Accessible egress and CBC Section 1003.5

[miguele3]

We are creating a B Occupancy on the roof of a Type IA building which is located on the roof of a 12 story building. In other words it is the 13th floor. We have already gotten permission from the building department not to provide an elevator to this floor as we will provide equivalent facilitation by providing the disabled a membership to a health club in the building complex. This is an exercise room we are creating of about 2,000 SF in an existing exercise facility.

There are two means of egress. One goes directly to a stairwell, the second means of egress has a 6" rise to a roof that travels about 50 feet to a stairwell directly off the roof. Our CPET and occupancy load fall within limits for one means of egress, however the AHJ wants two egress points because he says once you leave the space you have to have two means of egress per section 1021, Table 1021.1.

Do we need a ramp for that 6" rise or would CBC section 1003.5 exception 2 or 3 be valid exceptions? We are providing accessible stalls and lavatories per code even though a wheelchair will not be in the space.

 

[mark handler]

Simple answer... Yes

There are other impairments than those that require wheelchairs

 

[miguele3]

All disabled personnel will be offered the equivalent facilitation.

 

[KZQuixote]

OP asked "Do we need a ramp for that 6" rise..."

Simple answer... YesThere are other impairments than those that require wheelchairs

Really? All users will have to climb stairs to access the room but they need to ramp a one riser stair after they've gotten up there?

Can't imagine the rational.

Bill

 

[mark handler]

OP asked "Do we need a ramp for that 6" rise..."Really? All users will have to climb stairs to access the room but they need to ramp a one riser stair after they've gotten up there? Can't imagine the rational.Bill

1003.5 Elevation change. Where changes in elevation of less than 12 inches (305 mm) exist in the means of egress, sloped surfaces shall be used. Where the slope is greater than one unit vertical in 20 units horizontal (5-percent slope), ramps complying with Section 1010 shall be used. Where the difference in elevation is 6 inches (152 mm) or less, the ramp shall be equipped with either handrails or floor finish materials that contrast with adjacent floor finish materials.

Exceptions:

1.A single step with a maximum riser height of 7 inches (178 mm) is permitted for buildings with ioccupancies n Groups F, H, R-2, R-3, S and U at exterior doors not required to be accessible by Chapter 11A or 11B.

2.A stair with a single riser or with two risers and a tread is permitted at locations not required to be accessible by Chapter 11A or 11B, provided that the risers and treads comply with Section 1009.4, the minimum depth of the tread is 13 inches (330 mm) and at least one handrail complying with Section 1012 is provided within 30 inches (762 mm) of the centerline of the normal path of egress travel on the stair.

3.A step is permitted in aisles serving seating that has a difference in elevation less than 12 inches (305 mm) at locations not required to be accessible by Chapter 11A or 11B, provided that the risers and treads comply with Section 1028.11 and the aisle is provided with a handrail complying with Section 1028.13.

Original post states it is a B occupancy, No exception.

Just slope the floor, if you can, to eliminate a "ramp"

 

[mark handler]

All disabled personnel will be offered the equivalent facilitation.

Does not matter

 

[miguele3]

KZ, that is exactly how I feel. We are doing full accessibility as Mark said for a wheelchair that won't ever be there.

 

[mark handler]

There are more disabilities than those in Wheelchairs

 

[KZQuixote]

There are more disabilities than those in Wheelchairs

Of course there are Mark. But that nice lady will never see this area to be challenged by that single step.

Thank you for reminding me of section 1003.5. You are of course correct the single step is non-compliant.

Miguele3, I'm wondering if the reason the building department isn't requiring the elevator is because it's cost exceeds 20% of the total cost of your project rather that their accepting alternate arrangements you've made. If this is the case, common sense doesn't apply, you'll have to ramp up the step.

Bill

 

[miguele3]

We are over the 20% threshold but the cost of the elevator would exceed the cost of the project several times over.

 

[Papio Bldg Dept]

KZ, that is exactly how I feel. We are doing full accessibility as Mark said for a wheelchair that won't ever be there.

The seminar I recently attended on the 2010 ADASAD, noted that the eventual provision of an elevator may be required. It was stated that intent is to use the 20% towards compliance, and this may include beginning the process of providing an elevator (e.g., one project, 20% may mean only new footings are installed, structural feasibility study, an accessibility plan is developed, etc.). The building owner may want to consult the regional accessibility office/representative, and/or their lawyer to see where their responsibilities for 20% actually fall).

 

[mark handler]

Papio

Don't get these guys all riled up

 

[steveray]

Agree with Mark....it's a Chapter 10 requirement...not Ch. 11.....Accessibility has nothing to do with it....just had a similar debate in the office about the 12" handrail extensions at the top of the stairs.....

 

[Papio Bldg Dept]

PapioDon't get these guys all riled up

So I shouldn't respond to steveray's comment by noting that Chapter 34 is the starting point, how it is a change of occupancy, and how both Chapters 10 & 11 are applicable per the requirements of Chapter 34?

 

[globe trekker]

miguele3,

At least contact the local DOJ - ADA representative as part of your due diligence.

Wouldn't you rather know up front about the (potential) costs of an elevator,

than after-the-fact? Also, if possible, try to obtain their (DOJ) position in writing.

 

[mark handler]

Papio I was refering to this....

...noted that the eventual provision of an elevator may be required...

 

[Papio Bldg Dept]

Papio I was refering to this....

yes, you are correct, that might rile things up a bit.

 

[DennisK]

Lot of posts here but if you don't mind my 2-c---

The BO was correct about 2 MOE. The intent of the code is that if a building requires 2 MOE every occupant has access to the 2 and 2 are required for ea floor even if the entire story counts as a space only needing 1.

mark handlers post on 1003.5 is the key. That language is in the code because a single step may be the most dangerous thing you can put in a building. People don't see them. A stupid fall off a single step can be life-altering for people, sugery, PT. I wrote a report as an expert witness on that subject---small fee, easy analysis. The building owner settled out of court.

 

[miguele3]

The AHJ decided on having one step, with all due respect to Dennis and Mark, because of the exception in 1003. I'm just happy to get it resolved.

 

[steveray]

The OP referenced Ch 10... so I thought that might be applicable.....not really a change of occ. if it didn't have an occupancy to begin with...

So I shouldn't respond to steveray's comment by noting that Chapter 34 is the starting point, how it is a change of occupancy, and how both Chapters 10 & 11 are applicable per the requirements of Chapter 34?