• Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades

Accessible Entrance

Francis Vineyard

Registered User
Joined
Jan 1, 2010
Messages
3,105
Location
Charlottesville, VA
Suggested topic for discussion

http://www.inspectpa.com/forum/showthread.php?7327-Did-you-know-the-new-ICC-ANSI-A117.1-2009-has-a-new-Type-C-dwelling-unit&p=70388#post70388

I had limited participation in a work study group to discuss the possibility of implementing type c housing and it was made aware that some localities had zoning ordinance that would not allow level street entries in areas. Therefor in some instance a level entry had to be redesign with the addition of a garage or carport where permitted.



http://www.udeworld.com/visitability.html

Francis



 
Visitability is based on the conviction that inclusion of basic architectural access features in all new homes is a civil and human right and improves livability for all.
Learn something new everyday. Someone has a personal conviction and that can be a right for others.
 
The ADA is a Civil Rights law that makes it illegal to discriminate against anyone who has a mental or physical disability in the area of employment, public services, transportation, public accomodations and telecommunications.

Visual impairments are a physical disability, covered by the ADA. Failure to provide for physical disabilities, can be a violation of civil rights. The ADA act does cite "human rights".
 
The ADA act does cite "human rights".
But as you pointed out those rights are limited under the ADA and would not be applicable to a single family home. Remember we are talking about dwelling units not covered by the ADA or Fair Housing.

I just looked at the 2012 IRC online and there is no reference to ICC A117 except for elevators and platform lifts. Unless there is some charging(scoping) lanquage adopted locally you would not be able to enforce the requirements for a Type C dwelling unit.
 
mtlogcabin said:
But as you pointed out those rights are limited under the ADA and would not be applicable to a single family home. Remember we are talking about dwelling units not covered by the ADA or Fair Housing.I just looked at the 2012 IRC online and there is no reference to ICC A117 except for elevators and platform lifts. Unless there is some charging(scoping) lanquage adopted locally you would not be able to enforce the requirements for a Type C dwelling unit.
From what I read, the charging would most likely come from the AHJ Planning/Zoning through ordinances, policies, or regulations. The visitability link has link for the full report on AHJs that have adopted a visitability requirement and how they are implementing it. The standard would simply apply a level of consistency by using the ICC A117.
 
I ran into Site Visitability requirements a few years ago when I was inspecting some SFR's being built under a self help program funded by HUD where there was no building codes. It was a requirement of the financing. It was easy to meet in this paticular subdivison of ranch style homes,

I don't see it as a big challenge for the majority of homes in my area with one exception a contractor who does nothing but split entries
 
Francis Vineyard said:
Should the market create the demand for this type of housing; should zoning allow or not allow it over an architectural preference? Why?
I have been discussing this with different departments and that is always the first question that comes up. As an "all NSFR" approach, as some jurisdictions have taken, I see it having a major impact on developers who are trying to maximize the number of walk-out lots by boosting the top of foundation to 48"+ above top of curb (not sure how economical it is to provide an accessible route to a no-step entrance in 42' of setback and PROW. The way I break it down is, based upon the way we design/plan these developments, we are, in some way, influencing who can and can't live there. Sure most of it is socio-economics, but isn't that a good enough reason to implement some form of Type "C" policy. In my opinion, it is equivalent to telling someone, because of your disability, and the fact you can't afford a customized home, you are relegated to living in only 10% of this jurisdiction, in multi-family, or assisted care facilities only. I witnessed a similar case being made recently for not tabling out intersections for accessibility in the PROW for walk-out developments.

I would love to hear more on this from developers/civil engineers and planners.
 
* * *

Is there a market driven need for these type "new" SFD's,

...in some areas of the country?.....Possibly, with the

coming wave of baby boomers reaching retirement age,

there could be a need for these type developments,

however, I would be in favor of letting the market

decide if there is indeed a need or not, and not more

governmental "stick" vs. "the carrot" directives.

* * *
 
It is estimated that over 26 percent of people in the United States have some kind of disability.

The visitability issue is allowing your parents or grandparents to visit, before they die.
 
As Mr. Rodgers would say "Can you say social engineering boys and girls?"

Talk about nanny states

Eskimos had the idea, you know put them on an ice flow...

Not to be heartless but this needs to be left up to the individual home owner not the Federal gov.
 
gbhammer said:
Not to be heartless but this needs to be left up to the individual home owner not the Federal gov.
I think you really nailed the crux of the discussion here...what are the options for an individual home owner to choose from? Looking around my AHJ, unless it sits in a Special Use sub-development, there are few lots designed to lending themselves towards zero-entry home construction by the time the individual home owner comes into play. Developers want the walk-out lots with the 8% drive from back of curb to garage door, and would prefer to not table the drive at the sidewalk intersection either, if we or the Feds didn't make them. We aren't talking areas where structurally infeasible because of geographic features, these lots are designed on purpose this way for maximum profit, to the point where fill is brought in. Ever try to take a wheel chair across a drive/sidewalk with 8% slope. I end up in the street every time, tipped over and laying in the street.
 
mark handler said:
It is estimated that over 26 percent of people in the United States have some kind of disability. The visitability issue is allowing your parents or grandparents to visit, before they die.
The number is Shirley going to go up as new forms of disability are discovered.
 
Papio Bldg Dept said:
I think you really nailed the crux of the discussion here...what are the options for an individual home owner to choose from? Looking around my AHJ, unless it sits in a Special Use sub-development, there are few lots designed to lending themselves towards zero-entry home construction by the time the individual home owner comes into play. Developers want the walk-out lots with the 8% drive from back of curb to garage door, and would prefer to not table the drive at the sidewalk intersection either, if we or the Feds didn't make them. We aren't talking areas where structurally infeasible because of geographic features, these lots are designed on purpose this way for maximum profit, to the point where fill is brought in. Ever try to take a wheel chair across a drive/sidewalk with 8% slope. I end up in the street every time, tipped over and laying in the street.
My cousin used to tip twice aweek leaving his own house until he got his new motorized chair. The fire department would go out and help him up every time. Love those guys.
 
It is estimated that over 26 percent of people in the United States have some kind of disability
What is the estimate for mobility impairment because that is what we are discussing?

This is the same as the RFS issue it would be decades before a major impact would be made on the SFR housing stock. Typography plays a big role here, zoning does not allow developers to alter the original topography much so we get the SFR with a 20 ft setback being 2 or 3 feet above and below the road/sidewalks. A little to steep for an accessible route.

I don't know that we will ever be able to have a utopian accessible world like some believe is possible.
 
mtlogcabin said:
I don't know that we will ever be able to have a utopian accessible world like some believe is possible.
I agree there are many regulations, especially at the planning phase that make the option of accessibility even more difficult, but I don't think it is utopian to ask for a negotiated response in good faith. How does 26% of NSFR, with exemptions for structural feasibility, sound?
 
mtlogcabin said:
What is the estimate for mobility impairment because that is what we are discussing?
19 percent and growing, as we grow older....and live longer.

As of 2012, the United States has a total resident population of 312,901,000, making it the third most populous country in the world.

The national median age 36.8 years, (male: 35.5 years, female: 38.1 years)

Median age increased from 32.9 in 1990 to 35.3 in 2000
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Papio Bldg Dept said:
I agree there are many regulations, especially at the planning phase that make the option of accessibility even more difficult, but I don't think it is utopian to ask for a negotiated response in good faith. How does 26% of NSFR, with exemptions for structural feasibility, sound?
Sounds like developers will start to record one lot on a plat at a time, or some other such loop hole. They will rise up in arms with the HBA and throw fits that will make the whole RFS fiasco look tame. The money to battle that kind of legislation will be prolific, unless they see a profit in doing it the other way.
 
* * *

When it becomes profit driven, I'm thinking that the developers /

builders will find a workable solution real quick!

What about some of the "Gated developments" down in Florida?

Are they / were they "vitability" designed?

If an elderly / physically challenged / mobility challenged / other

challenged individual wants to have an Accessible retrofit done

to an existing or even a "new" SFR, ...to me that seems to be

where it will show up as a larger recognized "need".

FWIW, in this AHJ, about 2 yrs. ago, we had an existing SFR

to be partially retrofitted for an individual who needed

Accessible features, because of an automobile accident.

The contractors did a pretty good job!

* * *

 
A California law requires builders constructing new for-sale residential units to provide a “checklist” of universal accessibility features to potential purchasers of a home.
 
Top