair/ramp to the 2nd exit.
LL + tenant both separately do not want to drop $20k on concrete and railings if they don't have to.

Table 405.2 only applies 'where such slopes are necessary due to space limitations', unless I am reading that incorrectly (definitely no space limitations here)
I agree with handrails, but up to 6" rise does not require them (though I will be adding them)
I also thought there was a max width on ramps, but could not find any.
I am still stuck at the 1:8 slope allowed for 'other pedestrian ramps' per 1012.2, and whether 'other pedestrian ramps' are permitted within spaces for public use.
1012.1 seems to outline exceptions to 'egress ramps' (assembly aisles, curb ramps and parking structures), but does not indicate that it is a complete list.
I like your solutions, making the only connection between the two areas be an accessible ramp.
It seems to be the path of least resistance... until that resistance becomes 'paying for the separation'.
Also, in my instance the tenant would like the space to feel as a singe room, so this is a consideration.

 

[steveray]

Thank you Yankee Chronicler !
I originally proposed making it two levels with a guardrail and stair/ramp access between, and stair/ramp to the 2nd exit.
LL + tenant both separately do not want to drop $20k on concrete and railings if they don't have to.

Table 405.2 only applies 'where such slopes are necessary due to space limitations', unless I am reading that incorrectly (definitely no space limitations here)
I agree with handrails, but up to 6" rise does not require them (though I will be adding them)
I also thought there was a max width on ramps, but could not find any.
I am still stuck at the 1:8 slope allowed for 'other pedestrian ramps' per 1012.2, and whether 'other pedestrian ramps' are permitted within spaces for public use.
1012.1 seems to outline exceptions to 'egress ramps' (assembly aisles, curb ramps and parking structures), but does not indicate that it is a complete list.
I like your solutions, making the only connection between the two areas be an accessible ramp.
It seems to be the path of least resistance... until that resistance becomes 'paying for the separation'.
Also, in my instance the tenant would like the space to feel as a singe room, so this is a consideration.

I don't think you would technically need the separation, but the route would be a good thing...

 

[bill1952]

'anywhere a customer walks qualifies as a path of egress'

I agree. If they're in the middle of a 1:10 ramp, a part.of the ramp is MOE.

What do local officials say?

Did you consider trying ADA technical assistance? I find they expect less than I thought they would, though it's not binding.

 

[steveray]

If the ramp is existing, it is existing....You are only bound by code to upgrade some 20% (really) you may have an ADA issue that you may want to fix and some sort of liability, But you don't have much of a code issue IMO...But I also do not have all the information...

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

I'm looking at this through the dual lens of being a building official and a licensed architect/accessibility consultant. You started this discussion asking about means of egress, but you have more issues than just means of egress. In terms of accessibility, at a 6-inch difference in floor elevation it's right at the limit of when a 1:10 ramp is allowed -- which is probably why/how it got built that way.

The problem is that at a slope of 1:10 it IS a ramp -- it's not a floor.

The IBC, unfortunately, does not define the word "level," and there's a reason for that: When you encounter the word "level" from the beginning of the IBC all the way to section 1010.1, the word is used in the context of either "story" (level of exit discharge, mezzanine level) or "degree" (level of safety, level of hazard). The first place we find the word "level" meaning "not sloped" is in section 1010.1.4, where it requires a level landing on each side of a door. There are also references to level landings in exit access aisles in assembly occupancies. Other than that, I wasn't able to find anything in the IBC that actually requires a floor to be level (in the sense of "not sloped").

If we turn to accessibility, though, Both ICC A-117.1 and the 20210 ADAS discuss changes of level in walking surfaces in Section 303, and both have the same limitations:

• Up to 1/4 inch can be vertical
• 1/4 inch to 1/2 inch must be beveled at a slope of 1:2
• 1/2 inch to 6 inches can be ramps at 1:10 (or maybe 1:8)
• More than 6" must be ramps at 1:12 or less

And ramps require handrails on both sides.

Beyond that, although the IBC doesn't come out and require that floors be level, safety experts all agree that changes of elevation in walking surfaces cause falls. As an expert witness, I have investigated a number of buildings and sites to determine whether or not a poorly visible transition in floor elevation may have contributed to a slip/fall injury. What your photo shows is a 5-foot section of floor sloped at 1:10, with no change in floor color or floor finish, and no tape or striping to demarcate the top or bottom of the slope. That's virtually guaranteed to result in slip/fall incidents. GUARANTEED!

So the owner and the tenant don't want to spend big $$$ on changing the floor and installing a lot of guard rails. I get it. They never want to spend any money -- but the first time someone sues them over a slip/fall injury, the first person they'll come after is the architect who designed it, and they'll absolutely allege that you knew or should have known that a section of sloped floor like that is inherently unsafe. Good luck trying to defend against that -- you'll lose.

How about getting creative? Can you put display racks or cases on most of that sloped floor, and make a couple of ramps (with proper handrails) on each end? Like this (conceptually):

 

[e hilton]

y (as the LL and tenant argue over who is paying to address it and the BCO official is 'trying to find old drawings').

Who pays the cost isn’t your concern, and it should have been worked out prior to signing the lease. And you need to design to code, without cutting corners, regardless of you pays.

 

[bill1952]

Who pays the cost isn’t your concern, and it should have been worked out prior to signing the lease. And you need to design to code, without cutting corners, regardless of you pays.

I don't disagree but I agree with steveray, it's existing. Not simple to determine what's required by code.

As far as safety, I'd prefer 1:10 ramps rather than a single 6" step. Single and low rise stairs are killers. And still building new 1:8 ramped aisles in theaters, while some theatres still have 1:5 ramped aisles, which were allowed by code in new construction in my lifetime.

 

[SMBriz9]

I'm looking at this through the dual lens of being a building official and a licensed architect/accessibility consultant...

thank you !!!!

You started... asking about means of egress...

indeed, as this is the corner I found myself backed into, based upon reviewing all 4 applicable codes.

In terms of accessibility, at a 6-inch difference in floor elevation it's right at the limit of when a 1:10 ramp is allowed --
which is probably why/how it got built that way.

I am not seeing that the existing 1:10 is allowed either, as the caveat of 'where such slopes are necessary due to space limitations' is not at all applicable.
As the entire floor arrangement of fixtures (display and casework) will be entirely new, so will be the paths of travel, thus I believe that the entire space affected by work must be compliant with current code (OHEBC 306.7), excepting additional AMOE (OHEBC 3076.7.2)

The problem is that at a slope of 1:10 it IS a ramp -- it's not a floor.

Agreed !

The IBC, unfortunately, does not define the word "level,"

Not seeing the importance of the definition... I take the definition of a ramp @ >1:20 to define 'not' a ramp, and by process of elimination anything 'more level' than that to be acceptably 'level' ? Am I missing something ?

If we turn to accessibility, though, Both ICC A-117.1 and the 20210 ADAS discuss changes of level in walking surfaces in Section 303, and both have the same limitations:

• 1/2 inch to 6 inches can be ramps at 1:10 (or maybe 1:8)

Still not seeing 1:10 allowed (except where limited by existing conditions) as above ?

And ramps require handrails on both sides.

yes, handrails or 'contrasting materials' per OHBC 1003.5... or both as far as my common sense is concerned.

Beyond that...result in slip/fall incidents....
So the owner and the tenant don't want to spend big $$$ on...

A safe and compliant result is of course my task and goal, hence the obscene number of hours I've spend trying to find clarity in the applicable codes.
Who pays is a non-discussion. I only mentioned this hoping for some sympathy I suppose, as we are all familiar with becoming aware that we are the only one involved in the project wanting to do 'smart' at some given point

How about getting creative? ...like this (conceptually):...

I had originally proposed several options to 'block' the majority of the existing 1:10 with a guardrail, shelving or other, with the remaining to be only a 1:12 ramp. Quite similar to your sketch (thank you for your time, btw).
The tenant greatly desires the room to be 'as one' and even the guardrail seems to upset this vision. The tenant/LL contract has the LL paying for 'non-compliance', and is looking for a 'rejected' plan submittal, which would require me issuing a S&S with 'naughty' on it (a complete non-starter).
So today, I am the monkey in the middle.

The BCO is willing to accept and comment on a bulletin sketch or existing conditions sketch, which helps get the 'rejected' without S&S, however he seems determined to find a way to leave it as-is, so far as to be going into the basement to find 'old drawings' <facepalm>.

so...
I am almost certain that a 1:12 between the two 'areas' is required.
I am leaning towards a single exit per OHBC 1006.2.1 will allow the other exit to have a step only.
I am still seeing the corner I am backed into as being A117.1 405.2, on two fronts...
1st... cannot be 1:10 without space limitations. [good in that it pushes for 1:12]
2nd... is the entire width required to be accessible, or just a single pathway at a reasonable location. [good or bad

and than there is C... does it being existing affect anything.
This is a primary function space, and this entire area is to be re-done (add RR, add 2 offices, all new finishes throughout, eliminate old half-walls and casework)
306.7.1 - speaks to a 'path of travel' and is more in the mode of providing access, rather than eliminating (for lack of a better term) stupid existing grade changes.

lastly, I would like to point out that the BCO has been awesome and knowledgeable and cool to talk things through with. Unfortunately I am looking for him to push for 1:12 rather than let it go, which is not the typical designer/reviewer dynamic

Thank you again to all, you are so very appreciated !

 

[SMBriz9]

I don't think you would technically need the separation, but the route would be a good thing...

Agreed!
A separation for separations sake is not required, but to have a ramp and leave the remainder as 'almost a ramp' is where I am stuck.

 

[SMBriz9]

Who pays the cost isn’t your concern, and it should have been worked out prior to signing the lease. And you need to design to code, without cutting corners, regardless of you pays.

Indeed, unfortunately it does affect somewhat which layouts will be deemed acceptable as a final solution. (damnit!)

 

[SMBriz9]

I don't disagree but I agree with steveray, it's existing. Not simple to determine what's required by code.

Not simple for sure !
The gap between requirements for 'accessibility and egress' and 'not an obstacle' after this many years of code changes is frustrating at best.
I seems as though you can have a

As far as safety, I'd prefer 1:10 ramps rather than a single 6" step. Single and low rise stairs are killers. And still building new 1:8 ramped aisles in theaters, while some theatres still have 1:5 ramped aisles, which were allowed by code in new construction in my lifetime.

I would totally agree, in a hallway, or a private office, or a work area... but this is a public space, so I feel that is should have a different consideration (just cant find it B&W in the code)

 

[SMBriz9]

If the ramp is existing, it is existing....You are only bound by code to upgrade some 20% (really) you may have an ADA issue that you may want to fix and some sort of liability, But you don't have much of a code issue IMO...But I also do not have all the information...

Yes, the 20% cost dis-proportionality game. I hate that game though, seems like the only ones who win at that are rattlesnakes, whoops I mean attorneys.
ADA has this to say...
If alterations are limited only to elements in a room or space, then the standards apply only to the elements altered. Similarly, where spaces are altered, the standards apply to those spaces that are altered. If a room or space is completely altered (or built new as part of an alteration), the entire room or space is fully subject to the standards. Compliance is required to the extent that it is technically feasible.
Seems vague enough to be taken both ways in my case, as the space is changing, but technically only finishes at this 'specific' location. My thought process is typically 'if the path through a space, the location of doors, or the use of the space is altered' then the space is altered and must be compliant, has worked good for years until this issue popped up.

 

[bill1952]

Why not just build up to 1:12. Ought to be able to do that not too expensively. Open like renter desires. Put a pair of railings at either end.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

Why not just build up to 1:12. Ought to be able to do that not too expensively. Open like renter desires. Put a pair of railings at either end.

If this is done, the sloped/ramped portion of the walking surface should also be in a contrasting color (or have stripes at the top and bottom to demarcate the heel and toe of the slope) and in a more non-slip finish than standard floor tile as shown in the photo. Otherwise, even at 1:12 there WILL be a trip/fall hazard at the top and bottom transitions. As a consulting expert witness, I have looked at several such conditions and read numerous articles discussing how even such "compliant" transitions pose a hazard, especially for older people and those with vision impairments.

While wearing my assistant building official hat, we looked at an existing space with two similar transitions. We had a walk-through, with me, the boss, the deputy fire marshal, the potential tenant, and the property manager. EVERYONE stumbled at one of the two transitions, because it was essentially invisible. It's quite surprising how little deviation from flat and level is necessary to interrupt normal walking.

If the tenant here wants the two halves to appear as one open space, he/she/they probably won't want a contrasting floor surface or safety orange stripes, either.

This project is in Ohio, correct? Is there a change of occupancy? It sounds to me like the former tenant was Mercantile, and the new tenant will be Mercantile. The scope of work may not even be an "alteration" as defined in the I-Codes.

According to UpCodes, Ohio has adopted the 2021 IEBC. Take a look through Section 306 of the IEBC and see if you can find where it requires that you have to do anything other than not make it less accessible. Remember, in an existing building if the jurisdiction has adopted the IEBC, that's the starting point for EVERYTHING, and you then open the IBC only when the IEBC sends you to the IBC.

 

[MtnArch]

YC: Although the comment about contrasting color or stripes at T/B is an excellent suggestion, is there a code citation that requires this? Even in "let's make everything MORE restrictive" Cali I have not found this one.

Again, whether required or not - it is an excellent and easily achievable suggestion!

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

I don't think this is required by the ADA, A117.1, or the IBC. That said, if you spend any time looking into trip/fall injury cases, you quickly discover that invisible changes in the inclination of walking surfaces is a significant issue. Sure, the open space in that photo looks nice and pristine. Now imagine your grandmother with a cane and cataracts wandering through the space with her mind preoccupied about find the perfect graduation gift for her favorite grandchild ...

 

[MtnArch]

Thanks, YC. As I pointed out, it is an EXCELLENT suggestion that we should all adapt!